How do sweatshops contribute to poverty in the global economy?

[loseyourname]

I'm pretty sure Russ understands nature, but Russ is an ethicist. He isn't concerned with the way things are in nature, he is concerned with the way things ought to be in the course of human endeavor. Most ethicists will tell you that they are not the same thing.

 

[NoahAfrican]

Many people understand concpets...but that does not mean that they put that understanding to practical application. What are the "ethics" of nature...other than survival and reproduction?

 

[Locrian]

> I had a biostatistician look at last 150 years of life tables from
> Metropolitan Life, and his conclusion: If you survived the first 3 days
> after birth in 1930, your life expectancy was within 6 months of what it
> is now, despite all the heart surgery and chemotherapy... "

It is my understanding from many credible sources that this is generally
correct, although to hear all the doctors and drug companies talk, you
would never know it.

I find the above post rather difficult to interpret; Russ states that 100 years ago, our life expectancy was not as good. The above post suggests that this claim is somewhat unfounded and provides evidence from seventy years ago. Since there were important changes in society between 1904 and 1930, this post doesn't suggest to me that Russ was incorrect, though the clarification is appreciated.

Whereas I believe you can make a strong case that much of modern medicine has done little for our life expectancy, there can be no doubt that modern infrastructure has made huge progress. Adittionally, I have not seen in this thread where anyone is arguing that modern drugs are soley responsible for an increase in life expectancy, but I do see where people are arguing that modern society - including technology - is responsible. The result mentioned in the above quote suprises me not at all; most of the really major infrastructure advancements that come with civilization had already occurred by then. Advances in plumbing, trash disposal and other health needs had already been made. Hunter/Gather societies do not have these things, and therefore do not have nearly as long a life expectancy.

In short, if you consider longer life expectancy a positive thing, then our modern society should be viewed positively in that regard.

 

[Locrian]

What are the "ethics" of nature...other than survival and reproduction?

Heh. Exactly.

Now you understand why we spend so much time "evaluating the pleasure and longevity of a particular life, under a particular form of economics" rather than just caring about how NATURE acts, as you put it.

Because to do otherwise would be unethical.

 

[loseyourname]

Heh. Exactly.

Now you understand why we spend so much time "evaluating the pleasure and longevity of a particular life, under a particular form of economics" rather than just caring about how NATURE acts, as you put it.

Because to do otherwise would be unethical.

I'm not so sure that Noah does get it. I have the impression he is saying that survival and reproduction of a certain gene line are the only ends we should strive for, and that quality of life really doesn't matter.

 

[Mandrake]

If you were a true scholar Russ, you would realize ...

This person is speaking of a "true scholar?" This is the person who wrote:

Had we simply grew up in a different culture, we would have been conditioned to be of another religion.

Even a high school "scholar" could compose a grammatically correct sentence.

People in Africa may have a low life expectancy….but they have triple the rates of reproduction and population growth than does wealthier more advanced peoples….and by the laws of natural selection, they are biologically stronger due to the resistance they face and genetically mutating and evolving to survive. Thus, they are actually more successful than the West.

As Rushton has pointed out for the past 10 years, humans differ in the r-K scale as do different species. Insects, for example, have taken the r-strategy of high reproduction, no care for the young, and short lifespan. Mammals, generally tend towards the K-strategy, which is opposite. Among mammals, rabbits are at the r-strategy end, while elephants are at the K-strategy end. The same strategies have been seen in different forms between Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids. Every pertinent biological factor that separates these groups lines up in exactly the same order.

 

[Dayle Record]

According to the work of Elaine Pagels, in the book "The Chalice And The Blade", the peoples of Northern Europe enjoyed an eight thousand year hiatus of peace and prosperity in the river valleys with no fortification, or evidence of warfare; prior to the Roman invasions. They traded and lived in large familial clans. The worked metal to make cups and jewelry. This life was prosperous, and peaceful. These were the "Barbarians". The model we currently enjoy isn't the only game that ever was.

I also read that the average life expectancy for male factory workers in 18th century England, was 17. So we have quadrupled or quintupled our life expectancy from that statistic. You see life expectancy of 40 for a forest nomad, was very high in comparison to British factory workers.

