This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why do we NOT invest effectively in the poor and marginalized so they can participate in the global economy?
Nearly half of the world's population cannot effectively participate or contribute to the global economy. Basic economic theory holds that each 'participant' in the economy is a 'unit of productivity' providing a return on investment. In other words, it's more profitable to have people working and consuming than not. Yet nations continue to allow and accept that the poor and marginalized are - to borrow from another popular phrase - 'too big to succeed'.
In my view, the (relatively) small investment in infrastructure, education, and basic healthcare in the poor and marginalized will be more than made up by their increased productivity and spending. The rich think they're rich now, just imagine the wealth created by having 3 billion more people buying their stuff? I know there are obvious problems with this: corruption, unified effort, immediate ROI, etc. - but why is this such a 'tough sell' to national leadership? They're always looking for ways to increase the tax base.
3+ billion people now contribute to the world gross productivity. What if that were doubled? To me, this is the next threshold of economic growth -bringing in those who have been left out. Yet, we don't even talk about it. What do you think?
John Moonstroller 30+
You are correct in this statement RH, but --flip the coin.
Too many people and too much activity can fie in the face of a society trying to organize effectively to support personal freedoms, while providing health care, food and shelter. The various psychosis issues will become part of the range of problems, if you do or if you don't, implement population controls. I think sever controls would only be implemented under sever circumstances, but, the boundaries will be reached eventual. Likewise, as resources decrease, the ceiling of that boundary can slide down to meet us. This is seen in the approach that was chosen in China in their efforts to reduce their population figures. Evidence indicates that there were sever psychosis issues before population controls, supporting my assertion, and the controls helped to reduce those psychosis's.
Whether we would reach such limits in a modern western culture are debatable, but the psychosis needs for a certian degree of liberty within our surroundings could be impinged upon even with a lesser population. Of course the variables here are population growth and degrees of freedom (liberties afforded to the individuals).
James McGuiness
R H 20+
James McGuiness
You see how crapped up these things get because the forum is so poorly designed and seems to frankly not expect much in the way of promoting real synergy between members. I think you probably have some accidental misconceptions now that would be a job to unbais. Because you took a post addressed to someone else and applied it to your self. And you've probably put more into this already than taking me up on the offer to free ourselves from this miserable microscopic interface to see if there is any way I could help without obligation. Being as confused as it is, I have other things to do that I'd just best get to. You weren't interested at the time--bottom line. No big deal. There's an election on--go Obama four more years.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
It has nothing to do with defending or avenging TED.
People will listen to someone better who doesn't accuse people he doesn't even know of not caring enough.
Karsten Hartog
So empire, and it seems to me that in an empire the Kaiser/Emperor, his advisors and the lords etc. That they basically decide over the subjects. So in the sense of the poor and marginalized that are barely participating in the global economy. Offer them 'relocations' where they can actually produce something.
My personal will is to be allowed to live in Iran. No matter what they would do to me there, I feel a strong urge to be with them.
BTW 'R H' can you possibly extend the time to comment here? Also do you use facebook?
Julian Blanco 30+
So you want a feudal system and relocate to Iran?
Also you don't care about your human rights?
I'll assume you are trolling...
Regards!
JB
Karsten Hartog
Define trolling btw.
Julian Blanco 30+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
R H 20+
John Moonstroller 30+
So, in the home base, political situation, I don't see a sense of Empire building up anyway among the core group.
Edelcio Sardano
R H 20+
James McGuiness
R H 20+
James McGuiness
Fritzie Reisner 100+
This may be THE big issue to which you dedicate huge energy every day. For all you or I know, RH may, rather, be working long hours every day saving lives in a big city emergency room and coming home every night late, drained and falling into bed.
Not being able to find time in the moment, or even in the month of November, doesn't fairly mean "just not interested in putting in any time."
Different people are 'at the front line' on different issues and working at a variety of worthwhile ends.
John Moonstroller 30+
If the ruling class can develop methods of preventing the poor resorting to crime to increase their lot, we would expect to see a decrease in crimes of theft, muggins, etc. even as the number of poor increase. This is exactly what we are seeing. The controlling class is utilizing the products of technology to deter crime and it is working. The more violent crimes, where people give up and explode, are increasing. This is a testament to the effectiveness of preventing lesser crimes.
It's hard to judge, really. Humans are can become self-reliant pretty fast and they can organize easily if they are hungry enough. They can take simple tools and use them to their advantage. I've seen this in the way the Occupy movement dealt with the issue of lack of cell phones, cell towers being shut down and laws against load speakers being enforced.
We can be sure of one thing. People will not simply sit around and watch each other die of hunger or disease. They will revolt. How the ruling class deals with this when it happens will be the guiding principle behind how the war between the rulers and the poor will unfold.
As long as we are divided into camps of the haves and have nots, there will always be a revolution. What amazes me is that this can happen in our modern times. We expect to see this sort of thing when reading history about kings and queens and peasants, but to see it growing here in our modern times is amazing.
R H 20+
John Moonstroller 30+
How do you explain people not taking sound advice? If the trend is towards a bad situation, shouldn't those of us who are aware make preparations?
Incentive based motivation presupposes you have incentives to offer. No incentives, no effective change and improvement.
Idealize is not an obtainable goal. Realism is obtainable. I suggest we start by being real. First we access the problem (that has already been done many times over) then we get to the solution (that cost money and takes us away from our comfort zone) so not taking the solutions and applying them only exacerbates the problem and makes it grow larger (which it has).
So, the solution becomes clear: First we form a coalition of people who favor solving the problem, not matter what it takes. Second, we determine the resources we need to accomplish the goal. We obtain the resources organize ourselves into a team and implement the course of action to solve the problem. Those who are not part of the solution become part of the problem and are lumped in with those who are the problem.
We could do this on the large scale or piece at the time. It doesn't matter as long as our progression is towards the goal.
If we reduced the population in the US. by 25 percent within 10 years, we wouldn't have a poverty problem because everyone would be employed. If at the same time we implemented population control by controlling the number of kids a couple can have, we will meet our goal.
The question is how do we reduce the population. I'm sure those who rule the world are considering the very question as we write. What do you think some of their scenarios will be. I say "will be" because they will implement some sort of solution. Does anyone really think that they will take the money they got from everyone else and give it back? That would be foolish.
