Direct Action. What'd you think?

Heh. I've covered this like 30 times.

I don't drink coffee. It tastes like ass. I drink tea occasionally - I go through cycles.

Today I actually had relatively little caffeine. But some things fire me up.

[jet_silver]

[F]irst world lifestyles are supported by third world poverty...

How does this follow? I see two conditions:

1) One or more first world countries HAS contact with a given third world one;

2) NO first world country has contact with a given third world one.

Condition 1 is easy, look at China. Until about fifteen years ago would you seriously argue they belonged to the first world? Hell, even now the -average- Chinese doesn't have a wristwatch. So we go from next-to-no contact with the first world, to an orgy of trade. Are the Chinese now worse off? Au contraire. Life expectancy up, infant deaths down, industry drawing people from the countryside.

Condition 2 is easy too. Albania. Until King Zog (love that name) fell, Albanians had little food, next to no industry, and their recreation consisted mainly of killing other Albanians. King Zog fell, the walls came down, and life got better until the government was felled by a Ponzi scheme that got out of control.

Third world poverty is created mainly by -governments-. It's true that a first-world government is just as efficient as a third-world one at keeping the population poor, but it's mainly governments that do it. Look at Madagascar. The Malagasy government will -not- lend money to locals because they don't understand business, but they'll lend money to -foreigners- for economic development. Next, look at all the Central African countries whose armies mainly are thieves, and which won't develop even paved -roads-. (The infrastructure in much of Africa was installed by the first world, and when they left the infrastructure was left alone, to decay. See Laura Resnick, "A Blonde in Africa".)

Specific, verifiable counter-examples, Jag?

[jaguar]

Condition 1 is easy, look at China. Until about fifteen years ago would you seriously argue they belonged to the first world? Hell, even now the -average- Chinese doesn't have a wristwatch. So we go from next-to-no contact with the first world, to an orgy of trade. Are the Chinese now worse off? Au contraire. Life expectancy up, infant deaths down, industry drawing people from the countryside.

SIghs
Thankyou for proviing my point. Its cheaply made chinese products imported to america that allow for that high quality of life - if they were all made in the US they'd cost 10x as much and therefore not be commonly availaible. Its made possible by third world wages being a frraction of first world ones for similar work.

In a sense it does slowly spread some wealth, but only after alot of kicking and screaming every cent of the way.

That is the key point i was making.

[Undertoad]

I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Think about it another way: people who are middle class just aren't going to do those repetitive and boring jobs any longer. So manufacturers have to look elsewhere for cheap labor. But if they couldn't find that labor overseas, they'd likely just automate, and now nobody gets those few dollars.

It's like - McDonald's restaurants are staffed by high schoolers, for the most part; it's cheap labor and gives the young a nice introduction to the working world, learning how not to be late and such. But if those young'uns were not available, McDonald's could easily take those manual methods and automate them.

This has always been the case. When labor gets too expensive, it is not replaced by other labor. Cars are not welded by hand any longer. 20 years ago circuits were hand-soldered, now they are all done by machine.

As cheap labor gets harder to find, automation improves. And if cheap labor were really hard to find, automation would be an economic priority. IT workers currently make their buck by automating processes and data movement, but we could just as easily work at automating manufacturing.

Word to the "more complicated".

As far as us using Chinese stuff and it keeping them in poverty... I think the point was that the trade with China has helped them a lot. And it has. Yes, we get cheaper labor there. But just because it's cheaper labor doesn't mean that we're keeping the society down. Sticky, complicated issue. I'm not sure that anyone really has the answer. But there are bigger problems in China than how much someone's getting paid to make Hello Kitty dolls...

[jaguar]

I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Think about it another way: people who are middle class just aren't going to do those repetitive and boring jobs any longer. So manufacturers have to look elsewhere for cheap labor. But if they couldn't find that labor overseas, they'd likely just automate, and now nobody gets those few dollars.

Most of the western world is +70% secondary and in some cases nearly 50% teridatory economices - thats services and manufacturing. Automation is not viable for allot of things, its simply far too expensive - whether thsoe goods were made by machine here or not they'd still cost one hell of alot more if they didn't use dirt/slavery cheap labour in third world countries. As much of Asia does develop its going ot create an interesting vacuum as these companies such as Nike, Boeing and manymany other smaller companies have to find new labour markets to exploit.

I never said/meant to say evilevil first world nations were purposely keeping counties in poverty, although there are cases...All I stated was that third world labour markets allow for a higher quality of life in the west - nothing else.

[jet_silver]

Jag, if you said "The first world has more stuff when it trades with the third" I would agree in the sense of three TVs instead of one, six pairs of sneakers instead of one, steel at half the price of Inland Steel's product, and so on.