We are an adaptable species, but to be tamed we need to be fed and cared for, so that we feel a mutual trust and affection for the society we are a part of. The economic system that our current government is touting, is highly exclusionary, they are actually trying to bring home to us, the atrocities they have been part of, in Central and South America for decades.

Globalization also is a means for vast energy co-dependency. I live in a western state, and most of our food comes from more than 1500 miles away. There is a move for sustainable local agriculture, so that we are somewhat self sufficient. We couldn't sell the Utah apple crop in Colorado, last year, because of the cheap Chinese apples. Now when I read of the plight of the Chinese farmer, then I see the Utah farmer victimized too; I think that this globalization is profiting oil salesmen, but not farmers on either side of the long expensive ride.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not so sure that Noah does get it. I have the impression he is saying that survival and reproduction of a certain gene line are the only ends we should strive for, and that quality of life really doesn't matter.

Heh, I'm not so sure I get it. That survival itself is the only ends is indeed what he said in his last post, but previous posts did make claims about quality of life - that "wealthy, healthy, and independent" crap. I don't know that its worth continuing the discussion with such a moving target.

 

[russ_watters]

It has been pointed out on http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.life-extension/search?group=sci.life-extension&q=%22life+expectancy%22+infant&qt_g=1 that the concept of life-expectancy is nonsensical without an accompanying at the age of qualification. For example, has life-expectancy for 20-year-olds really doubled?

If you have some statistics from a reputable source, I'ld be more than happy to take a look. That said, I also consider child mortality to be a pretty important statistic as well.

Also:

I had a biostatistician look at last 150 years of life tables from
Metropolitan Life, and his conclusion: If you survived the first 3 days
after birth in 1930, your life expectancy was within 6 months of what it
is now, despite all the heart surgery and chemotherapy... "

That's absurd and I won't accept it without substantiation.

edit: Ehh, don't bother. I found the data myself (it was pretty easy) and I was right - your claim is absurd. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04trend.pdf#027 Table 27 on pdf page 77 has life expectancy at birth, 65 years, and 75 years from 1900 to today (though, unfortunately the data only goes back to 1900, so you only get life expectancy of people born after 1900). Suffice to say, improvements have been made across the board: male, female, black, white, etc.

For example, from 1950 to 2002, life expectancy of a 65 year old (all races/sexes) has increased from 13.9 to 18.2.

 

[hitssquad]

Is there such a thing as life-expectancy unqualified

It has been pointed out on sci.life-extension that the concept of life-expectancy is nonsensical without an accompanying at the age of qualification. For example, has life-expectancy for 20-year-olds really doubled?

I find the above post rather difficult to interpret; Russ states that 100 years ago, our life expectancy was not as good. The above post suggests that this claim is somewhat unfounded...

No. My post suggests that life-expectancy unqualified may be a nonsensical concept. One cannot make an unfounded quantity claim about a quality that itself is nonsensical.

 

[sage]

sage, thanks for your comments. It seems like you have studied this subject quite a bit. Let me ask you - is it common for anthropologists to use the word "primitive"? I got the impression that this was something we weren't supposed to say (not PC or something).

"..but primitive agricultural societies have the potential to evolve and become ultimately better.."

I wonder how well it would have gone over if I had said that (the above phrase) in class. Wouldn't it sound like I am supporting the old 19th century Unilineal Cultural Evolution model?

well I'm no anthropologist. so i can't help you on that. but i will say this. historians in general are beginning to take second a look at their age old biases about tribal societies. the conventional wisdom of seeing them as uncouth barbarians no longer hold on closer scrutiny. consider the vast cave paintings of cro-magnons or large mammoth bone complexes found in
europe. there is also evidence of extensive trade routes between europe and china 20000 years ago. the tribal societies were extremely prosperous by any standards. then why this bias. well people would say they had no written
language, no lasting monuments,coinage,texts or literature. of course they did not have these feature of an agrarian society because they were not agrarian society. would you call trees to be less developed than animals because they can't run? well democracy is a tribal heritage and nobody complains about that.

 

[russ_watters]

I was pretty much with you until this:

the tribal societies were extremely prosperous by any standards.

I proposed a standard: modern lower-middle class American. That's just above the current American poverty line. So I ask this: were these "prosperous" early tribal societies above or below the standard of living of people who today are considered just above the poverty line? Was the King of England in 1700?