R H 20+
Thunder Tang
R H 20+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Research from Namibia revealed that the introduction of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) led to an increase in economic activity. The proportion of those who could get a job or become self-employed has increased from 44 to 55%, and there was an increase of non-citizen BIG per capita from N $ 118 to N $ 152, which indicates a nascent economic growth cycle. BIG enabled recipients to increase their work for income, profit or for their family and as self-employed. BIG enabled recipients to increase their productive income, particularly through starting their own small business, including the manufacture of bricks, baking of bread and custom operations. BIG also contributed to the creation of a local market by increasing households' purchasing power. This finding contradicts critics' claims that the BIG will lead to laziness and dependency. http://www.bignam.org
R H 20+
Linda Zhou
To make their way out of jungles and deserts, they firstly should possess sth values to other countries, such as the low-priced labor, land and other resources. Only after trading or sacrificing sth can they have more to trade and participate in the world's economic operation.
Maybe it is a little pessimistic, but in my view: each countries' developmental history is full of being exploited and exploiting others, to some extent.
Let' s hope that in the future, we will have some more eco-friendly way for being exploited.
R H 20+
Linda Zhou
what do you say?
Jeff Mowatt
His own account identifies leading oligarchs as the primary cause of the problem, i.e:
“Excuses won’t work, particularly in light of a handful of oligarchs in Ukraine having been allowed to loot Ukraine’s economy for tens of billions of dollars. I point specifically to Akhmetov, Pinchuk, Poroshenko, and Kuchma, and this is certainly not an exhaustive list. These people can single-handedly finance 100% of all that will ever be needed to save Ukraine’s orphans. None of them evidently bother to think past their bank accounts, and seem to have at least tacit blessings at this point from the new regime to keep their loot while no one wants to consider Ukraine’s death camps, and the widespread poverty that produced them..”
Over the years, there was much being said about business addressing social problems and as and when I saw opportunity to seek support, I made contact. One example was UK billionaire Sir Richard Branson, who seemed to be singing from the same hymn book. :
http://economics4humanity.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/the-email-that-changed-capitalism/
The cost to us overall was 12 man years effort and our founder's life. Looking back, our experience was to be constantly brushed aside by more influential players and ultimately hijacked by a consortium of our own governments and their corporate partners.
I wrote recently to my MP who is also UK immigration minister, pointing out to him that we won't address the problems caused by organised crime, if government behaves with the same dihonesty,
http://economics4humanity.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/the-uk-trafficking-in-persons-report/
R H 20+
Stefan H. Farr
So which wealthy country do you think is ready to concede to such an altruistic gesture? I think none. It would probably be the most unpopular political measurement a party could ever take: "If you elect us, we promise to give your money and jobs to the guys in the other country. We know you'll be poor, but you be noble :)". Sorry but I could not resist.... It is impossible, unfortunately, under current economic models.
The other solution would be to consider updating our economic models, which in my opinion is the right course of action, but not at all easier. If we considered human beings and the skills and knowledge they poses as economic values and could somehow model this into our current economy, for example: print money when a person is born and give it to the person (not physically but use it for it's education and upbringing), print money when a person graduates university and again, somehow make that person beneficiary of that sum, what you suggest could be possible. The hundreds of millions of people that live int those poor countries would suddenly worth a lot of money (they would be value in by themselves) which I personally think they actually are, of course in the beginning due to lack of education they could not be assigned a lot of value (sorry for being prejudicious but the reality is that our economy requires a lot of skills to be competitive) but still it would be a start and a path for progress which could gradually accumulate. Of course such a measurement has many implications and is not as easy as I put it but it would be a way out of the current status quo.
R H 20+
Stefan H. Farr
For the other question, it is important to understand that our economy was not modeled after a zero-sum game. It has developed on its own a lot earlier than the models were discovered but it happens that it closely resembles a zero-sum game and so this is a good model for the economy. To make an analogy, water does not freeze because we invented temperature, WE developed this measurement system to describe ITS behavior.
That being said, We print money for various, usually wrong reasons:
- sometimes to compensate for deficit, this usually creates inflation, because new money enters the market, money that does not have coverage (coverage according to current value systems, ex gold in the national treasury)
- wealthy powerful countries sometimes print money to pay the debt to other countries after they took a loan. Personally I think this is totally immoral and devastating to the economy globally.
There are other reasons too, but it really comes down to the fact that money is printed when it cannot be acquired the legitimate way (save for the initial printing stage and the refreshing of bills on the market) and this almost always negatively impacts the economic environment, exactly because the system is not designed to handle such a process.
Stefan H. Farr
Excellent point. This topic ties very nicely into another discussion: http://www.ted.com/conversations/14360/debate_our_culture_isn_t_ada.html, in fact, doing what you suggest here would be a gigantic leap in our cultural evolution, but I think the matter you brought up is one of the most difficult problems to solve:
Our economy is modeled very closely around what in game theory is called a "zero-sum game" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game). In such a game the sum of all the participants' gains is exactly equal to the sum of all the participants' loses. Simply put, if one gains 10 dollars, a total of 10 dollars are lost by the other participants in the game. So given this economic model, what you are suggesting, although really cool and I am for it, is totally impossible.
In order to bring those poor countries to a higher economic level, those countries need to export goods, to acquire trade suprlus (money enters the country). However, in order for them to be able to export, some other country needs to import those goods, which translates into trade defficit (money leaves the country). So as the country that exports gets richer the other countries get a little poorer therefore in this current economy every country struggles to export. Everything depends on it. Lones don't work either, because if you calculate it over the entire lifetime of the loan, it actually equates an process of import (money comes in, it is being used, meney goes back to to lender with interest). So no matter how much we shuffle it and turn it on its head, when we consider the closed system (the entire world) the end result must be zero.
Jeff Mowatt
We agree with you. here's an extract from our business plan:
"Dealing with poverty is nothing new. The question became ‘how does poverty still exist in a world with sufficient resources for a decent quality of life for everyone?’ The answer was that we have yet to develop any economic system capable redistributing finite resources in a way that everyone has at minimum enough for a decent life: food, decent housing, transportation, clothing, health care, and education. The problem has not been lack of resources, but adequate distribution of resources. Capitalism is the most powerful economic engine ever devised, yet it came up short with its classical, inherent profit-motive as being presumed to be the driving force. Under that presumption, all is good in the name of profit became the prevailing winds of international economies — thereby giving carte blanche to the notion that greed is good because it is what has driven capitalism. The 1996 paper merely took exception with the assumption that personal profit, greed, and the desire to amass as much money and property on a personal level as possible are inherent and therefore necessary aspects of any capitalist endeavour. While it is in fact very normal for that to be the case, it simply does not follow that it must be the case.
