This blog concentrates on Global Stratification or defining the unequal living standards of peoples around the world. As societies matured from the traditional hunting/gathering time to the Industrial Revolution to the Technology today, sociologists changed the world's unequal classifications from first, second and third world to High Income, Middle Income and Low Income. The United States is among the 76 High Income countries. I grew up thinking we were the richest with only a few like us so this high income statistic surprised me. 70 nations are Middle Income with limited industry and with half rural agriculture. One third of world population live in Middle Income countries. 48 Low Income countries are all poor and lack resources. One half of world population are low income and life expectancy is short. 70% of the world live in absolute poverty. are slaves and trapped into human trafficking. Every 10 minutes 100 people die of hunger or 25,000 a day. 1.4 billion people suffer from chronic hunger while tons of food is being wasted in high income countries. I was surprised to hear that two thirds of women are illiterate. There are to major theories that try to explain global inequality through economic and social development. The first is Modernization Theory or structural-functional approach feels affluence is available to all countries. Rostow's Stages start with the Traditional where life is around family like generations before. There is little industry or technology or resources. Next is the Take-off stage where people find something to produce and a market emerges. Individualism begins and the desire for material goods. Third is the Drive to Technological maturity and growth starts the pursuit of higher living standards and cities swell. Last is the High mass consumption where standard of living rises and peoples needs increase. The U.S. Entered this stage by 1900. The second Dependence Theory feels the economy is a result of rich countries taking advantage of poor countries cheap labor and raw materials through colonization. History will tell us if any country steps up to help the poor countries. I feel the original trade deal should involve extra's for the workers. In Detroit the car companies had "profit sharing" where profits each year were divided among all workers. Workers should be asked what they want most. The Amish communities in our country have rejected technology and have 100% employment, take care of their elderly without government help and seem happy. I don't think it would take much to build a school for workers in a trade deal or a well. Will anyone put greed aside and do the right thing to help people of Earth survive? grandma005
The answer to your final question is no, unfortunately. It is a sad truth that the success of Amish communities and other low-tech communities is really only possible at very small scale. The less complicated a society is, the easier it is to root out the cause of issues and to stifle behaviors and individuals that seem threatening to your way of life. When you scale up the population, it becomes impossible to do that so the example of Amish lifestyle isn't applicable. The reason I say this is that those in power are so rarely morally and ethically sound. If you have a large group of people all competing for the same position of power, then it stands to reason that the people from that group who are willing to break the rules to win are probably going to get ahead of those who aren't willing to. Sadly, that leaves us with a pool of potential winners who are all deceptive, greedy, violent, or otherwise ethically compromised. Truly good people will probably never be in charge, or if they are, they will not stay in power for long. Poet005
Such a complicated subject. As with most subjects in sociology though (at least in my opinion) the real point where the truth lies is somewhere in between the different theories. Conflict theorists think the stratification comes from exploitation, and structural theorists believe it is simply the result of differences in how certain cultures approach progress. I suspect a combination of both is what has produced the results we observe today. Instead of wondering which one is responsible, I propose that one is responsible for the other, which is responsible for the result. I think it is quite likely the structural theorist’s idea that certain countries cultures resist progress is not responsible for their poverty directly, but instead it is responsible for allowing the conflict theorists idea of exploitation to come true in the first place. The only reason certain countries were capable of spreading and exploiting other nations to begin with is because of their forward-thinking cultures. Farming techniques, harvesting equipment, medical advances, weapons production, long-range ships, war tactics, and many other benefits of a forward-thinking culture allow the exploitation to occur as much as a traditional, stagnant cultures lack of these things allow it. It is not one or the other. As for the topic of relative and absolute poverty, I’m sad to say that thing is not something that is likely to change any time soon. There are only two rational responses to the issue of poverty in the absence of historical knowledge. One answer is socialism, but as I said that response only makes sense in the absence of historical knowledge – we know from history that socialism or communism tends to fail because of the imperfect nature of humans. The only other response to the issue of poverty is the creation of an infinitely renewable energy source. In this case, it is likely that some stratification would still exist, but there would be no real motivation for rich countries to keep poor countries down for the sake of keeping their natural resources cheap as a way of preserving their high quality of life. Modernization could finally occur in this scenario. Unfortunately we are probably quite a ways off from this, so for now I’m sad to say that I do not believe there is any such thing as a political or social justice solution to the issue of poverty. Poet005
To begin, I would like to compliment the overall thought and perspective that you have put forth towards this blog. Your response, literally, lit a fuse within myself to put forth a greater effort toward my blog posts by thinking outside of the box and not just taking the content for what it is. With that being said, I would like to compliment you on the stance you have taken. I believe that we addressed simila topics of high income nation taking advantage over low income nations. By doing so high income nations have prospered to ensure their advancement. Also, the theories in which you addressed seemed to ties together so well. You did so by accrediting both aspects and tying them together. I never thought of structural and conflict theorists, but with you explanation I can see how both intertwined.