My view is that the King of England had luxuries, sure - but he did not have many of the things that a lower-middle class American would consider basic necessities. That makes his standard of living lower and wealth an irrelevant facade.

It still amazes me that we're even having this conversation.

 

[loseyourname]

Globalization also is a means for vast energy co-dependency. I live in a western state, and most of our food comes from more than 1500 miles away. There is a move for sustainable local agriculture, so that we are somewhat self sufficient. We couldn't sell the Utah apple crop in Colorado, last year, because of the cheap Chinese apples. Now when I read of the plight of the Chinese farmer, then I see the Utah farmer victimized too; I think that this globalization is profiting oil salesmen, but not farmers on either side of the long expensive ride.

That's a little odd, to say the least. I don't know much about agricultural trade patterns, but almost all of the fruit we eat in California is grown in California. In fact, I've also lived in North Carolina and New Jersey and, in both instances, most of the fruit we ate was grown in California. The only major exception I can think of are apples (Washington) and oranges (which often do come from California, but just as often come from Florida). I don't think I've ever eaten a Chinese apple.

Now energy is something we've really been screwed on, but that had nothing to do with globalization. That had to do with the fact that almost all of our plants were owned by Enron, so we had a corrupt company in Houston selling energy made in California to be used in California. We're also routinely squeezed on gas prices, but that is simply a function of demand. More people drive more cars on more miles of highway than in any other state, so prices are always higher here than in other states. And, of course, suburban housewives love to drive 80-ton SUV's to the mall alone.

 

[hitssquad]

California's special gasoline-price problem

We're also routinely squeezed on gas prices, but that is simply a function of demand.

Reportedly, it is more a function of the fact that California requires a unique gasoline formulation. If the distinctly volatile and high gas prices of California were simply a funtion of demand, the demand might soon be met by an increase in refineries and/or shipments as it is elsewhere in the nation.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ns/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/petbro.html

• Why are California gasoline prices higher and more variable than others?
  
  The State of California operates its own reformulated gasoline program with more stringent requirements than Federally-mandated clean gasolines. In addition to the higher cost of cleaner fuel, there is a combined State and local sales and use tax of 7.25 percent on top of an 18.4 cent-per-gallon federal excise tax and an 18.0 cent-per-gallon State excise tax. Refinery margins have also been higher due in large part to price volatility in the region.
  
  California prices are more variable than others because there are relatively few supply sources of its unique blend of gasoline outside the State. California refineries need to be running near their fullest capabilities in order to meet the State's fuel demands. If more than one of its refineries experiences operating difficulties at the same time, California's gasoline supply may become very tight and the prices soar. Supplies could be obtained from some Gulf Coast and foreign refineries; however, California's substantial distance from those refineries is such that any unusual increase in demand or reduction in supply results in a large price response in the market before relief supplies can be delivered. The farther away the necessary relief supplies are, the higher and longer the price spike will be.
  
  California was one of the first states to ban the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) after it was detected in ground water. Ethanol, a non-petroleum product usually made from corn, is being used in place of MTBE. Gasoline without MTBE is more expensive to produce and requires refineries to change the way they produce and distribute gasoline. Some supply dislocations and price surges occurred in the summer of 2003 as the State moved away from MTBE. Similar problems have also occurred in past fuel transitions.

 

[sid_galt]

Many people understand concpets...but that does not mean that they put that understanding to practical application. What are the "ethics" of nature...other than survival and reproduction?

No offense but the the above post suggests that people should be just meat like animals and should have no purpose but to produce babies and survive as we all should confirm to the "ethics" of nature.
Survive? To what end?
There is something known as human happiness and our purpose is to strive towards it.

P.S. Ethics apply to living conscious beings. They do not apply to animals or nature.

 

[sage]

russ. i was talking about standards as they were in early nineteenth century.
last year two very big companies like Enron and Palmelatte got bust by dishonest practices. thousands of people lost their jobs and savings from their fradaulent tactics. don't you think corporate accountability should be a lot tougher than what exists now? also i am concerned about large companies getting away with lax and polluting methods of manufacture in third world countries in order to produce cheaper goods to gain competative advantage. i wonder if you have heard about the accident in Union Carbide plant in bhopal?

