My whole disagreement is with the idea that quality of life had decreased because of globalization.
But it has - if you measure the pre-industrialization quality of life of countries beginning industrialization post ~1990, they are generally lower than what these countries had pre-industrialization.
If you look at countries that had begun industrialization before the 1990s, they generally saw a continued increase in their quality of life as they industrialized.
The difference between then and now is largely ascribed to the effects of globalization - other factors have remained largely the same.
Decreased from what it was before, not from what it might have been if nurtured with all the right kinds of aid.
Ironically, aid is one of the biggest problems in this situation. Food provided by aid agencies is free - hard for farmers and companies to compete with that. Clothes provided by aid agencies is free - hard for tailors, weavers and the like to compete with that. Housing provided by aid agencies is generally free - hard for carpenters, construction workers, sawmills, etc, to compete for that.
Aid is a very good thing in times of distress. But if carried on too long, or given away in an inappropriate environment, it can do far more harm than good.
Its the ol' "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life" issue.
picture - these countries are actively trying to industrialize. So its not a choice between stay
I'm missing it on purpose because it's not part of this discussion which is based on the first paragraph above. Such people don't particularly need to be industrialized, they were fine the way they were (so you imply).[/quote]
I don't think I ever implied that. Industrialization will occur no matter what we do - governments want the income it brings, people want the goods its brings, etc. So pretending it isn't going to happen (or doesn't "need" to happen) is just a way of avoiding reality.
What aspect of globalization caused 'independent agrarian people' to become 'destitute'? Still no answer to that. Urbanization isn't an answer unless it comes with 'forced eviction', but that's a minor one.
I gave several answers, all of which you ignored. I will direct you to my post #36288 for the list. I also provided several academic papers that analyzed these factors in depth.
The simple solution is if you're so poor and overworked, quit your job in the sweatshop and go support yourself on your family farm. That's the fundamental problem I can never solve. You can't solve it either.
It's easy to solve, and I have described the solution previously. Farms are not free - you need to buy land, tool, etc. So if you live in a city, are destitute, and have a job which provides less $$$ than it takes to meet your basic needs, you'll never be able to buy a farm.
I have a suspicion that 'support yourself on your family farm' is not an idyllic romp in the countryside
Nor did I ever say it was. The measure here is quality of life, which has fairly well accepted definitions in the aid and academic "worlds". While the risks of things like crop failure is an obvious "drag" on a quality of life index, the "urban option" is a continual inability to meet your basic needs. So the comparison is basically:
farm: risk of transitory failures, but usually able to meet basic needs
urban: lesser risk of transitory failing's, but at the cost of a continued inability to meet basic needs
Which means a sweatshop can be better for the individual. Why else would he choose to go there?
Sweatshops are only better if they provide a higher quality of life - which, as those papers I provided earlier show, is rarely the case.
You continue to confuse the difference between income and quality of life - the former is not a measure of the latter. The latter is what matters.
I provided several achedemic papers that analyze that very
They didn't help you understand it, so I'm not going to spend my time probably getting just as nowhere.
So basically you're saying that because you don't like my opinion, you are going to refuse to look at the
factual base upon which that opinion is based.
Gotta love the ostrich approach - put your head in the sand and ignore the world around you!
Bryan