First, I found to be very essential for the the explanation of terminology in regards of global stratification, because it has enhanced my interpretation. The oralist of this video first compared the definitions of old and new terminology. For instance, old terminology in regards of global stratification refers to: first-world, second-world, and third-world countries. The reasons of which this terminology ultimately dissolved was due the the Cold war. Overall, the Cold War eased second-world countries. From my understanding, then influenced socialist and economist to enable terminology that would fit society as it evolves, which led to the new terminology. With words such as: high income, middle income, and low income nations we are able to include all geographical aspects of the world from and economical stance. With that being said, there was also a mention of how high income nations, such as the United States, Canada, Japan, etc., control up the sixty-four percent of the world’s market. I find this to be essential, because it highlight the power structure of international affairs and offers some irony. To begin, there are high income nations, such as the United States, that have begun to worry of how power sources will be provided in the centuries to come, because they have exhausted their resources. Therefore, they have begun to partner with middle- and low-income nations to ensure the productivity. This displayed how, overall, high-income nations could possibly need middle- and low-income nation rather than vice versa. Yet, we see especially strides from high-income nations and little to none prosperity of the middle- and low-income nations. I find this to be ironic, because it demonstrates how the main fish need smaller fish to survive, and instead of accrediting those smaller fish we trample over them.
Good points there will always be something to worry about in terms of our future, simply as when we come up with a solution another problem arises. The U.S has not used up resources we just try to come out on top of all our transactions such as our oil that we sell to other nations and buy cheaper oil from other nations. If I sell you a candy bar for $1 but only paid $0.5 for my own from someone else I just made a huge profit. The rich will always have the control over others as the poor would rather be friends than enemies with the rich or high income, people generally want to benefit themselves or their families. I do agree in the irony of the multinational corporations treatment of the low-income nations I would think the treatment would be better to improve the relations and moral of the people making one rich. In class we talked about the lower wages for women than that of men, if I got paid $50K and my wife with the same career made $50K annually we both bring in $100K versus the $90K with inequality. BHL005
We have heard of the exploitation of others all throughout our lives, in this chapter of global stratification the focus of human trafficking and labor. However the focus is a broad concept of the conditions of exploitation in that when reading and going through the chapter we mainly think of the poor conditions. Everyone should know what blood diamonds are and should know that even though most of the high end businesses’ such as jewelers in the U.S won’t buy blood diamonds there are still ways of selling them to other countries or people who lack the morals of that of the U.S. Also there is still a civil war going on in Uganda for 30 years now, where the LRA will take children to fight for them. These are harsh realities of the various exploitations in our world today not saying that human trade and labor are not an important concept, but that there are more ways than the book is offering. I do not think that the exploitation or poverty will ever be abolished because there will always be someone who only cares care about their own needs. We as the U.S can attempt to end world hunger or poverty, but it will have to be done at a multinational corporation level as they have the control of their labor force. Say that this was the case and started a domino effect with other nations, which would most likely happen in such an event. There will still be a group that would rather exploit such an event to make themselves better off or get rich quick versus working a 9-5 that would support their family but would not make them rich. Even to get to that point you would still have to convince corporations to consider their morals and take a pay cut so the employees can actually be paid a cost of living salary. Modernization and dependency theories define the cause and effect of poverty and I would have to say I agree more with dependency theory. Technology can have a huge impact as to build efficiency but does not solve the problems of multinational corporations. Most nations are dependent on high income nations to buy their goods or to supply labor to their workforce. China a middle income nation that is mainly agrarian lacks technology but has managed to become a middle income nation and if they added the technology they would most likely become a high income nation. With the U.S we have all kinds of different machinery for each of the crops grown here and manufacturers such as CAT make customizations to improve the efficiency, which is all china would need to do to increase productivity. BHL005