However, I quoted you accurately the first time, and since the context was pretty hard to scramble in a one-liner, here it is again.

F]irst world lifestyles are supported by third world poverty.

If every person in the third world -disappeared-, or come to that, if it all -sank under the ocean-, therefore, first world lifestyles would ... come on, class ... what?

I assert that very little would happen to first world lifestyles. Markets for commodities would be distorted. Some ores (e.g. tantalum) would become hard to get out of the ground for a while. Spices, coffee - the things sixteenth-century navigation set out to get - would be more or less gone. Clothing - aye, there's the rub. Clothing would be expensive. But as far as the first world's standards of hygiene, life expectancy, production, power consumption and money wasted on corporate amusement are concerned I bet little would change.

Perhaps it is (belatedly) time for us to Define Our Terms. I'll be happy to accept your definition, Jag, of the third world. If you'll define it I think what I say in the fifth graph is defensible, pretty much regardless of where you say the third world begins.

The phrase with which I took exception implies that the first world is somehow -dependent- on the third. I believe that the inverse is true, at least to the extent that a decrease in contact would lead to a decrease in quality of life.

Well, just so you know...

all of the clothing I wear (and I do mean all, except for my shoes, which are made in Britain) are made in the U.S.A. I think we could adjust to the third world catching up - some things would be more expensive, yeah. But a lot of us would just keep buying USA made shit. And I'm sure a lot of people would switch too. 'Cause now it would be cheaper (no import taxes, etc). Anyway, I don't think clothing would be all that affected in the long run...

[elSicomoro]

*looks at his t-shirt* Wow...it's made in the States...god I love Adidas!

Truth be told, I don't give much thought to that sort of thing. I don't get mad when GM and Ford take jobs to Mexico. Hell, my last car (a 1988 Chevy Caprice) was made in Ste-Therese, Quebec. When I was young and ignorant, I probably would have cared more.

Granted, I don't want to see hard-working Americans lose their jobs. When I worked in Trenton, I used to pass by the old GM plant in Ewing Township a lot. But I get so fucking sick of people who bitch about Mexicans working in hidden sweatshops in the US, and about labor going outside the US. Businesses are in it to a) offer a product and b) make money. First, those Mexicans in the US are doing work that most Americans wouldn't even THINK of doing for $5.15 an hour (or less). Secondly, those jobs going to other countries saves us money. If we kept those jobs in the States, the costs would skyrocket. We'd be paying a lot more for our cars, our gasoline, our clothes, etc. And then people would bitch about the high cost of living.

I'm not saying I like it...but it's business, baby. Not to mention, I just want to grit my teeth on occasion, given that I live in a strong pro-Union city.

[jaguar]

I assert that very little would happen to first world lifestyles. Markets for commodities would be distorted. Some ores (e.g. tantalum) would become hard to get out of the ground for a while. Spices, coffee - the things sixteenth-century navigation set out to get - would be more or less gone. Clothing - aye, there's the rub. Clothing would be expensive. But as far as the first world's standards of hygiene, life expectancy, production, power consumption and money wasted on corporate amusement are concerned I bet little would change.

You don't seem to realsie jsut how much is made third world...If you went round your house and itiimsed every item and where it was made you'd get a pretty damn long list. Probably a serious proportion of clothes, appliances or part of them more often), shoes, building materials, parts of your car often, parts of *so many* things its not funny. If they all had to be manufactured in the first world the cost would be anything from 2x to 20x, the impact on price - huge resulting in many not being able to afford things they previously took for granted. Forget primary resources - i'm speaking purely in labour terms - and the fact is we exploit cheaper overseas labour to lower costs - therefore without that cheper labour first world costs in a very large spectrum of good world be markedly higher.

Originally posted by jaguar

You don't seem to realsie jsut how much is made third world...If you went round your house and itiimsed every item and where it was made you'd get a pretty damn long list. Probably a serious proportion of clothes, appliances or part of them more often), shoes, building materials, parts of your car often, parts of *so many* things its not funny. If they all had to be manufactured in the first world the cost would be anything from 2x to 20x, the impact on price - huge resulting in many not being able to afford things they previously took for granted. Forget primary resources - i'm speaking purely in labour terms - and the fact is we exploit cheaper overseas labour to lower costs - therefore without that cheper labour first world costs in a very large spectrum of good world be markedly higher.

First -

You can't really assert that I have a lot of third-world made things. To be honest, I really probably don't - I have lots of computer shit, and, uh... American made clothes. Shoes/boots from England. That's really about it. I'm going to buy a Volvo car, which made all in Sweden.

Sure, some things, though, probably come from really really cheap labor. Is this an injustice? We can't really know. In Botswana, I'm sure the local bosses aren't paying the equivalent of USD $5.15/hour for minimum wage either... they're just not making enough money. It's all about looking at the context. Fact of the matter is, some places, the dollar goes a hell of a lot farther. So they may be making great money *for where they live* - we simply can't know.