 

[loseyourname]

Reportedly, it is more a function of the fact that California requires a unique gasoline formulation. If the distinctly volatile and high gas prices of California were simply a funtion of demand, the demand might soon be met by an increase in refineries and/or shipments as it is elsewhere in the nation.

Hmm. Interesting. I didn't realize MTBE had not been banned yet in other states. Thanks for that little tidbit. Do you happen to have any idea why you aren't allowed to pump your own gas in Oregon and New Jersey?

 

[russ_watters]

russ. i was talking about standards as they were in early nineteenth century.

But isn't that the point? Standards change. What used to be considered prosperous is now considered destitute. Thats a testament to how far we have come and how far much of the world's population has to go.

last year two very big companies like Enron and Palmelatte got bust by dishonest practices. thousands of people lost their jobs and savings from their fradaulent tactics. don't you think corporate accountability should be a lot tougher than what exists now?

The people responsible for ENRON are in jail (not sure about the CEO - that might be ongoing, but I know the CFO is). What more do you think should be done?

also i am concerned about large companies getting away with lax and polluting methods of manufacture in third world countries in order to produce cheaper goods to gain competative advantage.

Government oversight doesn't and can't extend beyond our borders: countries have started wars over less. It is mostly up to the countries that these companies do business into fix the way their governments operate.

 

[Dayle Record]

In Oregon, they were losing jobs in the timber industry, so they made it a law that attendants must pump gas, to create jobs for people in Oregon. I don't know about New Jersey. (Maybe they are still looking for Jimmy Hoffa, in gas tanks.)

 

[Dayle Record]

I was just in California, I did see a lot of citrus, on trees. I was also told, by my grocer friend, that it confounds him to see Florida oranges on sale in California. I wonder if Florida can label imported oranges as Florida, because they are shipped out of Florida. The laws have just changed so that produce and foods do not have to be labeled according to Nation of origin. The Chinese apples is a real thing, since I was writing an article on agriculture, and the main produce broker in Brigham City Utah, was discussing this with me. They grow a lot of peaches, cherries and apples in Brigham City, Utah. They could not compete with the Chinese apples. Now you will not know, if you are getting Chinese apples.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't see this before:

If wealth were about nothing but TVs, nannies and the like, capitalism wins. But is that all we are going to judge our standard of living by? What about justice, equality, freedom?

Sounds good to me, but I'd add health to that. So how does capitalism measure up? Running water, refrigeration, pennicillin -- and how about the freedom of a capitalist country? Equality? I think you and I may have a different vision of what that word means:

Lets not forget relative wealth. The gap between the rich and poor continues to widen in the US
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/13/national/main635936.shtml
and UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...gap08.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/08/ixhome.html

Two severe problems with this: First, you are misinterpreting the word "equality." Equality (as promised in the Constitution) is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. This misinterpretation is a big problem in modern liberalism and is the cause of a lot of the economic problems this country is having (Social Security, welfare, etc.). Yes, opportunity still depends a lot on who your parents are - the government can't (and shouldn't) completely eliminate that. What the government can, should, and does do is proivde the resources (such as shools and college tuition assistance) to enable kids to succeed.

Second, what's so great about equality if equality means you're likely to die young and spend half of your time working on your immediate survival? Gee, everyone is like that so it must be a good thing!?? No. The system that has a lot of a lower-middle-class families just above the poverty line also makes that poverty line at a level where a a 19th century king would be envious.

So take your pick: you can have running water, plumbing, innoculations, and a car while Bill gates lives in a solid gold house, or Bill Gates can live in a Medival castle with no running water (and a real risk of the plague) and you can take your chances with a dirt floor straw shack and the plage. Which would you prefer?

Someone has to make the TV, and be the nanny. Is the nanny glad she doesn't have to live in a ditch and die at 28? She'd be nuts not to. But that's a pretty desperate yardstick by which to measure the success of capitalism.

Desperate? I consider your position arrogant and greedy. To not use that yardstick is jealousy of what Bill Gates has and you're implying that you'd rather live in a ditch if you could ensure that Bill Gates did too. Where does this sense of entitlement come from? Heck, its this sense of entitlement that makes the rich-poor inequality worse. People think they are entitled to that solid gold house Bill Gates has - well guess what, you're not. You have to work for it - if you don't, you'll just have to be content with your indoor plumbing, refrigerator, and car.