Profits can be set aside in part to address social needs, and often have been by way of small percentages of annual profits set aside for charitable and philanthropic causes by corporations. This need not necessarily be a small percentage. In fact, there is no reason why an enterprise cannot exist for the primary purpose of generating profit for social needs — i.e., a P-CED, or social, enterprise. This was seen to be the potential solution toward correcting the traditional model of capitalism, even if only in small-scale enterprises on an experimental basis."
http://economics4humanity.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/capitalism-is-an-insufficient-economic-model/
Juniper Blue 10+
RH mentioned "the ghost of racism" being a barrier to investment in the poor/humanity. I think that we can point also to its close relative, "the spirit of classism." Both are fed by greed and it's parent: fear.
The interesting thing is that in the pursuit of wealth and power, many people find themselves tangled up in what becomes their own bondage of debt and in their grasping for more, even when it is clearly not more of what they need. Their hands become so full of material things that they can never reach out to find true happiness. And so it seems that their greed not only deprives others of "the basic minimum needed to live a decent life" but it , essentially, deprives themselves of this as well. Greedy people have little inner peace which is true wealth.
On Ted, We talk a lot about technology and I feel that the issues of justice, equality require a development of peace technology which is involves new ideologies that look at ways to share (finite) resources so that all people may have a higher quality of life.
Here at TED, we discuss so many amazing innovation in science and medicine. What you are talking about with economics4humanty is social science that could lead to innovations equal to these.
When we have the ability to destroy the Earth many times over, might we need to look more closely at what barriers divide us, what walls we are fighting to tear down, what walls we are building and who is n the other side? It is time to seriously invest in solutions so that we may live more equitably and harmoniously.
Some may cal this "communism" but look at what they call "freedom."
This change ... this revolution begins within. It requires a personal shift in awareness and a peaceful surrender that brings freedom and empowerment to all.
Sounds kind of crazy .. well, so did the idea of splitting the atom. But maybe this technology can bring us together instead of tear us apart.
Jeff Mowatt
It was introduced to Russia in 1999, where it confused quite a few people. One went as far as asking "You've come here to create business and then give it away. Are you another kind of communist, or just crazy.
Here's how I see the potential as a post growth form of economics
http://economics4humanity.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/post-growth-people-centered-local-economies/
R H 20+
Jeff Mowatt
In the 2004 business plan above we describe how the social business apporach can yield funds for community re-investment through local CDFIs and beging the process of onward re-investment in community economic development
A year earlier, it had been a proposal to deploy this approach which brought US government to the table in plans to tackle poverty in the Tatar community of Crimea
http://economics4humanity.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/creating-shared-value-mk1/
A more comprehensive stratefy combining microfinance , childcare reforn, affordable broadband and social enterprise is set out in a later proposal for a natonal scale initiative with a nil overall cost approach:
http://www.p-ced.com/1/projects/ukraine/national/
R H 20+
Anil Rajvanshi
Also tremendous innovations are necessary in bringing technologies for rural poor. They do not have less neurons than us and have the same aspirations as rest of the world. http://www.nariphaltan.org/langmuirrural.pdf
Cheers.
R H 20+
John Smith 30+
"We" do invest in them somewhat, but even if the economic system was not as rotten as it is then you'd still be be subject to physical constraints: there simply are not enough natural resources to allow for a sudden increase in global productivity and consumption, it takes times for technology to allow us to use the same amount of natural resources more efficiently.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
WiFli website: http://www.wifliglobal.com/
R H 20+
David Hamilton 50+
Unfortunately I'll explain the whole problem to you though. The earth can not afford to have 3 billion more consumers of oil. Period. That's what it all comes down to. We don't know what we're going to replace oil with in the developing world long term.
Basically, if the world follows our example, we're all in trouble, but it's not about consumption, it's about consumption of oil. Untill we invent our way out of the oil crisis, there isn't enough energy to fix the poverty crisis, and it's not because we can't create the jobs, it's we can't pay people enough to buy oil. The solution is to create numerous local grass roots green technology companies and replace our transportation infrastructure, creating a bunch of construction and manufacturing jobs, which are many poor peoples leg up into the middle class. That goes up against the oil lobbies, monsanto, and numerous other interests that have strong control over our politicians.
We could give people 40 hour a week jobs, if they road electric bikes built locally to work every day. Most people who work hard want big sexy cars nowadays, that requires more innovation. Education, food, and medical care are the easiest sells though. If you get those things, and you aren't producing something, it is kinda your own fault, honestly, or there is something severely broken in your system.
Not to pick on Barack Obama, but he recently said something akin to "those jobs aren't coming back. Unskilled labor jobs are gone, I want to bring high skill labor jobs into this country"... In general, he's better for most middle class folks, but... that statement, is horrible for them. Unskilled labor, is how you maintain stability, while you become skilled, and get into the middle class.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Beyond this, I am fearful when those discussing education at a policy level sometimes claim that people are over-investing in higher levels of education. While in a sense this could be true, the people making these claims are typically those who mean it may not be a good investment for other people's children. They intend for their own to seek higher education, of course.
David Hamilton 50+
Very well put... They want higher education for their children, and when push comes to shove they vote almost unanimously against even trade skill programs for other peoples. Most modern neocons, really want a class system.
I think I can say something to you that might help put things into perspective a bit, and be a good answer to the initial question though. When teachers, are willing to fight for a pension program, and living wage, for the farmers that feed them... Farmers will side with teachers over conservatives on taxes. When teachers make 60k a year with pensions, and the men who work 8 hours a day on heavy machinery in the sun to feed them, make minimum wage with no health insurance... It's really hard for the "working class" to unite, or feel like a cohesive unit.
Every time a teacher goes on strike a hundred farmers turn into anti tax conservatives, lol.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
R H 20+
David Hamilton 50+
I'm not defending the perception held by the average farm hand, warehouse person, or factory worker, merely expressing how they get suckered in. I think most teachers don't realize that to a good chunk of people, they're "rich"... Lots of people especially in big cities... Will never own a home, most teachers leave a paid off one to their children, in the nice part of town.
In California 60k, isn't wonderful, but it can buy you a house if you don't waste it, especially if you marry a teacher... 9$ an hour, will never, and if you get a raise, without a degree for management, watch out, because you're getting too expensive for a laborer. This is how many poor people even here still get suckered into the whole, "taxes are too high, they don't get it, and they don't respect us". In reality, wages of working class people are too low, but that used to be a liberal cause... and it's really not anymore, because government workers, and educated people rarely feel the pinch anymore.
