If you want to move the goal post, you better keep it there. Stop going around in blissful ignorance that you don't have it harder, or just as hard as people who live in war and poverty.
I have to go now, don't feel offended when I stop replying to these shitposts.
No.
A lot of third world suffering is due to the west. The least we can do is clean up our own mess.
Some certainly is <.<But an equally fair part is simply the way the first world used to be, until we went through the industrial revolution <.<A lot of countries are undergoing a 21st century version where some of the tricky bits have already been filled in, but they are still going to be polluting, chopping down forests and using child labour like England did at one point >.>Whilst we can obviously help by sharing more advanced and efficient technology (To try and make up for the whole colonialism thing) there is only so much the west can do. They basically need to get their act together whilst we give them a hand in doing so <.<
We're still exploiting them for resources and cheap labour.
That's false. The only reason people see this is because there's some guilt in having cheap labour do things for us and make our products. We don't see the poverty of subsistence living in a trade-less economy. There's a reason that demand for low-wage, poor-quality jobs is so high, and it's because it's preferable to unemployment.
Exploitation isn't an acceptable or beneficial solution to poverty. You haven't contradicted what I've said, you've tried to justify it. It's about simple humanism and accountability. But I don't come on here to argue politics or morality with gamers and teenagers of all people. I think this thread should be moved to #serious where I don't have to look at it.
"privilege"
Not another infected ;-;
It seemed like the only appropriate word, to be honest. The reason we can try and make this prescriptions and proposals for the third-world is born of the fact that we don't have a proper understanding of what it's like. People want to live in poverty because it's better than complete and utter anus-wrecking poverty.
*vomits*He's already at stage 2, we must burn this one immediately.SpoilerI know, I know
Oh come on Elegiac. Calling it exploitation is the real indicator of "privilege" here. People choose to work in such jobs because it's their best option, and buying their products is what gives them their income. No country ever got prosperity from aid. It certainly isn't humanistic to assume you know what is best for these people, despite not being in their position.
Last comment, you forced it out of me with your callous ridiculousness.It's not a huge imaginative leap to assume that if I were one of those people, I would like a fairer deal. They say as much themselves. It isn't about aid; it's about not putting profit before people.
Most kids don't have much money, you're not really that unique (25% of all kids in the US are born in poverty, the overwhelming majority are born well below average). In fact both of you are just exaggerating anyway. How many parents do you have? Two? Oh, I thought as much.
Do you just pull this stuff out of your ass or?..
Notably, the range of consumption levels for those reporting zero or close to zero income is not only wide but indistinguishable from the equivalent range for those reporting income levels up to 20 dollars of income per person per dayβabove the level of the official U.S. poverty line. This is illustrated by the horizontal section of the best-fit curve where the relationship between reported income and consumption is absent. Put differently, it is not clear whether a comparison of individuals reporting 20 dollars and zero dollars a day in income coincides with any difference in consumption or welfare. Thus, a focus on zero or close to zero income respondents may not offer the best filter for examining minimum living standards in the U.S.
The article you linked doesn't even say that countries measure poverty rates differently in the fashion you described.
It doesn't make any sense anyway due to the fact that there are many organizations that could extract that information and analyze income and consumption among the poor, so trying to say the well accepted poverty rates are skewed is a claim with no merit.
Further, the point is moot anyway if your prior point is that there is a difference between international affluence and intranational affluence, and looking at only one country, the means in which poverty is measured is irrelevant, so long as it is uniform and can extrapolate the relative wealth inequality of that one country.
So back to my original point, poverty isn't unique in a first world country, and at the same time, it's still a high standard of living for the rest of the world.
First world people have it so rough