And that entitlement? You're entitled to live in a ditch and die at 28. Or, you can suck up your pride, slum it, and choose to live better than most kings ever dreamed. That's freedom.

Edit: I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant, but liberal envy and ungratefulness really, really irritates me. Capitalism has improved the standard of living by 100 times for some and 10,000 times for others and people are saying the inequality of that is more important than the 100x improvement in standard of living for the poor. Its just so absurd.

edit2: Ethics case studies (and reality TV) have proven that people are greedy, but its surprising to see so overtly in a theory discussion. People really would rather see others lose than see themselves win.

edit3: Most liberals today seem to be of the belief that the fact that Bill Gates lives in that solid gold house (that's an exagerration...) prevents them from living in a better house than they currently live in. That's wrong. Its not an opinion, its a misinterpretation of data as bad as the crackpottery we see in the TD forum: the fact of the matter is that the fact that Bill Gates lives in that solid gold house is what prevents everyone else from living in that plague-rat infested gutter.

But-you'll say, Bill Gates could give more to charity and help people even more. Sure he could, but here's the thing: this is a free country. The same freedom that enables Bill Gates to make the choice is the freedom that enables him to make the fortune that keeps you out of the gutter (that's where the choice in edit2 comes in). And the fact of the matter also is that virtually all of those "robber barons" (Carnegie, Rockerfeller, etc.) [/b]did[/b] end up giving vast quantities of their money away later in life and after they died. Forceably taking it from them sooner just makes the end sum of money smaller.

 

[hitssquad]

Do you happen to have any idea why you aren't allowed to pump your own gas in Oregon and New Jersey?

I do not know why. In this gasprices.com thread, some persons have posted some ideas as to why:
http://www.oregongasprices.com/foru...972&msg_id=82972&page=1&page_size=30&show=all

 

[Joel]

Universities, especially humanities, are dominated by the left. They will, often unconsciously, present whatever are supporting their view of the world. That is part is the psychological need to diminish cognitive dissonance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

One has to dig a little to find the usually very large cracks. That is part of the charm, in the "hard" sciences most basic things teached have been settled for centuries.

As for why they are dominated by the left:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/021304A.html

I must disagree with your statement about universities and especially humanities being dominated by the left. I do not want to sound harsh, but to me it sounds more like a political claim than one supported by studies. "Being dominated by the left" sounds very vague.

Cognitive dissonance is by no means a phenomenon unique to university professors or humanity majors, it applies equally much to anyone. While cognitive dissonance surely would be a good theory to explain a persons inclination to act according to their attitudes (and psychological distress if acting against them), it could be used to argue either case.

Your claim about social sciences having "cracks", by comparing them to natural sciences suggests you assume equal epistemological basis for the two very different disciplines. Social sciences do not even try to be "crack-less", since they deal with questions that cannot be answered in black and white. That's also why all the social scientific programs I know of present studies from different perspectives.

What I can agree on is that universities have traditionally valued sk. academic freedom. While academic freedom definitively is not absence of responsibility towards scientific methods, it has enabled university researchers to look at society with a critique eye and question the current development of affairs. At the same time, for example policy analysis, a branch of political science, deals with questions about rationalizing public administration, not questioning the direction of the politics. So, I do not see how universites could be "dominated" by any particular political ideology.

 

[the number 42]

Ow! Did Santa leave you the wrong model tank for Christmas or what?

First, you are misinterpreting the word "equality." Equality (as promised in the Constitution) is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome... Yes, opportunity still depends a lot on who your parents are...

I double dare you to tell this to the kids in downtown LA, or any of the many other deprived areas in the US. As far as I'm concerned, if the outcome is massive inequality, then you have to question how equal the opportunity was in the first place.

Second, what's so great about equality if equality means you're likely to die young and spend half of your time working on your immediate survival?

So if wealth was more fairly distributed we'd all be living in ditches?

So take your pick: you can have running water, plumbing, innoculations, and a car while Bill gates lives in a solid gold house, or Bill Gates can live in a Medival castle with no running water (and a real risk of the plague) and you can take your chances with a dirt floor straw shack and the plage. Which would you prefer?

Well, if you really think these are the only options then I'm not surprised you have come to hold the beliefs that you seem to.

