Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The world isnt improving for the bottom 80%


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1
10 year march

10 year march

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts

80% of the worlds population earn less then $10 from a days work $10 actually gets you less far in most third world countries then in first world countries as producing goods is more expensive.

 

on top of this now climate change is now ravaging the world but the third world is hit far worse on average.



#2
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,590 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

The world isnt improving for the bottom 80%.

 

 

Put simply, that's complete bollocks.

 

https://www.nytimes....ar-poverty.html



#3
Erowind

Erowind

    Anarchist without an adjective

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,523 posts

 

The world isnt improving for the bottom 80%.

 
 
Put simply, that's complete bollocks.
 
https://www.nytimes....ar-poverty.html

 

 
Put simply, that's complete bollocks. 
 
https://qz.com/afric...erty-is-flawed/
  
A few paragraphs from that article which highlight the problem: 
 
This is a story that we have become accustomed to hearing from the Bank, and other significant participants in the debate about poverty and development in the global South (Asia, Africa, and Latin America). But does the story actually hold true? For example, the World Bank measures extreme poverty in terms of the number of people who live on less than $1.90 a day. But is this in fact a meaningful measurement of poverty?
 
For example, more than 55% of South Africa’s population lives below the country’s upper poverty line, of 1,138 South African rand ($80) a month. But, according to the World Bank, only 18.85% of the South African population lives in poverty. This suggests that the international poverty lined touted by the World Bank systematically underestimates the extent of global poverty. This point is partially acknowledged in this year’s report. Accordingly, the World Bank proposes new and higher poverty lines—$3.20 and $5.50 a day, respectively. According to the report, almost half the world’s population lives below the $5.50 a day poverty line. However, we need to go further than this—indeed, the World Bank’s widely touted story of historically low poverty levels must be rejected.
 
Much of the economic growth that has lifted countries from low-income status to middle-income status has resulted from the emergence of global production networks and global value chains since the late 1970s. Poorer countries have been integrated into these networks in large part due to their large reservoirs of cheap labour. It is this process of industrialisation that has turned low-income countries into middle-income countries.

 

But if global production networks come with so many developmental benefits, why is it that world poverty is concentrated in countries that have experienced economic growth precisely because they are integrated in these networks? To understand this paradox, it is important to remember that global production networks are comprised of different value tiers, and that different countries and different groups capture different amounts of the value that is created in these networks.

 

This is evident in the fact that the distribution of national incomes and wealth at a world scale is still characterised by a pronounced North-South hierarchy. But it is more important still to be aware that countries in the global South that have witnessed strong economic growth have also experienced marked escalations in national levels of inequality. In India in 2016, for example, the richest 10% of the population received 55% of all income. This is an increase of more than 20% since 1980
 

https://www.theguard...oting-continent

 

Also, foreign aid from most state actors is a smokescreen used to mask financial colonialism. The pillaging of Africa never stopped and now China's getting in on it. This same practice is visible throughout most of South America, South Asia and other pockets of weak countries unable to defend themselves. 

 

The statistics are lies and the rhetoric is nothing more than aesthetics to make richer countries feel better about enslaving most of the species.  

 

This last bit isn't directed at the claim made in Wjfox's quote. It's just related and I think worth saying when this sort of conversation comes up. 

 

There are tendencies that will argue that markets are inherently flawed and others that argue that modern inequality is only a result of interference with the market or a market that is in some other way hindered and thus not a tvue market. In any case, the vast majority of modern philosophers and economists would argue that inequality is a bad thing for one reason or another whether they brand themselves capitalists, socialists or something else. This being said I believe the tendencies remaining that argue inequality is a good thing and should be desired are rooted in monarchism and or authoritarianism. Liberal democracies killed the monarchs for a reason and me saying that is not a radical statement, it is a founding principle of democracies worldwide, many have simply forgotten it. The rhetoric claiming this line of thought is radical is founded by the same monarchists who kept slaves of nations and murdered all who opposed their entitlement. Even the democracies who kept their monarchs like the United Kingdom often have their parliamentarianism rooted in civil conflicts like the English Civil War of 1642 between monarchists and advocates of democracy. I'm firmly convinced that most rhetoric defending inequality is monarchist holdover from people who don't realize they are actually monarchists, or oligarchists or some other brand of authoritarian.

 

I should touch on why inequality is a bad thing from my understanding for any closet authoritarians from around the web. Inequality is bad even from the most selfish amoral perspective for two reasons. First, there is no guarantee that the selfish amoral person in question will be in a position of benefit within the economic hierarchy. Even if one is in a position of benefit from the outset there will always be other people trying to exploit that position for their own gain. Meaning that in a society in a state of conflict, as economic hierarchies inherently demand due to their structure relying on extraction of wealth, positions of power are always under threat and tenuous. There is no security in economic hierarchy. 

