TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Developed world is interested in ensuring Developing world grows & Poverty levels come down.

Most of the Developed countries GDP growth rates is less than 1% and certain Wealthier countries in Europe are registering a negative population growth rate.

Only counties which have a GDP growth rate of more than 4% are developing countries and these countries also have a good population growth rates.

Most of the Patents & Trade marks (IP rights) are controlled by Developed countries which have to put to use and cash generated. These can be put to use and cash generated only in Developing countries (as Developed world is Saturated).

Bottom of Pyramid population (which is 4 billion people or more than 40% of total world population) which can be served (in developing countries) which would make economic sense for Corporations in Developed world to serve.

If these 4 billion people (taken from Wikipedia) are not taken care of there would be instability unpredictable and anarchy which Developed world would not be comfortable with.

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • Mar 6 2013: You seem to be under the impression that corporations like WalMart and McDonalds are unaware that the developing world is becoming the next big market. They are aware of this, and pursuing it.
  • thumb
    Mar 6 2013: No.
    Developed world is interested in profit.
    It's all about money.
  • Mar 5 2013: Western model is not at fault. Citizens of Developed world need to be informed that there is a great business opportunity in serving 4 billion people at Bottom of the pyramid.
    This business opportunity is better than - business of Creating and Fighting wars in Developing world.
  • thumb
    Mar 5 2013: And what happens to us all when the entire globe is saturated? The western model is a deadly mind virus.
    • Mar 5 2013: Western model is not at fault. Citizens of Developed world need to be informed that there is a great business opportunity in serving 4 billion people at Bottom of the pyramid.
      This business opportunity is better than - business of Creating and Fighting wars in Developing world.
      • thumb
        Mar 5 2013: So what happens when all countries are developed?

        Or what happens to those who lose their jobs to those in developing countries? New undeveloped countries are created.
        • Mar 5 2013: Only the clerical & low skilled jobs are shifting to Developing countries.

          Highly skilled & knowledge jobs are not and will not shift from Developed countries.

          Debate is not about shifting jobs.

          Debate is - Will Developed countries gain be engaging Economically with Developing countries.
      • thumb
        Mar 5 2013: IT jobs have already left the USA to locate in India. So - in addition to the programmers who are now out of work, let's not worry about the 25% of children in my home county who are living below the poverty level, the 30% who are receiving food aid, the five applicants for every one low-level job because unemployment is so high and a low-level job is better than no job at all. Let's not talk about the working poor who are homeless families in spite of parents having jobs, the pay for which steadily decreases. Let's not worry about them. Is that what you're saying?.

        Take turns eating?
        • Mar 5 2013: Correcting myself

          rephrasing the debate can we say

          The Rich people (which-ever country they are located) would be Better-off / gain if they economically-engage with 4 billion (wherever they are located) people at Bottom of the Pyramid (these are people who live on less than $2.50 per day - Wikipedia).
      • thumb
        Mar 5 2013: $2.50 US per day? $2.50 is a relative number.

        A loaf of white bread in New Delhi costs $0.76 US while that same loaf of bread costs $6.15 US in Zurich.

        A small bamboo house in Guatemala costs $450.00 USD. A similar (400 square foot) house in the US - but this time without plumbing and electricity starts at $65,000. Adding in the utilities will increase that amount by at least another $20,000 to $40.000 dollars

        The use of pitifully small figures to represent poverty doesn't represent reality. It assumes that $2.50 will buy as much here as it will anywhere else in the world. That's just not true. If I cross our southern border into Mexico, my dollar will go a lot farther. Same if I take my dollar to Hong Kong. If I take my dollar to New York City, it probably won't buy a single thing.

        So by your plan, those in America who live below the poverty level who make less than $50.00 US per day (the working and too-often homeless poor) would be excluded?

        But even this conversation oversimplifies it all. The reason why America's economy is failing is because American or former American companies hire the equivalent of slave labor in China and other business-friendly 3rd world nations already, thus putting our people out of work, and in this way, ending the ability of Americans to consume in excess - which is how the US stimulated the world's economy in the first place. So your answer is to put people who work for slave wages out of work because even they can't compete with even lower wages for poor villages in India or Africa. It's a downward spiral. Those who are paid the least can't afford to consume, and those who could once afford to consume have been put out of work.

        It's time to think outside of the box.
        • Mar 6 2013: Correcting myself again. Agree with you. $2.50 was a relative number used. Poverty number changes from Country to Country.

          High-net-worth individuals / corporations would gain by economically engaging with poor people in their countries (first) and elsewhere.
        • thumb
          Mar 6 2013: There are 300.000.000 (yes, 3 hundred million) people in China whose salary is $60 A YEAR!!!
          There are more than 100.000.000 that don't use money
          Yes, $2.50 is relative