I totally agree with you that there it’s not possible to end poverty or world hunger. You were saying that the U S could attempt to end world hunger. Is there that much that the U S could do to help? Yes it would most likely have to be on a corporate level, but outside of our own nation how much could the U S actually help? Because the U S doesn’t own the smaller, more poverty stricken nations there is only so much the U S is able to do. And even then the U S still needs consent from those nations to be able to help them. Spoopy005
This Global Stratification video gives great detail on what many of us are very oblivious to which is economic development in your country let alone the entire world, the explanation he provided of old verses new terminology helps you to understand the information presented and how many countries have grown or lack thereof. However the information on poverty is mind blowing of course you know it exist but not to the depths of up to 25,000 people dying daily because of hunger when we have so many resources in this world that nobody should ever wonder where their next meal will come from. It's amazing what we privileged Americans' so to speak take for granted we waste so much food, its one thing to have no food but have resources to get it rather it be in local soup kitchen that feed the hungry ( and yes I purposely put hunger) cause not every hungry person is homeless, but to be living in a country where you have no resources to get any help is very sad in many kids not living pass their 10 birthday due to starvation I couldn't even imagine a mothers pain to loose a child cause she couldn't provided them the basic necessity, collectively we all are living in one lost world no matter the title of low, middle, nor high income nation. Leathas005
This video does give great detail on the entire world about global stratification and the explanation and the understanding of the old verse to the new verse of the world. I will agree that when he speaks about poverty it is very mind blowing. Absolutely when he got to the percentage and the numbers really made me go wow. He did open our eyes to many things about colonization theory, modernization theory, dependency theory and property. The amount of people dying daily from hunger is ridiculous due to the fact that he said there’s enough food in this world that everybody could be fat. We as American’s do take for granted the amount of food we have by wasting it daily. Your so correct just, because a person is hungry doesn’t mean they are homeless. It’s very sad that they live in a country where there is no resources to get help. Just the thought of a mother's child dying from lack of food is heart-wrenching. Cupcake005...
Global Stratification is broken down into different groups. They change the way we use terminology when we’re referring to countries. They are the high income meaning richest, middle income countries are considered somewhat poor, and the low income countries are the lowest productivity and extensive poverty. This video breaks down how unequally we live as people all over the world. He spoke on global income and global wealth and the fact that it is very unequally distributed around the world. The high income class people they say are the best off they control the world’s financial markets. These are the people that end up having control over other countries. They exploit the poor societies that makes inequality. Middle income has about one third of the people in the world. Their needs are somewhat met but they may still suffer from some poverty. Low income class is where there is hunger, death, disease and unsafe housing and that’s their livelihood. Low income countries leak in modernization because they leak in change. They don’t do good with learning new things. That’s why they’re victims of dependency theory. That’s just my opinion on how I took it. This is wrong on so many levels. Low income countries has the most absolute poverty. He also spoke about the sadness of world hunger and children in sex trade. Do you think we can change some of these problems and unjust treatments in the world? Cupcake005...