 

Secondly, by oppressing others the authoritarian prevents those he oppresses from contributing to the world and mutually benefiting himself. There's an illusion about that billionaires are freer than the poorest of our world. The truth is that if we had a scientific industrial complex running from the 1900s through to today instead of a slavery based military industrial complex focused on hoarding wealth we would probably be colonizing space, have cured most diseases including cancer and possibly even aging by now. We would have practically unlimited energy and material wealth distributed to us all through well thought out mixed economic systems that are largely automated. We would all be free to pursue lives of art, science, love and spirituality if one chooses. Our lives would be infinitely more enriched than they are now from the utter deluge of human creativity and passion flowing through our culture. I'm not being a hippy, small minds with armies of slaves are just being moronic and failing to think about the bigger picture. No billionaire today will live as well as the average citizen of a truly post-scarcity society free of major conflict. By enslaving others one only enslave themselves, they're just too dame stupid to realize it. 
 
Edit: Would you look at that, it's the erorant hour ;)



#4
10 year march

10 year march

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts

 

 

The world isnt improving for the bottom 80%.

 

 

Put simply, that's complete bollocks.

 

https://www.nytimes....ar-poverty.html

 

The world bank has been moving the goal posts for extreme poverty and a lot of this reduction in poverty has come from inflation (which requires no increase in wealth) and China which isn't a third world country more so a second world country moving into the first world.



#5
PhoenixRu2020

PhoenixRu2020

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Put simply, that's complete bollocks.

https://www.nytimes....ar-poverty.html

 

Not going to argue, just a note... it seems they're rewriting the very same article: 

 

Why 2018 Was the Best Year in Human History!

 

Why 2017 Was the Best Year in Human History

 

PS If someone needs my opinion: yes, it would be weird to deny that world in general and statistically speaking becoming "better" and each new year is the "best ever". At the same time, I tend to agree wtih Erowind: under different circumstances, our life would have been qualitatively better, even with currently known technologies, let aside the additional would-have-been progress. I personally think the turning point, when something went very wrong, was in late 1960-s / early 1970-s.



#6
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,233 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

^ Funnily enough, that's exactly the same time period that a few things of note occurred:

 

1: All possible "human" progress reached its limit. I've made it clear before that I have a hypothesis— by around the mid 1970s, humans achieved roughly everything we could achieve without digital computers, and most of our progress since then has come from the digital realm. Critically, half the world's population still lacks decent access to digital infrastructure, such as computers and the internet. Indeed, the price has only recently (and I mean recently) come down to the point that someone who makes ten dollars a day could even afford a decent computer (that is, the Raspberry Pi). To them, the past 40 years of the Digital Revolution basically hasn't happened yet.

 

2: Rise of neoliberalism coupled with the decline of organized labor (which includes Communism but also syndicalism, anarchism, etc.). High-paying manual labor jobs were outsourced to the "peasant" countries, and it was always going to take them decades to rise to anywhere near the same level of wealth as Westerners through the same measures. So now the poor in other countries are doing harsh jobs for little pay for the benefit of distant foreigners and the hope that maybe the same success will be bestowed upon them in due time, but more wealth is going into fewer hands, with a global system dedicated to maximizing the efficiency of doing so. The fall of the USSR didn't really change this; it was already happening regardless as a reaction to the statist measures to ward off total economic collapse in the 1930s. Even the Great Depression was not the worst that could've happened, and the reason why is because governments used the havoc to assume greater control and efficiency. By roughly 1975, the economic elite had all but emerged from their proverbial bunkers and returned to trying to maximize immediate profit. 

 

3: Economic warlordism. The aforementioned had the effect of basically turning certain megacorporations into the equivalent of warlords, hoarding resources for themselves and using that wealth to pay off the government to get what they want. But they're not warlords because their main goal is to simply make more money, not expand territory. They get more money via the market. To us, free market capitalism works as an engine of personal innovation and the free spirit; to them, it's an engine to expand wealth, nothing more and nothing less. If they could be assured that they'd be just as wealthy if not wealthier under a "Communist" system, they'd gladly drop the stars-and-stripes and instead adopt the Wǔxīng Hóngqí. And they'd go right on exploiting the third world.

 

4: Consumerism kicked into high gear. We in the West wanted more. We needed more. We weren't content with what we had. We weren't content with living within our means. Industrialization meant we could produce 10x more widgets that we used to need. As it turns out, that meant we'd just by 10x more widgets, not that we'd only spend 1/10 of our time making widgets or adjust wages so that a person who spends 1/10 of a working day making enough widgets can also afford to live. You want to sell widgets, right? Adjust wages in response! So while most wealth is already going to the upper class, spending is also increasing for more widgets, putting more pressure on the third worlders to produce, and these third worlders believe they'll enjoy the same thing eventually so they're in no rush for revolution. And you need more people to make more widgets, so populations get to boom and now there are more hands producing more widgets (and butter to go along with it). It's like a well-oiled machine where every cog serves its purpose.