I consider your position arrogant and greedy. To not use that yardstick is jealousy...

This is just childish. Have you heard of projection? Its when a person can't tolerate a trait in themselves, so see it in others instead.

Edit: I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant, ...

We're used to it. You obviously have your motives.

... but liberal envy and ungratefulness really, really irritates me.

Right - we should all be grateful for being part of an unequal, exploitative world. You feel irritated? Try supporting a family working in a t-shirt factory in South America.

Capitalism has improved the standard of living by 100 times for some and 10,000 times for others...

Okay then. If I say 'Thanks, I'm really grateful' will you promise to stop improving the world? Develop the good things e.g. medicine, but do we really need to price it so that many can't afford it?

edit2: Ethics case studies (and reality TV) have proven that people are greedy, but its surprising to see so overtly in a theory discussion. People really would rather see others lose than see themselves win.

People are capable of many things good, bad, & indifferent. If you encourage people to love & share, they will. If you encourage people to exploit each other under the guise of freedom, they'll do that too.

 

[sage]

WTO is all about setting up uniform regulation and standards so that global companies are held accountable no matter where they are.same for governments to. will you buy cheaper products of a reputed company even if you knew in some thirld world country they are employing child labour in order to minimise production costs? we must not allow any company to get away by using unethical means anywhere in the planet. thus the need for a global regulatory body that sees to it that a corporate house is kept honest.i'm not against globalisation,but am merely pointing out some important measures to prevent its possible abuse by rich corporate houses.
another fact. its an open secret that in many democratic countries corporate houses fund one political party or the other. do you think this may undermine the democratic process by inducing favouratism?

 

[loseyourname]

I double dare you to tell this to the kids in downtown LA, or any of the many other deprived areas in the US. As far as I'm concerned, if the outcome is massive inequality, then you have to question how equal the opportunity was in the first place.

Unless you're referring specifically to skid row (not many kids live there), Downtown LA is not that bad. It was a good deal worse 15 years ago, but even then, almost no one lived there. The main occupants now are either the neo-metropolitans living in the Promenade Towers or the USC students renting cheap lofts in the rebuilt bank district.

 

[the number 42]

.. will you buy cheaper products of a reputed company even if you knew in some thirld world country they are employing child labour in order to minimise production costs? we must not allow any company to get away by using unethical means anywhere in the planet.

well said. The problem is that while the media bombard us with sports, celebrity culture etc, we get very little on the places that stich the footballs and t-shirts. The BBC, bless its heart, on occasion with put on a news report about a case of this kind as if it is breaking news . Traditionally respectable resources by and large keep us in the dark over these matters.

 

[the number 42]

Unless you're referring specifically to skid row (not many kids live there), Downtown LA is not that bad. It was a good deal worse 15 years ago, but even then, almost no one lived there. The main occupants now are either the neo-metropolitans living in the Promenade Towers or the USC students renting cheap lofts in the rebuilt bank district.

Well check this link and tell me which slum you'd prefer I cite:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/Global_Report/pdfs/LA.pdf

Its from a report with the catchy title: UNDERSTANDING SLUMS: Case Studies for the Global Report on Human Settlements 2003

"The migration of whites from Los Angeles intensified
during the period after the civil unrest; but the Los Angeles economy began to diversify and rebound during the late 1990s. While employment rates were
up, poverty did not decline. Rather, a shift to low wage
sector employment and now a steady stream of recent
immigrants to occupy these jobs appears to be a enduring
pattern in the city. Rents have risen sharply in poor
communities as the poor choose overcrowding rather
than homelessness. The high level of use of these residential
structures increases processes of decay and
deterioration. The growth in poverty is likely to continue
as well as the growth in disinvested areas over the
coming decade".

 

[loseyourname]

Well check this link and tell me which slum you'd prefer I cite:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/Global_Report/pdfs/LA.pdf

Its from a report with the catchy title: UNDERSTANDING SLUMS: Case Studies for the Global Report on Human Settlements 2003

That report mostly cites slum buildings - not too many neighborhoods. There is still a good deal of crime and poverty in South Central (now officially called "South LA"), but the housing and population density aren't really that bad. Housing is worst in Hollywood. The only slum-like neighborhood close to downtown is Boyle Heights. Even that's cleaned up to the point where I feel fairly safe at night - but maybe I'm just insane. Not too many people live there, though. It's mostly a warehouse district and the railway yard is there.