In watching this video one thing stood out to me the most. The thing that stood out to me the most was the fact that low income nations have more than half of the country’s population in it but is yet the poorest and most slowly advanced countries in the world. Global stratification is a very real and sad thing to talk about because you realize how selfish and greedy high income nations are. The fact that there is enough of money to be split in the world where everyone could at least be living comfortably but we still have countries like sub-Saharan Africa and countries in Asia like India that have poor education systems, unsafe water and little to none health care shows the cruelty of humans. The food that we throw away could feed a whole village in Africa but we continue to throw the food away which is mind boggling to me because if the shoe was on the other foot how would we feel? How would we be living? Who would be there to help us? Those are probably many questions that people in low income nations ask their selves every day but we’ve yet to come together as a nation and not only answer but fix these problems. Another thing about global stratification is the life expectancy in low-income nations. The life expectancy of low-income nations is 45. When I hear this, it makes me realize how short that life expand is for someone to live it. My mom is 40 years old. If I were to live in a low-income nation she would only have 5 years left which makes me realize the severity of how bad low-income nations are that their life expectancy is so short. What makes these low-income nations life expectancy so short is the poverty that they live in. As mentioned in the video there are two different kinds of poverty. There is relative poverty and absolute poverty. Relative poverty is like me being upset because my mom wouldn’t buy me a bag of chips in the store or that I don’t have the latest version of the iPhone. But in low-income nations like china or India they don’t even have the opportunity where they could be able to want these materialistic objects. They get upset because they don’t have enough of food to eat throughout the week so they must go without eating for 3 or plus days until they get the opportunity to find or get food which is absolute poverty. Food005
Your absolutely right the way we Americans live and other higher earning nations live is ridiculous especially on the billions of food waste that happens and not to mention the most of our world has gone to be so materialistic that their only focus is themselves or what someone in the celebrity wearing or when the latest Jordan's come out. Another thing that was mind blowing was the life expectancy it real sad when life expectancy is that low and its not because of crime, disease but due to poverty but the saddest of all is the fact that higher income nation we live in sit back in do nothing about it is more troublesome. Leatahs005
I agree with the fact that we have enough money to distribute it around the world evenly and better everyone but the question is can we, and would we? Say that the 8% that holds our wealth in their hands knew this knowledge and they acted on it, what would that cause? That would make a Utopia and everyone over the age of 13 knows, a Utopian society can never be reached. It is impossible. People don’t want a Utopian society and world that is why they will never and could never do that. It sits in the back of everyone who knows this heads and they can’t really do anything about it. Dolla005
Here we are talking about Global Stratification. Global stratification can be described as the unequal way of living for certain people. We have 3 standards or ways of life that are universal. We have the high-income places like: The U.S, and Britain. Then it goes middle income like: Egypt, and Morocco. Lastly you have low income like: the whole sub-Saharan Africa. People have been known to say that some nations and some countries shouldn’t even be associated together due to how they both differ in income and money. High-income places as of the U.S can sit back and enjoy 64% of the world’s income comfortably. Where does that leave other little places like Haiti? They don’t have the luxury of saying that. Wealth is distributed in so many wrong and unequal ways around the world it is crazy. Low income places have disease, death at high ratings, hunger. Hunger is the biggest part. Millions die of hunger daily in these low income places and there is a way to stop that. There are people in some of those places that carries that places wealth and they show greed. They show greed to their own people. Them people live everyday not for fun but to get by. They live to survive. There is the most poverty in the low income nations then anywhere. Their living is unsafe and they have to live in fear day in and day out. We in the U.S take our way of living for granted. I am a prime example. I spend $200+ on shoes that are made in a middle to low income country by a worker who is getting paid only 25 cents a day. People in the U.S cry and bicker over not getting the latest iPhone. Ask Haitians do they have that luxury. Ask them do they have the latest iPhone and hear the response you get. Dolla005
I can relate to you when you use yourself as a example. I also do the same thing, I take for granted the check I earn form work complaining that it isn't enough money. I take for granted that I get above and beyond from my mom and grandmother. We take a lot for granted until we sit back and think and look at the other countries who don't even have clothes on their back ! sometimes its not even other countries it can be seen right here in our city. The day I found out that I spend 200 on jordans and the workers only get about 25 cents a day I honestly stopped buying them I stopped at 4 pairs and I'm not going back. I complain about 100 dollars isn't enough and those people would be glad to make a 100 dollars off of their hard work that they do. -kyw005
