Why we need poor countries

[Darth Wong]

What would happen if every country in the world suddenly and magically had a first-world standard of living and a well-educated population?

Off the top of my head, the first consequence that comes to mind is massive inflation, as we could no longer make products cheaply by taking advantage of third-world labour. Certain resource costs would also skyrocket. Also, a Middle East which is no longer dependent upon oil profits would be a very disturbing thought. And then, of course, there's the environmental aspect to consider.

So are people lying when they say they'd like the third world to get better?

[Axis Kast]

They wish for something proportionate, or they lack any understanding of economics.

[kojikun]

No, they're just stupid. Now me, I wouldn't mind seeing a modernized third world, but only if we can figure out ways to supplement the lost productivity. Superior automation would make it cheap to have robots and computers doing the manual labor, perhaps. And better power generation and personal transportation would get rid of air pollutants (perhaps massive use of nuclear power, and people using lots of bikes and trollies ). We probably could do a fully first-world planet, but it would require certain things to become popular again. It would be quite amazing if the entire planet was first-world though; 6 billion people using their minds as tools of creation, not their labor.. the scientific and technological achievements would be astounding.

[SirNitram]

The phrase 'resource shortfall' comes to mind.

[Wicked Pilot]

So are people lying when they say they'd like the third world to get better?

I guess it depends on how much better they want the third world to become. I certainly would like to see a world where people are not dying left and right of starvation, deseases, military dictatorships, etc. But I don't find it necessary for every Congo to be turned into the next Hong Kong.

[The Kernel]

No, it's just that we will need a drastic shift in economic theories before it becomes possible. Probably the best and most inevitable solution is the advancement of mechanized labor. In thirty years or so it is quite likely that machines will become a reasonable replacement for menial jobs.

This of course will have two possible outcomes. Either the people who own the machines become super rich and everyone else reverts to medieval standards of living or else we see a drastic shift in the way resources are distributed. It is very likely that a more socialized economy will be inevitable in this situation as we will have to deal with the fact that there won't be enough jobs to go around. This can actually be a very good thing as it can increase the low end on the standards of living worldwide so that food, shelter and "happiness" become a fact of life. There can still be enticements to work in such a society (luxury has always been an enticement before).

The reason I am bringing this up is because before we are capable of creating a high standard of living for everyone while still maintaing a wealthy ruling class, it isn't likely that we'll see much improvements in the third world outside of isolated cases.

When you point out the massive inflation and short term destruction that every nation being magically transformed into first world, you of course realize that no such magical transformations exist. These nations can't become first world without stable governments and a hell of a lot of Foreign Direct Investment, which isn't going to happen if the market can't support it.

[kojikun]

The phrase 'resource shortfall' comes to mind.

We already produce enough food to feed 6 billion people. First world populations grow slower so thats a benefit for food production forecasting. Metals would not be hard to come by, we have a planet made of iron, its crust made of processable rock. The only resource I would think we'd run out of is oil for plastics and other synthetic goods.

[The Kernel]

The phrase 'resource shortfall' comes to mind.

We already produce enough food to feed 6 billion people. First world populations grow slower so thats a benefit for food production forecasting. Metals would not be hard to come by, we have a planet made of iron, its crust made of processable rock. The only resource I would think we'd run out of is oil for plastics and other synthetic goods.

Except that it isn't just about feeding them. Our economy is driven by the concept of an elite wealthy that rules over the skilled workers (middle class) and the unskilled workers (lower class). Take that away and you have socialism, which is still considered a vulgarity in the US.

[kojikun]

Except that it isn't just about feeding them. Our economy is driven by the concept of an elite wealthy that rules over the skilled workers (middle class) and the unskilled workers (lower class). Take that away and you have socialism, which is still considered a vulgarity in the US.

How do you figure we'd have socialism? We're just talking about a first-world planet, not a socialist planet. Noone said there wouldnt be class differences, there's just be certain standards of living. The US isn't socialist, is it? Yet we manage to be firstworld. Why would the planet be socialist if it were firstworld?

Oh, and socialism is a bad thing. Being forced to pay for things others have not earned is immoral. Thats not to say that certain things, if voluntary, would be fantastic, but only if voluntary.

[Axis Kast]

It's possible to bring capitalism to largely impoverished nations - see the success of South Korea and Poland in recent memory.

