There are hundreds of millions of chinese and indians who would disagree with you. But I guess they don't count.
70 k/a salary: alot of money?
- Thread starter malboro_man
- Start date
There are hundreds of millions of chinese and indians who would disagree with you. But I guess they don't count.
Really, I didn't realize that Apple pays a living wage to their Chinese employees and that Adobe has call centers in India in order to pay top dollar.
In China, the average annual income is $2,100. The top 5% earn 23% of all income. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/world/asia/survey-in-china-shows-wide-income-gap.html?_r=0
In India, the average annual income soared in 2011, thanks to inflation, to just over $1,000. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ome-crosses-Rs-50000/articleshow/11707030.cms
So, it is different over there. Just like here, the rich get richer, but the poor just stay poor.
None of which actually contradicts the massively swelling middle class in both those countries.
But I guess I was wrong. It isn't that you don't care because non whites are getting richer. You don't care because it contradicts your pre concived hate mongering ideological view of the world.
But hey if I am anything I am tolerant. Here is some fapping material for you from the cover of Utne Reader. http://www.minnpost.com/sites/default/files/asset/0/064yhq/064yhq.jpg
BTW from the indian article. What matters is the increase in per capita in 2004-05 prices, which is growing at 6.4%.
Also call center jobs in India pay very well and are highly valued. They pay a very livable wage for India.
As for the Chinese article it seems the big take away message is that coastal regions are doing much better than the interior. You know, where those evil apple jobs are.
"Average annual income for a family in 2012 was 13,000 renminbi, or about $2,100. When broken down by geography, the survey results showed that the average amount in Shanghai, a huge coastal city, was just over 29,000 renminbi, or $4,700, while the average in Gansu Province, far from the coast in northwest China, was 11,400 renminbi, or just under $2,000. Average family income in urban areas was about $2,600, while it was $1,600 in rural areas."
"The survey results underscore some of the economic challenges confronting the Communist Party as a result of the growth policies that party leaders have pushed over the decades. The policies have lifted millions from poverty, but have resulted in an uneven distribution of wealth, which was one of the glaring problems of early-20th-century China and contributed to the success of the Communist revolution. "
Lifitng people out of poverty. Hmmm kinda like what I was saying. Hard to get lifted out of poverty without getting moar money. But I suppose they would be better sending 8 year olds to break bricks by hand rather then work in a call center for much more pay.
So lets recap.
I've reestablished yet again your rather pathetic reading skills which seem more devoted to establishing preconcived notions rather then what the text actually says.
Your own links show that people are getting richer and I donno, I think I'll go out on a limb and say that lower poverty levels is a good thing for poor people. I'm a bit of a **** that way.
Also how can you not know of the growing Asian middle class and progress made in poverty reduction?
Getting all your information from the Micheal Moores of the world as opposed to the Rush Limbaughs of the world doesn't actually make you an informed person and not just because both people are characters created and played by America's greatest actor Fred Savage.
All that being said I suspect there is at least a partical link between globalisation and the stagnent wages one sees in middle and lower incomes in the first world for reasons it is utterly pointless to go into.
Interesting that you think $2,100 is a middle class wage. Guess that puts you pretty much in line with Mitt Romney.
And that you don't bold the "uneven distribution of wealth" phrase. Well, guess you gotta keep 'em down, eh? So now we know what "wasisname" really is: Mr. Bain Capital. Sorry, Mitt, $2,100 is an exploitation wage in Chicoutimi or Shanghai or Chennai.
And that you don't bold the "uneven distribution of wealth" phrase. Well, guess you gotta keep 'em down, eh? So now we know what "wasisname" really is: Mr. Bain Capital. Sorry, Mitt, $2,100 is an exploitation wage in Chicoutimi or Shanghai or Chennai.
Somalia
Egypt
Guatemala
Afghanistan
Kenya
Mexico
Israel
Greece
Colombia
Yemen
Sudan
etc.
Hope all is well inside your walled village, dude.
Gentlemen,
First, I have no intention to get involved in the details of this argument you are fighting about.
It all depends how narrowly or broadly you look at it. Every country and society has big ups and downs as the decades pass, or within decades, and you can always look at one country or a region on one or a few issues during a period and say it was a happier or better time back then and it's worse now. But overall worldwide it's simply irrefutable regarding all areas of concern that the human race is generally better off since World War II or even since the end of the "Cold War" than any time in it's history. If you don't see that then I would say you haven't been a student of broad detailed world history and really don't have the broad perspective needed to make a definitive statement or provide and informed opinion. .
You certainly can make a point about gross conditions in many countries and specific monstrous tragedies. But because most people usually know plenty about their own lives and little about how human being lived in the past, especially the long past before their own lives, it's easy to look at current troubles that weigh on them, and get nostalgic about the past. Never has so many had as much access to good medicines and health, access to social, political, and legal redress, technological advances of every kind, etc, etc, etc.