In many ways the liberals have become the party of "robots will do our labor, so we don't have to worry about you"... But, the robots aren't here yet, so the workers are getting wrestless.
Your district doesn't have to strike, they just have to see a strike, anywhere in the country on Faux News... the only source of information that doesn't make them scared that atheists have taken over America. Suddenly a couple hundred lumberjacks are thinkin "Those elitist, lazy, pricks... We should cut their funding..."
Fritzie Reisner 100+
It would not be true where I live. It certainly would not be true where my sister lives.
Maybe it is true where you live.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
I think only that you- and all too many others- may have a distorted view of teachers' lifestyles nationwide. I don't know any teachers with boats or jetskis or who can on a teacher's salary buy a home in the nice part of town, as I think you put it.
I am not saying that there are no such people but only that the popular idea of public school teachers as being coddled, overpaid for easy work, and so forth is more a bias than an accurate picture.
Juniper Blue 10+
David Hamilton 50+
Yeah, if you want to also own a boat, or a jet ski, or a big gas guzzling SUV, or luxury, as quite a few teachers I've met have... Then you can't buy a house with 40k a year per person. Or, if you have 4 kids... Those are incredibly luxurious decisions though, that some teachers, but more often administrators, just see as "perks". The SUV and 4 kids are the most common over reach.
The average child costs 250 thousand dollars to raise, and the world is overpopulated... but many teachers don't see having children as a luxury.
Even if these are not things you've seen in your community... Still, you must understand, that even if you cannot buy a house, for some reason on a teachers salary. It is important to care as much about the people making even less than that... and that's who the Republicans pretend to care about.
My point was very simple, when you make less than half what a teacher does, for much more miserable labor, it's easy to get angyr when you hear about a teacher strike. It's an emotional response, not a rational one, but it is very predictable, and it does occur.
David Hamilton 50+
And I'm saying, this is the horror of the liberal bubble... It is very difficult to be fired from a public school, almost no one on the planet has the job security, of any public sector employee, and you will never earn below a living wage... 90% of human beings on the planet, have absolutely no conception of what it is to live that good for one week of their life.
You are, dramatically overpaid, for a very healthy and comfortable work load and two months off. There is not a single teacher on the planet, who would rather go pick cotton or strawberries, even if the pay was competitive. The average man lives an excruciating portion of his life in physically uncomfortable, abject misery, that you will never understand, for whatever minimum wage is.
The people who make your phone, do the same thing for two dollars a day... because 8 bucks an hour to an American... was too much. Not only do people in institutions of government, often funded by the left, make more money than anyone in the private sector, and still feel like they have a right to strike... but they refuse to pay people minimum wage for the products they buy. "Teachers deserve more money, and when you give it to us, there is no reason we should spend it here creating jobs, that's protectionism"
Fritzie Reisner 100+
David Hamilton 50+
Numbers don't lie... and by the numbers, teaching has become one of the most lucrative professions in the country as labor has been eviscerated. We can disagree on whether or not that is a good investment, in fact, ultimately we would probably both agree it is a good investment. We cannot disagree on reality.
From the BLS 2010 median agriculture pay 18,000. http://www.bls.gov/ooh/farming-fishing-and-forestry/agricultural-workers.htm
Kindergarten teachers in 2010 48,800... not including benefits and pensions... http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Education-Training-and-Library/Kindergarten-and-elementary-school-teachers.htm
High school teachers in 2010 53,000.... http://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/high-school-teachers.htm
Average human being?... 1,225 dollars.... I lied about teachers being in the top 10% worldwide... It's actually the 1%... along with everyone here who makes more than 34,000 dollars a year. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082385/We-1--You-need-34k-income-global-elite--half-worlds-richest-live-U-S.html
@ James Kelly... Again... I'm not on team conservative, I think both sides of this argument are stupid, irrational, and emotional in nature, and they are degrading to the intellect of the average human being... However, what you have just expressed, is exactly what emotionally manipulates, and angers conservatives into thinking all liberals are evil communists...
Your first two complaints, are both absolute nonsense. "a debt of over 35k"... Agriculture worker, 18,800, high school teacher, 53,000... In one year, a high school teacher makes enough more than an agriculture worker, to pay back the entire debt. Every year, you make enough more than a farmer, to buy him/her a 4 year degree. Buying an overpriced house is your own fault.
James Kelly
John Smith 30+
"Basically, if the world follows our example, we're all in trouble, but it's not about consumption, it's about consumption of oil. Untill we invent our way out of the oil crisis, there isn't enough energy to fix the poverty crisis, and it's not because we can't create the jobs, it's we can't pay people enough to buy oil"
Yes, that's the core of the problem.
"Not to pick on Barack Obama, but he recently said something akin to "those jobs aren't coming back. Unskilled labor jobs are gone,"
"Unskilled labor, is how you maintain stability, while you become skilled, and get into the middle class."
The world has less and less need for unskilled labor, this is an irreversible fact of life. If your system requires lots of unskilled labor for its stability then it's time to start thinking about changing your system. Fortunately though there's this thing called education that can transform citizens from kids to skilled employees without them having to perform many years of unskilled labor.
David Hamilton 50+
More unskilled labor is employed than ever before... Foxconn employs literally millions of people predominantly supplying for American demand. Everything you buy requires unskilled labor, we just don't do it here anymore. I call farming your labor to other countries, abuse... I think it shows that we are lazy, and expect that we deserve to manage the world, rather than work together to create it.
"Fortunately though there's this thing called education that can transform citizens from kids to skilled employees without them having to perform many years of unskilled labor."
Unfortunately, there's a thing called stupid people... and when you stop employing them... They don't stop eating. They lose their sense of purpose, and sit around getting angry... becoming easy to pick off by various right wing, or crazy organizations. They cling to religion. America still requires boat loads of unskilled labor to stay afloat, it just refuses to employ its own children doing that work, instead, it wants to pay children in a poor country 2 dollars a day. It's a moral issue.
PS, the education system here is horrific, and it obviously hasn't created informed adult citizens, nor does it even focus on job skills.
John Smith 30+
Even including the Chinese the percentage of the world population employed in unskilled labor is declining, has been doing so for decades and will continue to do so in the future. In fact many people in third world countries are performing unskilled work that could be replaced by robots for pennies more, in China robots are starting to become cheaper than people now and that trend is irreversible.