Of course, once those countries mechanize their production - as South Korea is now discovering - and use the profits of cheap labor to build superior infrastructure, their costs inevitably rise. The kinds of bussiness that operate in the first world are inherently expensive to operate. In time, jobs will flow to countries where production is even cheaper.

But globalization is still a game of relatively few players; more than half our foreign investment still goes to the U.K.

[The Kernel]

How do you figure we'd have socialism? We're just talking about a first-world planet, not a socialist planet. Noone said there wouldnt be class differences, there's just be certain standards of living. The US isn't socialist, is it? Yet we manage to be firstworld. Why would the planet be socialist if it were firstworld?

In the sense that you have to provide not only food, but shelter and health care for all these people. As the wealth and technology levels of a society increase, so do the demands by the lower class for higher standards of living. Eventually you reach a point where all basic necessities are availibile regardless of what job you have in society. That isn't to say that all classes are abolished, just that the differences between them become less significant.

You are correct, the United States is NOT socialist despite being first world for a number of reasons. Firstly, our lowest class is not first world, despite what you would like to think. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the twelve year olds that assembled your shoes for fifty cents an hour. They do not live within our territorial boundries, but with the advent of globalization, the cheap labor oversees has allowed the United States to create a higher standard of living for our citizens without having to do so for those in countries that we do our low skill manufacturing.

The point here is that this model cannot exist if every nation lives at the same standard of living we do. So there are two options. We can continue the status quo or we can bring the rest of the world up to first world standards. If we choose to do the later, then we need to accept the fact that low wage manufacturing will cease to exist. Everyone gets paid enough to live up to first world standards (which at the moment, not everyone in even the United States has) and everyone also will need things like universal health care. Sound familiar? That's our good friend Socialism knocking at the door.

Oh, and socialism is a bad thing. Being forced to pay for things others have not earned is immoral. Thats not to say that certain things, if voluntary, would be fantastic, but only if voluntary.

Jesus H. Christ, why is it always a black and white fallacy when Socialism is brought up? I'm not trying to recreate Russian Communism here. Canada, Australia, Sweeden and a smatter of other countries all institute Socialism to one degree or another. People who claim that Socialized medicine is bad on principle really need to get their heads out of their asses.

What I'm proposing is not to get rid of Capitalism, but that a large amount of the wealth in first world countries will need to be redistributed if everyone wants to live at a first world standard. There will still be rich people, but there will not be like people the current super-wealthy in America who have a large chunk of the nation's wealth bottled up among a very small group of people. You simply can't have this in a first world Earth since there are no super-poor to exploit to make these people as rich as they are. Sorry, but if you want to bring the entire world to first world living conditions AND provide a higher standard of living (instead of a situation like pre-industrial revolution England) then a certain amount of Socialism is necessary.

[The Kernel]

But globalization is still a game of relatively few players; more than half our foreign investment still goes to the U.K.

It's more of a matter of us not liking the idea of newly developing nations. Remember that for years Singapore and South Korea were undercutting the United States on highly skilled manufacturing. This can only be done in a developing nation (until the citizens get the bright idea that they should be paid more for their work) but it really hurts an economy like ours that depends on our highly skilled and technologically advanced labor force.

[kojikun]

In the sense that you have to provide not only food, but shelter and health care for all these people. As the wealth and technology levels of a society increase, so do the demands by the lower class for higher standards of living. Eventually you reach a point where all basic necessities are availibile regardless of what job you have in society. That isn't to say that all classes are abolished, just that the differences between them become less significant.

Because of economic prosperity, not because of socialism or anything of the sort.

You are correct, the United States is NOT socialist despite being first world for a number of reasons. Firstly, our lowest class is not first world, despite what you would like to think.

Noone said that in first world nations, every citizen must be up to the firstworld standard.

What am I talking about? I'm talking about the twelve year olds that assembled your shoes for fifty cents an hour. They do not live within our territorial boundries, but with the advent of globalization, the cheap labor oversees has allowed the United States to create a higher standard of living for our citizens without having to do so for those in countries that we do our low skill manufacturing.