This chapter is honestly really opening my eyes to the struggles of other countries. Lately, I've been feeling sorry for myself a lot because I just moved out and am experiencing the financial struggles of being an adult, but me living paycheck to paycheck is a lot better than me being unemployed or paid unfair wages. Looking at the poverty and troubles of low income nations in this chapter helped me feel a lot better about my life. I have a job, I live in a country where my rights and opinions matter, and I'm able to pay my bills every month on time. It's essential for everyone to remember how good we have it and to be grateful for our lives and opportunities. lasagna005
This video is talking about global strafication and the high middle and low income countries. Its true that people in the rich countries are far away from those people in the low-income countries almost like another world away. The high-income countries would be defined as the United States, and Western Europe etc.… these countries enjoy 64 % of the worlds income and with this income. The middle class would be countries such as African countries and Latin countries. Their life is somewhat difficult because they don’t have high percentage of funds they suffer from little to no healthcare and education. Its noted that 1/3 of people live in middle class. Lastly the low-income countries account for ½ of the world’s population which is very sad and should not be at all. We know for low income people the life expectancy is short and they suffer from hunger and not having any shelter. One thing from the video which I didn’t know is that much of Asia is a low-income country. Every 10 minutes 100 people die from hunger which is equal to 25,000 people a die. The fact that these number are so high makes me sick to my stomach. Also, the fact that in low income countries children are forced to work the streets and survive, and young girls are being trafficked. Working in a retirement center I am in the kitchen and I see how with all the food that’s left over they just dump it. Every day I take containers of food with me just to donate. Instead of helping with the problem I feel like we are contributing to it. We take for granted the little things other people would love to have such as having a meal and going to bed full, having a bed and house to sleep in, a job, money here and there. I’m not saying that makes life goodie goodie for us but we are more fortunate than some other people. I really am learning to sit back and think when I get a attitude because I’m not getting the latest iphone or the Jordan’s, or I catch a attitude because my mom cooked something I don’t want to eat. I need to think about the people who would love to have that food that’s being cooked and who love to have the necessities plus the extras -kyw005
Global stratification is both beneficial and detrimental to our society. For the rich, it’s beneficial. It allows the wealthy, along with their descendants. to stay wealthy and in control. That’s a big reason why the most wealthy people in the world are related: the money stays in the bloodline due to global stratification. For the poor, it’s detrimental because those impoverished people are unable to achieve extreme economic success or increase their social standing significantly. Global stratification has been prevalent in the United States since its colonization. The white Europeans captured Africans and brought them into the country to be slaves, creating a system of oppression, poverty, and limited opportunities: all elements of global stratification. Even when not legally slaves during the years after the Thirteenth Amendment, they were unable to climb the social hierarchy because they were stuck in sharecropping jobs that made them little money and discriminated against in the workforce, preventing them from getting jobs that would've made them enough money to improve their wealth. Global stratification is society’s way of keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. It benefits the powerful people, so the powerful people keep that in place. I don’t think humans will fully be able to break this vicious cycle, but we can each individually do our part to try and even the playing fields. lasagna005
This blog concentrates on Global Stratification or defining the unequal living standards of peoples around the world. As societies matured from the traditional hunting/gathering time to the Industrial Revolution to the Technology today, sociologists changed the world's unequal classifications from first, second and third world to High Income, Middle Income and Low Income. The United States is among the 76 High Income countries. I grew up thinking we were the richest with only a few like us so this high income statistic surprised me. 70 nations are Middle Income with limited industry and with half rural agriculture. One third of world population live in Middle Income countries. 48 Low Income countries are all poor and lack resources. One half of world population are low income and life expectancy is short. 70% of the world live in absolute poverty. are slaves and trapped into human trafficking. Every 10 minutes 100 people die of hunger or 25,000 a day. 1.4 billion people suffer from chronic hunger while tons of food is being wasted in high income countries. I was surprised to hear that two thirds of women are illiterate. There are to major theories that try to explain global inequality through economic and social development. The first is Modernization Theory or structural-functional approach feels affluence is available to all countries. Rostow's Stages start with the Traditional where life is around family like generations before. There is little industry or technology or resources. Next is the Take-off stage where people find something to produce and a market emerges. Individualism begins and the desire for material goods. Third is the Drive to Technological maturity and growth starts the pursuit of higher living standards and cities swell. Last is the High mass consumption where standard of living rises and peoples needs increase. The U.S. Entered this stage by 1900. The second Dependence Theory feels the economy is a result of rich countries taking advantage of poor countries cheap labor and raw materials through colonization. History will tell us if any country steps up to help the poor countries. I feel the original trade deal should involve extra's for the workers. In Detroit the car companies had "profit sharing" where profits each year were divided among all workers. Workers should be asked what they want most.