 

[the number 42]

That report mostly cites slum buildings - not too many neighborhoods. There is still a good deal of crime and poverty in South Central (now officially called "South LA"), but the housing and population density aren't really that bad. Housing is worst in Hollywood. The only slum-like neighborhood close to downtown is Boyle Heights. Even that's cleaned up to the point where I feel fairly safe at night - but maybe I'm just insane. Not too many people live there, though. It's mostly a warehouse district and the railway yard is there.

Okay, let's either continue this discussion on a new thread 'LA real estate: best deals on crack and one bedroom apartments', or on 'The Land of Opportunity' thread in Politics and General Tantrums section. My point was that not everyone starts from the same place, thus are at a relative disadvantage when it comes to reaching the upper rungs of the social ladder. This to me seems at least as 'self-evident' as 'all men being born equal'.

 

[loseyourname]

Okay. I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that downtown LA has undergone a nice renaissance ever since Staples Center was built, especially now that all of the buildings in the old bank district are being converted to lofts and office space. Just don't want people to get the wrong impression based on movies from the 80's and 90's.

Heck, your post was just as off-topic as mine. It had nothing to do with globalization.

 

[the number 42]

Heck, your post was just as off-topic as mine. It had nothing to do with globalization.

Globalise *THIS*, buster.

(Damn. Just doesn't have the same impact without my webcam).

 

[sid_galt]

I double dare you to tell this to the kids in downtown LA, or any of the many other deprived areas in the US. As far as I'm concerned, if the outcome is massive inequality, then you have to question how equal the opportunity was in the first place.

So are you implying that given equal opportunity, all people would perform equally?

Keep in mind that people like J.J. Hill, Cornelius Vanderbilt and many others rose from ditches to riches.
Why didn't others like them become what they became? It was not difference in opportunity but difference in ability.

As for the present distribution of opportunity, public schools do exist to educate students. You can't just given an isolated example and then imply that that is the general condition.

So if wealth was more fairly distributed we'd all be living in ditches?

"Fair" distribution of wealth simply means that everyone gets what one has rightly earned through one's ability, nothing more, nothing less.

It does not mean forcibly taking wealth from the rich through laws (a.k.a. robbery) and giving it to the poor. When an individual takes money without permission, it is called stealing. When the government does it, it is called justice.
What kind of justice is this?

So take your pick: you can have running water, plumbing, innoculations, and a car while Bill gates lives in a solid gold house, or Bill Gates can live in a Medival castle with no running water (and a real risk of the plague) and you can take your chances with a dirt floor straw shack and the plage. Which would you prefer?

Well, if you really think these are the only options then I'm not surprised you have come to hold the beliefs that you seem to.

This is precisely what happened in Communism.

The rulers (members of the Communist party) lived in villas while the general public suffered.
The same thing happened during monarchy.

Right - we should all be grateful for being part of an unequal, exploitative world. You feel irritated? Try supporting a family working in a t-shirt factory in South America.

Before the advent of capitalism, child mortality rates were 50%. People lived in medieval huts and could barely make ends meet.

Capitalism greatly increased wealth and provide opportunity and employment. Was this exploitation

Was improving human conditions of living exploitation?

Was creation of wealth exploitation?

As to your example of a poor family, keep in mind that without the t-shirt factory, the family wouldn't even have a job to earn money to live.

Okay then. If I say 'Thanks, I'm really grateful' will you promise to stop improving the world? Develop the good things e.g. medicine, but do we really need to price it so that many can't afford it?

And who would pay for the expenses involved in the research of new drugs?

People are capable of many things good, bad, & indifferent. If you encourage people to love & share, they will. If you encourage people to exploit each other under the guise of freedom, they'll do that too.

So now you are calling actual freedom, a guise of freedom?

As to your point about exploitation, it is baseless.

 

[the number 42]

So are you implying that given equal opportunity, all people would perform equally?

Keep in mind that people like J.J. Hill, Cornelius Vanderbilt and many others rose from ditches to riches. ... You can't just given an isolated example and then imply that that is the general condition.

Ow! That foot must hurt, dude.

 

[sid_galt]

Ow! That foot must hurt, dude.

What do you mean?