But we ARE doing so. Don't you realize, if those kids (and adults, too) weren't working for 50 cents an hour, they'd be making nothing at all. If there are higher paying jobs, why aren't they working in them instead? I know a teacher in Guyana. His monthly pay is 150 american dollars. In his country, thats a fair amount. His rent in a large city [for Guyana] is about half his pay. He lives quite comfortably in his own country, well within Guyana's middle class. Is he living a great life? Not compared to us, but he's living a better life than if he weren't making the dollar/hour he is. In thirdworld nations, 50 cents/hour is NOT bad.

The point here is that this model cannot exist if every nation lives at the same standard of living we do. So there are two options. We can continue the status quo or we can bring the rest of the world up to first world standards.

There was no bringing. Read the original post.

If we choose to do the later, then we need to accept the fact that low wage manufacturing will cease to exist. Everyone gets paid enough to live up to first world standards (which at the moment, not everyone in even the United States has)

I'm guessing that the conditions Mike envisioned were that there were enough jobs to support us in our firstworld pay rates.

and everyone also will need things like universal health care. Sound familiar? That's our good friend Socialism knocking at the door.

How the hell did universal health care get into this? Why do you socialism buffs always equate economic prosperity with mandatory health care? There is no reason why people must be forced to pay for health care. If it works well, then convince them to pay voluntarilly. If it doesn't, then stop pimping it.

Jesus H. Christ, why is it always a black and white fallacy when Socialism is brought up? I'm not trying to recreate Russian Communism here. Canada, Australia, Sweden and a smatter of other countries all institute Socialism to one degree or another. People who claim that Socialized medicine is bad on principle really need to get their heads out of their asses.

If it's so fantastic and the people love it, it doesn't need to be forced upon them, they would pay voluntarilly. Now tell me, if they didn't have to pay for it, do you think they would do so anyway, voluntarilly? If so, then you don't need the socialist aspect. If not, then they do not want it and you should get rid of it. There are no alternatives.

What I'm proposing is not to get rid of Capitalism, but that a large amount of the wealth in first world countries will need to be redistributed if everyone wants to live at a first world standard.

Noone was talking about wealth redistribution, dumb dumb. Just a theoretical magical change overnight. There is no effort made by anyone, it just happens. That's what Mike said.

[SirNitram]

I see Kojikun still doesn't get the connection of money to resources. Since the level of resources(And therefore wealth) will not change but the amount of money must(With the sudden snap to 1st world across the globe), massive inflation is more or less required.

I'm not even going to dignify your retarded 'We aren't going to run out of metal! The entire planet is made of iron!' comment with a true rebuttal.

[kojikun]

I see Kojikun still doesn't get the connection of money to resources. Since the level of resources(And therefore wealth) will not change but the amount of money must(With the sudden snap to 1st world across the globe), massive inflation is more or less required.

I never said there wouldnt be inflation, numb nuts.

I'm not even going to dignify your retarded 'We aren't going to run out of metal! The entire planet is made of iron!' comment with a true rebuttal.

Good thing, too, because it's very hard to have a rebuttal to fact. It's even harder when you add in the fact that we reuse steel in new construction. Steel goes nowhere but back into steel. And sometimes into scrap heaps when its cheaper to get it from a steel company.

[SirNitram]

I'm not even going to dignify your retarded 'We aren't going to run out of metal! The entire planet is made of iron!' comment with a true rebuttal.

Good thing, too, because it's very hard to have a rebuttal to fact. It's even harder when you add in the fact that we reuse steel in new construction. Steel goes nowhere but back into steel. And sometimes into scrap heaps when its cheaper to get it from a steel company.

You really are a moron, aren't you? Look at the numbers for how much iron, nickel, and other metals is used per capita. Multiply by new population of 1st worlders. Compare to amounts accessable. It's simple math, Kojikun.

[The Kernel]

Because of economic prosperity, not because of socialism or anything of the sort.

Where the fuck did you get that idea? Economic prosperity has created a much larger gulf between the middle class and the upper class then ever, not less.

Noone said that in first world nations, every citizen must be up to the firstworld standard.

Then what exactly is the definition of a first world nation in your mind if not to provide a higher quality of life for its citizens?