"Unfortunately, there's a thing called stupid people... and when you stop employing them... They don't stop eating."
"Skilled" labor is not always that difficult, remember that the definition of unskilled labor is that you don't need any education past primary/elementary school (meaning you have to be able to read and write and know what 10+12 equals), anything above that is skilled labor. If you do find yourself having a surplus of unemployed, but employable people and wish to spread the burde then the proper response is to make each person work less hours, as has been done many times in the past (retirement age, K12 and higher education, 40 hour workweek, paid vacations, etc...)
David Hamilton 50+
Every time you shop at Wal Mart, you are making the decision conscious or not "human labor is only worth 2 dollars a day". it is fundamentally evil for someone paid 20 dollars an hour in air conditioning, to shop at Wal Mart, or Apple... etc. and most people do it anyway. Demand sets the price for labor. If people demanded that their products be made by people who earn a fair wage, products would be made by people who make a fair wage.
"If you do find yourself having a surplus of unemployed, but employable people and wish to spread the burde then the proper response is to make each person work less hours, as has been done many times in the past (retirement age, K12 and higher education, 40 hour workweek, paid vacations, etc...)"
This is the situation labor has been in for 40 years in America... and wages have dropped in relation to inflation, and no "liberals" have any legitimate plan to raise minimum wage or shrink the work week... So yes... that's great in theory.... How come none of our leaders understand it?
When you say "in China robots are starting to become cheaper than people now and that trend is irreversible"... what you're really saying without knowing it... Is "American business can finally buy robots cheaper than they buy Chinese people... So we're leaving.". It's a horrific moral code, the endgame of which, seems to be to starve to death any human being not capable of designing and building robots... or entertaining rich people.
John Smith 30+
This is a chicken and egg story: to buy "developed world only" products people need more money which they won't get without more people buying like that. I do have to add that this would probably result in the Chinese losing their jobs because if China could have raised domestic demand so much that they could pay people more than $2 per hour they would have done so. Also, in Europe people consider American labor almost the same way Americans consider Chinese labor.
"and no "liberals" have any legitimate plan to raise minimum wage or shrink the work week... So yes... that's great in theory.... How come none of our leaders understand it?"
Because it requires international cooperation and more economic equality on a global scale.
"It's a horrific moral code, the endgame of which, seems to be to starve to death any human being not capable of designing and building robots... or entertaining rich people."
What you describe is a likely outcome, but once you look beyond modern day capitalism there are other possible outcomes (such as automatization being used to shorten people's work weeks without losing pay, social dividend, etc...)
David Hamilton 50+
"Because it requires international cooperation and more economic equality on a global scale."
That is the opposite of a reason liberals aren't talking about this problem... If we need international cooperation, then this conversation better get going quickly...
"What you describe is a likely outcome, but once you look beyond modern day capitalism there are other possible outcomes (such as automatization being used to shorten people's work weeks without losing pay, social dividend, etc...) "
Not if both the left, and right refuse to talk about it. The problem is... the only solution, is to go back to "actual capitalism" which works... and the liberals certainly don't want to suggest that as a solution... Meanwhile the "conservatives, suggest that solution all the time... Then they get elected, hehe.
John Smith 30+
It was a choice back then, but not any longer, we can't easily undo choices consumers made 20 years ago.
"That is the opposite of a reason liberals aren't talking about this problem... If we need international cooperation, then this conversation better get going quickly..."
It would take getting most advanced nations (including developing, but technologically advanced ones like China) to a similar standard of living, that's still decades off. That or massive trade wars between countries, remember that German and Swedish workers see their American counterparts as cheap labor that often is not unionized and gets few benefits and is out to steal their jobs, so it won't be a solid block of Western countries vs. China and India.
"The problem is... the only solution, is to go back to "actual capitalism" which works... "
You have a romantic notion of "true capitalism", yet the concentration of wealth you talked about earlier is a direct result of true capitalism, as even its earliest proponents (even Adam Smith) admitted. What you really want is a return to the 1945-1980 period when america ws doing great economically, even the workers, but that economy was actually highly unionized, had high taxes and loads more financial regulation and was really just lucky the third world did not yet have facilities to "steal" even unskilled American work while large coporations had only recently started to assimilate the lifeless husks of small businesses they killed off, really a far cry from "true capitalism" and basically also very lucky time-period wise.
David Hamilton 50+
To "You have a romantic notion of "true capitalism", yet the concentration of wealth you talked about earlier is a direct result of true capitalism, as even its earliest proponents (even Adam Smith) admitted." No, I'm not a Tea Party guy... I loosely identify libertarian, because of all the movements in this nation with any ground game, they are the most visciously anti war, pro freedom of speech, and anti drug war I can find. When the Green Party gets charismatic, I'll probably switch.
When I say "actual capitalism"... I mean the freedom for wal mart employees to unionize... Private labor unions are a fundament of capitalism. Where you and I disagree... are on public labor unions... I think government employees have forgotten that they are public servants. The United States Government is the worlds largest not for profit corporation... and it needs to start acting like it.
Public labor unions, are not a fundament of capitalism, they are the antithesis of it... especially when paired with sending in the police to break up Wal Mart strikes. If you have signed up to help people, pay should not be a concern. When people who call themselves "public servants", make 40-80k a year, and have pensions, while farmers make 18k, and don't... They no longer have the right to call themselves that.
This is where the liberals lose the working class vote. Not only does the farmer, or construction worker, or waitress, have to listen to how hard it is, to make 3 times as much as they do... They have to hear how altruistic school teachers are, and how they don't do it for themselves, it's all for the kids... not the 60k a year (times two if they retire on time).
That is an aside however. When I say, "actual capitalism", I don't mean the government can't implement any social programs, that's what the supermajorities are for... I mean they have to pay for them.
David Hamilton 50+
How do we pay for social security? End the cap... Every independent economist says the same thing... Stop letting rich people pay a lower percent than poor people... That would people popular among representatives that actually represented the people.
I'm for progressive taxes as well. I wouldn't suggest I love 45-80 though... because I hate the military industrial complex, and I think we need much stricter codes of ethics regarding warfare, the time period you describe is when things started to get weird.
In the 50's we put god on our money... Jefferson wrote a secular bible, and we're founded on religious freedom because our various religions were treated poorly in most of Europe.
We elected Richard Nixon twice... Once over McGovern, who recently died, may he rest in peace... One of the last true "doves". We began the war on drugs... Horrific mistake.