Now. Suppose their labor price went up. Look at it this way.

Imagine Apple computers had their stuff manufactured in, uh, Malaysia or something. And instead of paying some guy $15/hour to assemble computers here, they're paying some dude in Malaysia $3/hour. Imagine it takes about, oh, we'll round up and say TWO WHOLE HOURS to put a machine together (which it doesn't, unless you're grossly slow or you're taking pictures). Therefore, their cost is $6 per computer for the actual assembly process. Now, if he gets a raise to, say, $10/hour 'cause he's doing good work (and that's probably good money over there - shit, it's not half bad for over here), it costs Apple $20/computer, or $14 more.

So, they raise the price of each box from $1,699 to $1,713.

BFD.

Fact of the matter is, I don't think the prices would increase *that much* - all the business has to do is increase the prices to suit the added labor cost. Since labor is such a small part of manufacturing like that, I really don't see it as driving costs up so high. Seriously.

[jet_silver]

Well, I understand that there are things in my house that are made in China (shower curtain), Hungary (light bulbs), Philippines (rubber slippers), and Brazil (clothing). Last night I had asparagus from Peru. I would like to stop having an argument based on perception and start having one based on a few facts. The argument that "there's stuff in your house that's made in the third world" is correct, but that -certainly- doesn't prove that anything insidious went on to beat the goods out of the hides of the workers or deprive them of an improved life. Further, the fact that e.g. rubber slippers -can- be made in the Philippines is not conclusive evidence that if the Philippines disappeared, I wouldn't have rubber slippers.

I didn't say that things wouldn't cost more. I -did- assert that that increase in cost won't materially affect lifestyle.

Would you consider defining your terms? The terms that need defining are:

"lifestyle" and how it is related to the volume of stuff you have, or whether a lifestyle has anything to do with statistical measures like life expectancy;

"third world" (probably easiest to define in terms of GNP per capita, but again you get to decide);

"poverty" (whether in equivalent dollars or in purchasing power).

I don't mean to be petty, but I -do- mean to cast a lot of doubt on your assertion, Jag, and I would prefer to do it deliberately and logically.

[jaguar]

ohh i love setting definitions for debates.

Lifestyle:Without being too vauge the quality of life you cna sustain on your currant income - how often you go out to eat, how much you can afford to buy that kind of thing.

Third world: As officially defined by (shit forgoten name of organisation - ill edit this in later) THis once again is lsightly relative, most hthe work i'm talking about is in asia and south american countries.

Poverty: Relative living conditions compared to the first world.

The argument that "there's stuff in your house that's made in the third world" is correct, but that -certainly- doesn't prove that anything insidious went on to beat the goods out of the hides of the workers or deprive them of an improved life. Further, the fact that e.g. rubber slippers -can- be made in the Philippines is not conclusive evidence that if the Philippines disappeared, I wouldn't have rubber slippers.

I never stated it was depriving them of a better quality of life - quite the opposite, the oppotunities that forgin inventment bring to third wolrd counties eventiully flow back to an imporived quality of life for the local populace.
I never said if the places dissipeared so would hte good, but they'd have to be made in the first world at a higher cost.

You can't really assert that I have a lot of third-world made things. To be honest, I really probably don't - I have lots of computer shit, and, uh... American made clothes. Shoes/boots from England. That's really about it. I'm going to buy a Volvo car, which made all in Sweden.

First thigns first - made in america on the label can often men that it was merely packaged in america or one part of it comes from america - its a very often abused term. These goods aren't often obvious and most are parts of other products that may easily be lsited as made in america.

To give an idea of the scale of the sheer volume of goods that the first world imports i had a look at the offical China goverment foriegn trade pagestatisics .

US$22.1BILLION dollars woth of exports in June 2000 alone - pretty impressive volume. Allot of that comes from the over 1000 wholely forign owned enterpirses that have invested heavily in China over thelast few years. Why? To exploit cheap labour. To to play mathamatics with thsoe figures towork out some kind of estimated increased cost of those good if manufactured in the first would woudl of course be absolutely foolish but ot argue that these goods have little impact on our lives is clearly not the case. Remember this is for China alone, one of many.

China isn't exactly "one of many". It's more like "The Biggest." Just like Microsoft isn't "Just a Software Maker".

Those stats probably are true, which, I guess, just shows the MASSIVE amount of money that the US puts into China's economy.

[jaguar]

Those stats probably are true, which, I guess, just shows the MASSIVE amount of money that the US puts into China's economy.

Yea - i agree, if anything it reinforces my point - that investment money isn't there for the kind and open government you know.