But we ARE doing so. Don't you realize, if those kids (and adults, too) weren't working for 50 cents an hour, they'd be making nothing at all. If there are higher paying jobs, why aren't they working in them instead? I know a teacher in Guyana. His monthly pay is 150 american dollars. In his country, thats a fair amount. His rent in a large city [for Guyana] is about half his pay. He lives quite comfortably in his own country, well within Guyana's middle class. Is he living a great life? Not compared to us, but he's living a better life than if he weren't making the dollar/hour he is. In thirdworld nations, 50 cents/hour is NOT bad.

I'm glad you have learned how to copy-paste the typical pro-WTO response to free trade. Too bad for you that it has nothing to do with my statement. What I said was that if other nations on Earth became first world, there would be no one to pay extreme-low wages to for low skilled manufacturing.

There was no bringing. Read the original post.

Gee, I decided to take a realistic scenario instead of assuming every country simply magically became first world.

I'm guessing that the conditions Mike envisioned were that there were enough jobs to support us in our firstworld pay rates.

What the fuck are you talking about and what does it have to do with the lack of 50-cent an hour jobs in a first world Earth?

How the hell did universal health care get into this? Why do you socialism buffs always equate economic prosperity with mandatory health care? There is no reason why people must be forced to pay for health care. If it works well, then convince them to pay voluntarilly. If it doesn't, then stop pimping it.

Social responsibility is a part of being a developed country dumbass. Ever hear of a little thing called schools? How about welfare?

If it's so fantastic and the people love it, it doesn't need to be forced upon them, they would pay voluntarilly. Now tell me, if they didn't have to pay for it, do you think they would do so anyway, voluntarilly? If so, then you don't need the socialist aspect. If not, then they do not want it and you should get rid of it. There are no alternatives.

Are you saying people should voluntarily pay taxes? I hate to tell you this but you pay for things like Social Security regardless of whether or not you collect on it. The vision that some people have of Social Security being some sort of trust fund for your future are just living in a fantasy world.

Noone was talking about wealth redistribution, dumb dumb. Just a theoretical magical change overnight. There is no effort made by anyone, it just happens. That's what Mike said.

I'm aware of that. However, he also asked whether people are lying when they say they want the third world to get better, so I decided to respond with a realistic scenario to better answer his question.

[Axis Kast]

Globalization is generally positive for all involved.

Even a trickle of American investment in, say, Ghana, can significantly alter existing economic hierarchies.

We don't want protectionism; better to take the savings kept when we purchase cheaper items produced overseas and reinvest in industries endemic to the First World (i.e. high-technology and computer or aerospace development) than waste money to save inefficiency at home.

[kojikun]

Where the fuck did you get that idea? Economic prosperity has created a much larger gulf between the middle class and the upper class then ever, not less.

And it has lowered the number of people in poverty. Your little socialist fantasy jerkoff land (Canada) has almost twice the poverty rate than the evil antisocialist US. Chew on it.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html
http://www.ccsd.ca/facts.html

Then what exactly is the definition of a first world nation in your mind if not to provide a higher quality of life for its citizens?

As far as I know, there is no definition beyond "industrialized capitalist nations like the united states and britain etc". No definition I've seen, however, has meant a nation where everyone is making $15/hour and shit like that.

I'm glad you have learned how to copy-paste the typical pro-WTO response to free trade. Too bad for you that it has nothing to do with my statement. What I said was that if other nations on Earth became first world, there would be no one to pay extreme-low wages to for low skilled manufacturing.

I don't pay attention to the WTO. Still don't know what it even does. Sorry if I read your post wrong, but it seemed rather anti-topical. But if you meant that modernization would destroy cheap labor, this is true. It would also force us to find other solutions (like automation).

Gee, I decided to take a realistic scenario instead of assuming every country simply magically became first world.

Start a new thread then. Or stick to the conditions of the original post.

What the fuck are you talking about and what does it have to do with the lack of 50-cent an hour jobs in a first world Earth?

It doesn't. I was simply making an observation. Chill.

Social responsibility is a part of being a developed country dumbass. Ever hear of a little thing called schools? How about welfare?

Social responsibility that must be forced? Bahaha. Real responsible there. And what responsibility do I have to someone else who I do not know and whos done nothing for me? To a person who I've done nothing to? None. I cannot take responsibility for something if there is no something. What you want to do is force me to support people who have not earned it.

Are you saying people should voluntarily pay taxes? I hate to tell you this but you pay for things like Social Security regardless of whether or not you collect on it. The vision that some people have of Social Security being some sort of trust fund for your future are just living in a fantasy world.