I don't have a romantic notion of our history... I have a romantic notion for what great men, and women, envisioned a country of free people, could choose to be.
"The tragedy of all this is that George McGovern, for all his mistakes and all his imprecise talk about "new politics" and "honesty in government", is one of the few men who've run for President of the United States in this century who really understands what a fantastic monument to all the best instincts of the human race this country might have been, if we could have kept it out of the hands of greedy little hustlers like Richard Nixon."
Hunter S Thompson
PS I am a sucker for Jimmy Carter... so 1980 wasn't a bad place to end the number though.
David Hamilton 50+
@ Bob "You're a moron"... Is not the way an intelligent person starts a debate. Nothing in my ideas are utopian... They are simple, sane, and incentive based. They also reflect almost entirely the opinions of Adam Smith. I apologize if you never learned to read, and can't look that up.
Bob Stiglitz
R H 20+
David Hamilton 50+
Solar concentration. Desalination. Gyroscopic stable electric motorcycles, preferably self driving.
Juniper Blue 10+
And that brings us back to education .... How many brilliant scientists and other innovators will never have a chance to help to solve these problems without education and opportunity?
Juniper Blue 10+
I agree with you that all could prosper more if we invest in opportunities for the poor to contribute more to the economy and it is perplexing to me that not more is done to support this possibility.
What do you think the root obstacles are in facilitating more equality and upwardly mobile financial opportunity for all based on this perspective?
I think that there are people in my community who want their future Doctor to be a younger relative or at least neighbor and they are fen with their future maid coming form the town next door. In fact, they prefer it. They would feel uneasy (or even feel threatened) if this was to happen in reverse and would not like to invest in the chances of that happening (even if it did make the "overall pocket-book" a little fuller.) I think that this is probably a natural human tendency ... most people want their kid to be the next Doctor not the next maid.
I think every kid should have a chance to do what they want in life and to contribute financially, and in other ways to their communities. We seem to be on the same page with this (but not everyone is comfortable with how [and how much] this should happen.)
Deborah Sheets
Juniper Blue 10+
How does this work in the U.S. where a person can work full time and earn $2,000 a month ( or less) but have to pay $1,200 month for a basic apartment (and health care costs $500 per month?) And if that person has children?
Are poor people blowing their money on luxuries like food, shelter and medical expenses?
It is hard to "make your money work for you" when you have no money to begin with.
bristol ozturgut
In William Sumner's(1883) "What Social Classes Owe to Each Other," society is painted at exactly the same dynamic we see it today. "The danger of minding other people's business is twofold. First, there is the danger that a man may leave his own business unattended to; and, second, there is the danger of an impertinent interference with another's affairs." Now while the latter is merely an assertion of Sumner's values, the first is a critical reason why we cannot lend our money to those who haven't made it for themselves. "-that the state cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man."
Sumner goes on,
"There is a beautiful notion afloat in our literature and in the minds of our people that men are born to certain "natural rights." If that were true, there would be something on earth which was got for nothing, and this world would not be the place it is at all. The fact is, that there is no right whatever inherited by man which has not an equivalent and corresponding duty by the side of it, as the price of it. ... Such is the actual interpretation in practice of natural rights - claims which some people have by prerogative on other people." He eventually goes on to talk of the "Forgotten Man" which is essentially the middle classes. This, on the whole, is a compelling piece and I urge you all to read it. Its relevance abounds.
On a simpler note, and to quote P.J. O'Rourke, "You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money."
R H 20+
Jeff Mowatt
http://economics4humanity.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/creating-shared-value-mk1/
It began in 1996 when the concept of business for social purpose targetiing global poverty was pitched to Bill Clinton. In an interview from 2004, the author said:
"At first, the idea seemed heresy - but not for long, simply because it made sense and it didn't step on the toes of any existing enterprises that were in business to enrich relatively few people. None of them were asked to change anything, but it left open the possibility of more forward-thinking people to step in and do business differently. "
Juniper Blue 10+
But you can most certainly increase poverty levels by denying people reasonable access to quality education.
David Hamilton 50+
"There is a beautiful notion afloat in our literature and in the minds of our people that men are born to certain "natural rights." If that were true, there would be something on earth which was got for nothing, and this world would not be the place it is at all."
I actually disagree with this on a fundamental level, and I think this is one of the big lies, often perpetrated by modern conservatives. There is a reason a human beings have "natural rights", which are fundamental, regardless of country, religion, or creed, that is rational, and fact based. We are the kings of the jungle.
For all the fear and anxiety forced on us in modern society, the average man or woman, is completely capable of surviving, harvesting food, and even enjoying life, alone in the wilderness, for most of a natural life. With the access to information we have today, especially, even through millenia old very cheap traditions such as libraries, you could take a few books out and wander into a national park, and get lost for the rest of your life, without ever regreting it.
That is why your participation in society, should not be seen as a given, but as a gift, you choose to give the people around you, which should be rewarded. You should get as much as you give to a society. If you do not, you should wander off. You have the born in, natural right, to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and even food... because you could do that without us. In order to have a society worth participating in, you must respect, at a bare minimum, the natural rights.
At the same time... In the wild, one would have to work for food, and I see no reason that wealth redistribution, and taxation, cannot be tied to learning skills and participating in volunteer duties. I agree with the principle that giving poor people money doesn't eliminate poverty. I would only go one step farther, rich people love to give poor people money, because poor people spend it, on the cheapest product
Juniper Blue 10+
I think that it comes down to a privileged group wishing to hold on to power, and ultimately, a type of fear-based greed. A thought process that may resemble this: If the poor are empowered, might they rise up and subjugate those who have held wealth and power for so long? What then??!!
I don't think that the exchange and sharing of power needs to displace/subjugate anyone ... I think that it is possible to find a balance where people can co-exist peacefully and share power. Material wealth will shift as it is more equally distributed but I feel that certain liberties can be gained by all in the process.
Then .. there is history ... we must find a method of peace technology to support equality in the future.
INVEST IN QUALITY EDUCATION THAT IS ACCESSIBLE TO ALL and we shall all prosper.
R H 20+
Juniper Blue 10+
I think that "leveling the playing field" would involve things like making quality schools available and access to affordable higher education. Individuals who had previously had few opportunities, would then have more access to more equal opportunity.
There seems to be a reluctance to provide adequate structural/institutional support and I feel that the root so this problem is the idea that the wealth will be "taken" from the "rich" and "given" to the "poor" if changes are made like making quality education affordable and accessible to all.
