At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.
More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.
The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world
According to UNICEF, 26,500-30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.
Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
If current trends continue, the Millennium Development Goals target of halving the proportion of underweight children will be missed by 30 million children, largely because of slow progress in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan
Based on enrolment data, about 72 million children of primary school age in the developing world were not in school in 2005; 57 per cent of them were girls. And these are regarded as optimistic numbers.
Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.
Infectious diseases continue to blight the lives of the poor across the world. An estimated 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 3 million deaths in 2004. Every year there are 350–500 million cases of malaria, with 1 million fatalities: Africa accounts for 90 percent of malarial deaths and African children account for over 80 percent of malaria victims worldwide.
A Global Minimum Wage would end all of this…….
February 18, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Actually, it wouldn’t. It’s been proven time and time again that all minimum wage does, is make sure that those previously working for less than minimum wage will lose their jobs. Not to say that we shouldn’t fight to end poverty, but regulation is not the way.
I read an article about a cambodian family who lived in a dump site for trash. They spent their days scouring garbage for things that they could use, eat or sell. Their biggest dream? That their kids would some day be able to get a job in a “sweat-shop”, where they could work for a couple of dollars per day. Poverty is relative, and the best way to end poverty is to let market forces work. Europe also had child labour, horrible working conditions and almost starvation salaries once. We didn’t come from there by demanding that there was a minimum wage. We came from there through striving upwards, and allowing people to work their way up. As sad as it is that some countries are still below the poverty line, it can’t be regulated away. Micro-loans is something that has seemingly worked pretty well.
//hpx Save capitalism
February 19, 2009 at 8:27 am
hpx
Firstly thanks for the comment, I appreciate the opportunity to have a wider debate.
It has not been proven that having a minimum wage puts people out of work, as wages increase in a society soi does demand for commodities. If 80% of the worlds population had $20 a day to live on then there would be more money being spent, thus more demand. It has been proven that the poor spend more of their income than the rich (for obvious reasons)and it is therefore these people who can get the global economy out of its current over production problem.
I agree with you that Europe had similar problems of starvation wages, and child labour and poor working conditions. However it was not a noble working class ‘striving upwards’ that changed the situation, rather it was as series of social and political measures which changed things. In the UK the introduction of the Poor Law, compulsory child education and legal minimum working age and conditions came about due to liberal Parliamentary Change, and of course the rise of the unions and the Labour Party. The minimum wage and effective collective bargaining act as check and balance for the excesses of raw capitalism, and force the wider social issues. If one translated the legislative system of the USA or Europe on to developing countries most poverty would end, through regulation. The idea that there isn’t enough money to go around is ridiculous, look at the benefits to the global economy of the emerging eastern giants, stimulating demand for commodities and forcing us to reassess our notions as consumers and suppliers.
February 20, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I do not mind a wider debate, I much prefer it instead of the usual pointless “clashing of opinions” people engage in.
The main problem as I see it is that you aren’t pissed off. Because I am. You see, there is an error in economic thinking that still has to be put to death, because it is going to wreak havoc on the world economy like never before.
You state that if 80% of the worlds population had $20 per day there would be more money going around, more demand which equals the economy going forward. This is because we have been indoctrined to think that demand drives the economy. It doesn’t – production does. Demand is endless – we all want a better and more pleasant everyday life.
The problem is – if we just gave everyone $20 more for their daily work, we would just get inflation. Everything would cost more directly related to the increase in wages. Because raising wages does not raise production. And while there is a case to make for poor people having more money, it isn’t as simple as just taking money from the rich, and give it to the poor. Avoiding the moral debate of redistribution, there is still the problem that removing the money from the rich will remove them from investments (because most rich people do not keep their money in matress, instead in a bank, that uses it to invest in the overall economy), which would lead to a production decrease that would once again lead to prices going up, and the poor will only temporary be better off, after which everyone is equal, or worse off.
The reason that the European and US economy is striving is not these regulations, quite the contrary. The reason we can have these regulations is because we can afford the negative effect they have on the economy. In the end – we would be better off if the regulations wheren’t there, because a free economy will move much faster than a restricted. For a comparison between economic freedom and the amount of people that are brought out of poverty, I will refer to Johan Norbergs “In Defence of World Capitalism”, which clearly shows a connection between the amount of economic freedom, and how fast the poorest gain wealth as a result thereof.
The problem (or the benefit, depending on if you want long-term sustainable growth, or a short term growth followed by a steady decline) for poor countries, is that they cannot afford minimum wage. It simply restricts the economy too much.
There is indeed enough money to go around, and I agree with much of the criticism about the wealth being unevenly distributed – not because it is unfair – but because it is due to a fraudulent system. It isn’t capitalism that is to blame, but “cronyism”, which is being practiced in all sectors of the economy, especially finance and banking. Crony-ism is what happens when governments regulate to the extent that there is much more money to be made by knowing the right people, and avoiding regulation, than actually producing wealth. This can be seen in workers wages – since the crony has much more benefit from being friends with the government through lobbying or right-out bribery, there is no reason for him to pay workers high enough wages to make them motivated to outcompete his opponents. Since everyone fights for being the top crony, the capitalistic mechanisms are largely put out of play.
An example – take an asian farmer. His best way of producing wealth is if he is allowed to own the land he works on. Only then will he try and save some of his hard-earned few dollars to invest in better equipment and better ways to farm his land, because he knows he will get to keep it. Production will slowly increase, and he will become wealthier. When he realizes that any workers he hires will work better if they are well fed, has somewhere decent to live and are motivated to do their best – his workers welfare becomes his own – and thus he will invest in his workers salaries to further enable his own output and subsequent wealth to grow. Take a number of farmers like this, and the one paying the best wages will quickly become the most successful.
Think about it – how did we get from the stoneages to here? Volountary trade, division of labour, the belief in property rights. Capitalism.
This comment is getting long, but I will gladly keep discussing.