Yes, people should voluntarilly pay taxes, but it wouldnt happen overnight that theyd come to see it as a necessary way to secure their freedom. And I know we pay social security regardless. That does not change the fact that its a piece of shit that doesnt work.

I'm aware of that. However, he also asked whether people are lying when they say they want the third world to get better, so I decided to respond with a realistic scenario to better answer his question.

Well an answer to that would not inherently require wealth redistribution.

[kojikun]

To Nitram: Public concession of points.

[Patrick Degan]

Where the fuck did you get that idea? Economic prosperity has created a much larger gulf between the middle class and the upper class then ever, not less.

And it has lowered the number of people in poverty. Your little socialist fantasy jerkoff land (Canada) has almost twice the poverty rate than the evil antisocialist US. Chew on it.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html
http://www.ccsd.ca/facts.html

Um, a 16.2% Canadian poverty level is hardly "nearly twice" the US poverty level of 12.1%.

Social responsibility is a part of being a developed country dumbass. Ever hear of a little thing called schools? How about welfare?

Social responsibility that must be forced? Bahaha. Real responsible there. And what responsibility do I have to someone else who I do not know and who's done nothing for me? To a person who I've done nothing to? None. I cannot take responsibility for something if there is no something. What you want to do is force me to support people who have not earned it.

Nice little strawman, but that is not what the Kernel was arguing. And as for responsibilities, that's part of your membership in a civilised society. Sorry if that unpleasant to swallow, but that's the Real World for you.

Are you saying people should voluntarily pay taxes? I hate to tell you this but you pay for things like Social Security regardless of whether or not you collect on it. The vision that some people have of Social Security being some sort of trust fund for your future are just living in a fantasy world.

Yes, people should voluntarilly pay taxes, but it wouldnt happen overnight that they'd come to see it as a necessary way to secure their freedom. And I know we pay social security regardless. That does not change the fact that its a piece of shit that doesn't work.

Nice theory. Pity it relies upon the same basic assumption as Communism —perfect people in a perfect world all behaving perfectly.

[kojikun]

Um, a 16.2% Canadian poverty level is hardly "nearly twice" the US poverty level of 12.1%.

Ah, sorry. Point. I was looking at the urban numbers, it seems. But poverty rates are still higher in Canada, with it's amazing welfare system.

Nice little strawman, but that is not what the Kernel was arguing. And as for responsibilities, that's part of your membership in a civilised society. Sorry if that unpleasant to swallow, but that's the Real World for you.

You cannot be responsible for things you have not done. Why is it my responsibility to support someone else?

Nice theory. Pity it relies upon the same basic assumption as Communism ?perfect people in a perfect world all behaving perfectly.

Thats why taxes would be the last thing to go, if at all. At best, they're a necessary evil.

[Slartibartfast]

So are people lying when they say they'd like the third world to get better?

That's a fact. I get to watch it from the front row.

[Axis Kast]

Most of those who appear at anti-globalization rallies have absolutely no conception of how globalism really functions - or what it actually means. If they did, they'd be praising things like the G8, not throwing grapling hooks at wire barriers.

[Patrick Degan]

Um, a 16.2% Canadian poverty level is hardly "nearly twice" the US poverty level of 12.1%.

Ah, sorry. Point. I was looking at the urban numbers, it seems. But poverty rates are still higher in Canada, with it's amazing welfare system.

Gee, by a whopping 4%. Yep, massive difference there...

Nice little strawman, but that is not what the Kernel was arguing. And as for responsibilities, that's part of your membership in a civilised society. Sorry if that unpleasant to swallow, but that's the Real World for you.[/quote]

You cannot be responsible for things you have not done. Why is it my responsibility to support someone else?[/quote]

Because it's what helps maintain socioeconomic stability, for a start. Enlightened self-interest; having a society without a massive disparity in income/wealth is better than living in a society riven by economic and societal unrest or, in extreme cases, tilting toward revolution.

Nice theory. Pity it relies upon the same basic assumption as Communism ?perfect people in a perfect world all behaving perfectly.

Thats why taxes would be the last thing to go, if at all. At best, they're a necessary evil.

And where did you get that nice bit of drivel?