This is what I mean that there is an underlying fear of "subjugation."
I have heard people talk of not wanting to allow kids to bus in from other areas at our local grammar school. There is this idea that the kids form a poorer neighborhood are a burden to the school.
I am sure that families would prefer to have their children go to the local school in their immediate community but such schools are underfunded, run down, dangerous and offer little support for academic excellence.
The lower income neighborhood has a much smaller tax base and the children who grow up in these areas live with violence in their communities and schools and few resources to improve their lives.
With the system as it is, these kids are more likely to grow up to be maids in the neighboring communities, gang members, very low income workers, unemployed or join the military without having a viable opportunity to obtain a college degree. (Statistically) few will rise above their hardship to escape their present level of poverty.
So, it is unlikely that the youth form the poor community will be able to pursue a well paid vocation with the same confidence that the youth in the more privileged neighborhood may. And form some of the signs I saw and conversation is heard, many people in the neighborhood prefer this. Few see that we are one interconnected community.
R H 20+
Cijaye DePradine
R H 20+
Juniper Blue 10+
Heifer International is also a good example of a program that works. A poor family will receive a goat ( for example). The family is able to start a micro-business selling the milk, cheese or other products made from the goat's milk etc. Also, the family gives a female goat to a neighbor and they give a goat in turn to another neighbor. Everyone prospers from sharing the animals.
More generally, a pathway to quality education gives a young person the tools to earn a good living and the ability to spend money in their community, and give to charitable causes. Crime and birth rates are lower as well when youth have access to quality education and all of this benefits society as once under-priviledged groups become empowered to give more to their communities and to the general economy and tax base.
James McGuiness
Robert Winner 50+
Perhaps you may have been misinformed on this issue.
Bob.
R H 20+
Robert Winner 50+
The Obama administration has implemented much of this behind Congress' back through Executive Orders. Cap and Trade, which was defeated in Congress is now a EPA order and will shut down coal fired power plants throughout the US, many of the restrictive clauses in the Obamacare law reflect the Agenda 21 philosophy of control over the population.
They are having great success convincing local governments in the U.S. to adopt their socialist and extreme environmentalist programs under the guise of feel-good buzz words. Left wing billionaire George Soros’s Open Society has provided $2,147,415 to ICLEI. Father of One Word Government.
Obama signed Executive Order 13575 earlier this month, establishing a “White House Rural Council” prescribed by Agenda 21. The amount of government Obama has directed to administer this is staggering. Obama committed thousands of federal employees in 25 federal agencies to promote sustainability in rural areas, completely bypassing Congressional approval. Again.
Have you heard about this on the news ... no way. Media control for the election.
We are in trouble. Out of space. Bob.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
James McGuiness
The impulses you feel to want to improve the standards of living and productivity of the poor I think represent a yearning that is part of human spirituality. It's where ideas like "communism" come from. The trouble is that idealism to change the world almost always defaults back to "winner take all" with 1% winners and 99% losers--and the cycles of resentment and revolution just repeat themselves.
I believe that we can sustain change now through technology without it being an artificial redistribution of wealth where some overlord takes from some people and gives to others. Any hint of that kind of "redistribution or wealth" will be met with megaresistance. President Obama is on the right track in asserting that all echelons of society will be enriched if we stimulate the "middle class"--but look how vilified he is when all he is asking for is 4% more tax on people making over a quarter million.
IMO there needs to be not just new jobs or new industries but new models of economy in which there is no need for faith or trust in a government administration because there are too many hateful ideologues around today with too much media power. I have ideas and vision on how to create new economy that "sells itself" but I am not a person of renown who can get the audience I need. Someone has to want to share my vision and accept that it's a business venture that involves risk. But there's no hocus pocus to it where I would ask anyone to suspend their disbelief while I work some magic. There are just some truths about technology and human capacity that are not being optimized and when addressed with engineering can create economy. Ask if interested.
James McGuiness
We both have knowledge or at least experience and that takes time to impart. I find no reason to imply that you are "mis" informed. You're apparently otherwise informed than I am--but I can say that I was at the prep-conferences for the Earth Summit as a journalist and I got to see Al Gore's presentation at the UN General Assembly in person. Putting myself there was my Idea so I deserve a little lattitude if not respect.
R H 20+
R H 20+
James McGuiness
jim_mcg@verizon.net
R H 20+
Qab Dqab
As Fritzie pointed out below, there are efforts to help bring the poor and marginalised into economic participation, in fact on a very large scale. Untold billions of dollars are given to Africa in direct aid every year. However it is quite clear from the level of poverty still prevalent in Africa that this money has not been effectively invested, hence my answer to your question.
There is, however, a growing understanding that this is the case. There are now increasing efforts to encourage business into and within poorer regions. For example, http://www.aecfafrica.org/, this largely government funded organisation is encouraging, or rather investing in, companies that are looking to invest in Africa in a manner that will be profitable but also help the community. A great example of such a company is http://www.kickstart.org/.
I think one of the factors holding people back from this approach for so long has been the idea that making money from these people is somehow wrong. This story gives a great example of why this is not so: http://www.admittingfailure.com/failure/anthony/. However, if governments were* seen to be funding businesses that profit from such poor communities they would have* received very bad press.
* perhaps, sadly, these should be in the present tense.
I say that there is a growing understanding that what you propose is true but i do appreciate it is still a tiny minority and, at this point, smart investment is very far from adequate.
R H 20+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
I can think of a few ideas connected to the first of those questions. One is that the claim that "at the first sign of suspected diminishing returns we abandon the effort" may need real empirical verification. Qab writes about untold billions in aid to Africa over a long period. I think many who have studied this not very short-lived effort have concluded that such money has had a way of getting siphoned off into unintended uses. [Feyisayo, who was born in Africa and continues to live there, described this in another thread]. So from an investment standpoint, investors might after a point decide that they haven't enough control over where the money goes for them to continue to think of that use of money as an investment. They may still contribute money for other reasons but not as an economic investment of the kind I think you have in mind.
Another possible factor when we think of investment is that businesses aim to invest in things that allow them to capture the return. You mentioned that business could think of investing in people so that those people will "buy their stuff." But who is to say that they would buy THEIR stuff? Why wouldn't they buy someone else's stuff?
This explains also why businesses are sometimes reluctant to train people in expensive ways. A business could incur the training cost only to see the employee once trained hired away by another firm.