 

At some point, we were starting to at least undo this machine, but the machine was too powerful. At some point, it's going to break down just from overheating, but by that point, there might be a new machine to take its place, one which has no need for any of those old rusty cogs.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#7
funkervogt

funkervogt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts

 

 

All possible "human" progress reached its limit. I've made it clear before that I have a hypothesis— by around the mid 1970s, humans achieved roughly everything we could achieve without digital computers, and most of our progress since then has come from the digital realm. Critically, half the world's population still lacks decent access to digital infrastructure, such as computers and the internet

1975 world population: 4 billion

2019 world population: 7.5 billion

 

1975 Number of people with access to digital infrastructure: 0

2019 Number of people with access to digital infrastructure: 3.75 billion

 

Access to digital infrastructure is growing much faster than the overall human population is growing. The two lines will intersect in the future. 

 

Also, getting ONLY 90% of humans access to digital infrastructure might mitigate whatever major problems you foresee from lack of access. 



#8
funkervogt

funkervogt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts

 

 

Rise of neoliberalism coupled with the decline of organized labor (which includes Communism but also syndicalism, anarchism, etc.). High-paying manual labor jobs were outsourced to the "peasant" countries, and it was always going to take them decades to rise to anywhere near the same level of wealth as Westerners through the same measures. 

You should do more research on how abusive, corrupt and even criminal the big labor unions in the West had become at the peak of their powers in the mid-70s. There are a lot of books about the subject that document how bad it was from the assembly line workers all the way up to the union presidents. 

 

The real lesson is that power corrupts, especially when the people in power use secrecy, blackmail, and intimidation to cover up what they're doing. Whether this happens in a private enterprise, within the ranks of a union, in a condominium board of directors, or in a national legislature is not relevant. 



#9
Erowind

Erowind

    Anarchist without an adjective

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,523 posts

 

 

 

Rise of neoliberalism coupled with the decline of organized labor (which includes Communism but also syndicalism, anarchism, etc.). High-paying manual labor jobs were outsourced to the "peasant" countries, and it was always going to take them decades to rise to anywhere near the same level of wealth as Westerners through the same measures. 

You should do more research on how abusive, corrupt and even criminal the big labor unions in the West had become at the peak of their powers in the mid-70s. There are a lot of books about the subject that document how bad it was from the assembly line workers all the way up to the union presidents. 

 

I encourage you to look into the Palmer raids and both the Red Scare of 1917-1920 and 1947-1957. The WWII era in America is also vital as is the mid to late 1800s with the Battle of Blair Mountain, company mining towns out west and the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. 

 

I agree with you that many large "unions" had become abusive and corrupt by the 1970s and many still are today. The reason for this is not a fault of labour movements but instead the concerted effort of the empire that is America. The national guard regularly sided with the capitalists. By the time WWII came around militant and genuinely revolutionary labour movements had all but been outlawed and stomped out despite the clear free speech violations of such things. The state in America (and most cases worldwide) has intervened on the side of the owning classes. Part of that intervention has been to replace real unions with tame ones modeled after and built to collaborate with corporations. Of course a "union" modeled after a corporation and created to subvert the labour movement is going to be abusive. The idea of a union having a "president" (CEO) who makes half a million dollars in salary is absurd. It's not fair to call such an organization a union because it doesn't fit the definition. The consequence of the state being the mediator that determines what is and isn't allowed to be a union is that the interests which control the sate, capital interests, will legally bar the creation of real unions and they generally have.

 

 

 

The real lesson is that power corrupts, especially when the people in power use secrecy, blackmail, and intimidation to cover up what they're doing. Whether this happens in a private enterprise, within the ranks of a union, in a condominium board of directors, or in a national legislature is not relevant. 

 

Now you're speaking my language. Such lines of reasoning lead to anarchism my friend. That said, many of the unions prior to state interference were genuinely democratic and egalitarian and tended to root out corruption. Not all of them, and they certainly weren't perfect and there was plenty of infighting but things were going alright before the state stepped in. As an example a market anarchist might say that the state picking a side in the battle between unions and corporations the state interferes with the free market which prevents the "invisible hand" from distributing resources properly. I don't know that I even agree with this entirely, especially the invisible hand bit, but I'm expanding the conversation. I do think state intervention on behalf of corporations has been detrimental though. If a corporation can't control it's own workers it's pretty clear that the consent of the governed has been lost and that corporation has no right to exist. 



#10
Erowind

Erowind

    Anarchist without an adjective

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,523 posts

To elaborate on my post above. A market anarchist would say that a strike is a form of economic leverage. So when workers refuse to work by striking and demand better pay this is a natural expression of supply and demand in a functional market. Capitalists have economic leverage through owning capital and theoretically so do workers in their ability to create scarcity in the labour pool through strike actions. If the workers exercise their economic leverage their pay should by the logic of supply and demand rise. If the state interferes and forces them back to work, or otherwise outlaws their ability to strike it is fixing the market and preventing the free market from functioning. In labour history one will notice the state consistently fixes the market in favor of the capitalists.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users