I certainly agree with many details Rumples and JSB have cited. But to take that and say conclusively the world is worse than before...well what do you mean by..."before". Comparing some close decades you might be able to make a point some things are worse. Comparing issues over a short time, same thing. But if any one thing speaks to the trend in the human condition it's life expectancy, and that trend cannot be denied.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
Now I'm sure everyone has a pet ax (axes) to grind. Just remember there's a lot more to consider than your big anxieties of what's wrong. It's called all those things that are going right.
Cheers,
Merlot
First, I have no intention to get involved in the details of this argument you are fighting about.
It all depends how narrowly or broadly you look at it. Every country and society has big ups and downs as the decades pass, or within decades, and you can always look at one country or a region on one or a few issues during a period and say it was a happier or better time back then and it's worse now. But overall worldwide it's simply irrefutable regarding all areas of concern that the human race is generally better off since World War II or even since the end of the "Cold War" than any time in it's history. If you don't see that then I would say you haven't been a student of broad detailed world history and really don't have the broad perspective needed to make a definitive statement or provide and informed opinion. .
You certainly can make a point about gross conditions in many countries and specific monstrous tragedies. But because most people usually know plenty about their own lives and little about how human being lived in the past, especially the long past before their own lives, it's easy to look at current troubles that weigh on them, and get nostalgic about the past. Never has so many had as much access to good medicines and health, access to social, political, and legal redress, technological advances of every kind, etc, etc, etc.
I certainly agree with many details Rumples and JSB have cited. But to take that and say conclusively the world is worse than before...well what do you mean by..."before". Comparing some close decades you might be able to make a point some things are worse. Comparing issues over a short time, same thing. But if any one thing speaks to the trend in the human condition it's life expectancy, and that trend cannot be denied.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
Now I'm sure everyone has a pet ax (axes) to grind. Just remember there's a lot more to consider than your big anxieties of what's wrong. It's called all those things that are going right.
Cheers,
Merlot
Merlot, my point was not about life expectancy or about the general quality of life on Planet Earth, both of which are, I suspect, at all time highs. Certainly I consider myself among the luckiest people who have ever walked the Earth. On the other hand, we live on a planet which might very well be uninhabitable within the next few generations.
My point was about the growing disparity of wealth in North America which is at a level not known since before the Great Depression.
My point was about the growing disparity of wealth in North America which is at a level not known since before the Great Depression.
Hello Rumps,
As I said, I agree with this statement. It's a grave danger signal, and not a new one. Historically it's happened many times and it's always been a critical signal of great social, political, and economic danger looming. It's far from the only grave danger as you mentioned.
Damn. I'm going to run for male sweetheart of the year.
Cheers,
Merlot
Ok then we will compare apples with apples in 1981 I bought my first bungalow in St Eustache,brand new ,8000sq feet,street corner,garage,field stone facade,finished basement for 44000$ How much do you think the same bungalow sells for today? Maybe around 450k,so we are back at square one ,its not only the plateau
Take a look at this site on the plateau ranging from 6000$ a month to 400$ a month http://location.duproprio.com/index...ltats&pr=1&re=6&cat=residentiel&tri=prix_desc
What I was saying is that today property access for young people is very very expensive!
Take a look at this site on the plateau ranging from 6000$ a month to 400$ a month http://location.duproprio.com/index...ltats&pr=1&re=6&cat=residentiel&tri=prix_desc
What I was saying is that today property access for young people is very very expensive!
Most people get firewalled into their views. Period. Not just politcs. Diet, weightlifting, a whole lot of areas I am not aware of no doubt.
There are exceptions and you can find them everywhere on the political spectrum. People who don't shoehorn all evidence into their prefered outcome. Authors who are willing to admit that their position can be argued from another position in a legitimate factor. Who will bring up counter arguements even if they have no way to address them. It is very possible to disagree for the right reasons. People have different preferecnes after all. I'd rather discuss with such a person even if I disagree with them as opposed to someone I agree with but who doesn't have a clue. It isn't that you can learn more from someone who you disagree with. I've had pointless debates in real life that were pointless because even though we disagreed we knew where the other person was coming from and were informed enough of the issues that we learn nothing new and could have just debated with ourselves. The advantage of discussion with such a person is that you don't get that anoying face palm moments that you do with people who agree with you from a position of ignorance. Or at least I get that face palming "I sure hope you don't try to convince other people because you just make us look bad" type reaction. Nothing worse than talking to someone, first thinking you found a kindred spirit and then coming to the sad realization that their positions come from a position of deep ignorance. Well I suppose cancer, prison gang rape, Justin Bieber or the holocaust are worst, but still.
But thats just me. I am a bit of a freak.
Similar threads