All that said, I thought I read that Microsoft in the last month made a commitment to train hundreds of thousands of young people to be computer engineers, because jobs in that field are so hard to fill. Typically the return on investment will be highest if they train people who already have the math and science background to hit the ground running. I don't know the details of their plan.
Cijaye DePradine
An example that comes to mind for me about how innovation and time/dedication HAS provided a great solution for the poor and marginalized - is a non-profit called Quest. There is a lot more to the organization than I will explain here but basically, through grants, corporate sponsorships, food donations from local restaurants and grocers and community crowd funding they have purchased a warehouse, turned it into a "healthy" grocery store - that is only accessible by invitation only (to the poor and marginalized). The shelves are stocked with all sorts of healthy foods, diet specific foods and better options than lets say a food bank (even though they work WITH the food banks).
Anyhow they require all "shoppers" to participate in the operation somehow in order to earn grocery credits. Some might stock shelves, some might clean, some might do cash, bag or greet others. In turn they can shop the warehouse for their own foods and improve their lives. No cash is exchanged with these individuals, but skills development and work ethics DOES result in higher moral --- and for some the desire to do more with their lives. My understanding is that some of their shoppers have since gotten jobs - well paid ones and STILL come back to volunteer at Quest. It's life changing. And only one example. But effective.
R H 20+
Random Chance 30+
So, we need to get rid of the monetary system.
Wait!
Wait for it. It's coming.
All the guffaws, scorn, mocking, dismissals for such an idea.
Some others should show up soon.
Qab Dqab
So i am curious, what is the alternative?
Fritzie Reisner 100+
There are many other threads about the monetary system that are ideal for that conversation.
Gail . 50+
Begin with John Locke's Treatises of Government: The canonical text for economic, political, & legal understanding of how an effective government works. 1st he introduces the rights of private property ownership with these 3 rational provisos:
There must be enough left over
You must not let it spoil (allow waste)
You must mix your labor with it.
Then he shows that with the introduction of $, along with men's tacit agreement to put value on it, all the provisos are no longer applicable.
1. Now you no longer have to mix your labor with your property. Now you can buy labor and profit from money itself.
2. There is no longer a consideration of spoilage, because money cannot spoil.
3. There is no longer a consideration for whether there is $ left over for others, because ownership of $ is not a basic human right. And if money can buy land, without leaving enough for others, then access to land (for food/clothing/shelter) is no longer a basic human right. Which is how you force the excessive poor to die.
Then comes Adam Smith, (Wealth of Nations - another canonical text). He says this is natural law. (the invisible hand).
Within natural law, he says, the scantiness of subsistence, that's caused by not enough money in the hands of the poor, puts natural limits on the "RACE of laborers". He states that the greater number of THEIR children MUST die in the name of the economic system, and the free market will take care of THAT by virtue of the existence of his definition of natural law.
Our current economic model is not created to benefit you or the needy. It was created to enslave you for as long as you don't demand much. The neediest are the incentive that the rich want you to see so that you don't upset the apple cart. They need to poor to scare you into submission.
It's working
Frans Kellner 100+
Economy works like electricity the higher the potential difference how faster the current.
Rich need poor to keep the value coming and become more rich at cost of ever more poverty.
I can illustrate this with a piece of history (4 centuries in 3 sentences).
As the Dutch took Indonesia as their colony, people were forced to work as their lands were taken away and they were indoctrinated with the Gospels that learned how suffering on earth would be paid off in heaven.
This went well, for riches poured into our land as those indigenous people suffered more and more. Then someone said (E. Douwes Dekker), how sad they are they need education and have to be treated with dignity. The result was they became unhappy and unwilling, they hoped for an opportunity to revolt and as they did they knew no other way than to copy their former masters, for that was all they knew.
As Europe had to abolish their colonies multinational (read US) Corporations took over. This system is threatened if people learn, inquire too much, if democracy works as it was intended.
R H 20+
R H 20+
Gail . 50+
I agree (I think) that all of our social ills are symptoms, but I believe that they are symptoms of a corrupt and cruel economic model that enslaves the few for the benefit of the money.
You think that money is essential to all of the wonderful things that we have, but I disagree. Freedom of thought and the opportunity to work for self-fulfillment has been shown to be a better motivator when it comes to inventing new things.
This being said, we cannot reinvent our prosperity unless we first throw away the unworkable capitalist model that cannot survive without poor people. Notice on these videos how money is not an efficient motivator unless you use it as a reward for simple mechanical skills. It is the opposite of a positive motivator when it is applied to the creative thinking that is required to bring us the advances that make our lives so comfortable.
I encourage you to watch the following TED talks.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html
R H 20+
george lockwood 20+
R H 20+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Both are typically underway, along with the aforementionned investments, but the mix depends on what people think is most promising in the moment.
I am curious when you say "Yet, we don't even talk about it." Take, as a case, Chicago, which I take because you live there. Do people in city government, in the non-profit sector, in the media, in the local private sector, or in the creative community not talk about the plight, problems, and strategies to improve the lives and prospects of your urban poor? My perception that this is a pressing concern of large numbers of people across sectors may be skewed, because I have always worked and volunteered in this area along with many, many others engaged in this effort professionally and personally. But in today's mail I got a magazine from a leading university with the lead article "Children in crisis: Rescuing the World's Dispossessed."
I would have said this subject is discussed all the time.
R H 20+
Rick Ryan 10+
And $30+ Billion for Gates was over 50% of his total individual wealth. Would you expect every average middle class worker to donate over 50% of their individual wealth to help solve the problem(s)?
People who end up establishing those foundations or funds became able to do so BECAUSE they used (your quote from above), "an investment opportunity for massive returns." That's how they got "rich" and had the opportunity to establish the foundations/funds in the first place.
I'm confused by the sentence in your topic narrative that states, "The rich think they're rich now, just imagine the wealth created by having 3 billion more people buying their stuff?" Well, if that happens, aren't the rich just going to keep getting richer? Seems OK to me if they do as long as they keep establishing those foundations and funds to try to help the not-so-rich...err, I mean the poor.
You also stated you view current efforts as a "repair" attempt, because the "system" is unbalanced. The system is always going to be unbalanced with 7 billion people on the planet. If you started off right now with everybody having an equal amount of everything, it would become unbalanced as soon as anyone traded something to somebody else, whether it be actual goods or money for goods or services. In a very short time you would be able to start categorizing people into different "wealth groups" again.
R H 20+