ReplyDeleteThe Amish communities in our country have rejected technology and have 100% employment, take care of their elderly without government help and seem happy. I don't think it would take much to build a school for workers in a trade deal or a well. Will anyone put greed aside and do the right thing to help people of Earth survive? grandma005
The answer to your final question is no, unfortunately. It is a sad truth that the success of Amish communities and other low-tech communities is really only possible at very small scale. The less complicated a society is, the easier it is to root out the cause of issues and to stifle behaviors and individuals that seem threatening to your way of life. When you scale up the population, it becomes impossible to do that so the example of Amish lifestyle isn't applicable. The reason I say this is that those in power are so rarely morally and ethically sound. If you have a large group of people all competing for the same position of power, then it stands to reason that the people from that group who are willing to break the rules to win are probably going to get ahead of those who aren't willing to. Sadly, that leaves us with a pool of potential winners who are all deceptive, greedy, violent, or otherwise ethically compromised. Truly good people will probably never be in charge, or if they are, they will not stay in power for long. Poet005
DeleteSuch a complicated subject. As with most subjects in sociology though (at least in my opinion) the real point where the truth lies is somewhere in between the different theories. Conflict theorists think the stratification comes from exploitation, and structural theorists believe it is simply the result of differences in how certain cultures approach progress. I suspect a combination of both is what has produced the results we observe today. Instead of wondering which one is responsible, I propose that one is responsible for the other, which is responsible for the result. I think it is quite likely the structural theorist’s idea that certain countries cultures resist progress is not responsible for their poverty directly, but instead it is responsible for allowing the conflict theorists idea of exploitation to come true in the first place. The only reason certain countries were capable of spreading and exploiting other nations to begin with is because of their forward-thinking cultures. Farming techniques, harvesting equipment, medical advances, weapons production, long-range ships, war tactics, and many other benefits of a forward-thinking culture allow the exploitation to occur as much as a traditional, stagnant cultures lack of these things allow it. It is not one or the other.
ReplyDeleteAs for the topic of relative and absolute poverty, I’m sad to say that thing is not something that is likely to change any time soon. There are only two rational responses to the issue of poverty in the absence of historical knowledge. One answer is socialism, but as I said that response only makes sense in the absence of historical knowledge – we know from history that socialism or communism tends to fail because of the imperfect nature of humans. The only other response to the issue of poverty is the creation of an infinitely renewable energy source. In this case, it is likely that some stratification would still exist, but there would be no real motivation for rich countries to keep poor countries down for the sake of keeping their natural resources cheap as a way of preserving their high quality of life. Modernization could finally occur in this scenario. Unfortunately we are probably quite a ways off from this, so for now I’m sad to say that I do not believe there is any such thing as a political or social justice solution to the issue of poverty. Poet005
To begin, I would like to compliment the overall thought and perspective that you have put forth towards this blog. Your response, literally, lit a fuse within myself to put forth a greater effort toward my blog posts by thinking outside of the box and not just taking the content for what it is. With that being said, I would like to compliment you on the stance you have taken. I believe that we addressed simila topics of high income nation taking advantage over low income nations. By doing so high income nations have prospered to ensure their advancement. Also, the theories in which you addressed seemed to ties together so well. You did so by accrediting both aspects and tying them together. I never thought of structural and conflict theorists, but with you explanation I can see how both intertwined.
DeleteS&D005
First, I found to be very essential for the the explanation of terminology in regards of global stratification, because it has enhanced my interpretation. The oralist of this video first compared the definitions of old and new terminology. For instance, old terminology in regards of global stratification refers to: first-world, second-world, and third-world countries. The reasons of which this terminology ultimately dissolved was due the the Cold war. Overall, the Cold War eased second-world countries. From my understanding, then influenced socialist and economist to enable terminology that would fit society as it evolves, which led to the new terminology. With words such as: high income, middle income, and low income nations we are able to include all geographical aspects of the world from and economical stance. With that being said, there was also a mention of how high income nations, such as the United States, Canada, Japan, etc., control up the sixty-four percent of the world’s market. I find this to be essential, because it highlight the power structure of international affairs and offers some irony. To begin, there are high income nations, such as the United States, that have begun to worry of how power sources will be provided in the centuries to come, because they have exhausted their resources. Therefore, they have begun to partner with middle- and low-income nations to ensure the productivity. This displayed how, overall, high-income nations could possibly need middle- and low-income nation rather than vice versa. Yet, we see especially strides from high-income nations and little to none prosperity of the middle- and low-income nations. I find this to be ironic, because it demonstrates how the main fish need smaller fish to survive, and instead of accrediting those smaller fish we trample over them.
ReplyDeleteS&D005
Good points there will always be something to worry about in terms of our future, simply as when we come up with a solution another problem arises. The U.S has not used up resources we just try to come out on top of all our transactions such as our oil that we sell to other nations and buy cheaper oil from other nations. If I sell you a candy bar for $1 but only paid $0.5 for my own from someone else I just made a huge profit. The rich will always have the control over others as the poor would rather be friends than enemies with the rich or high income, people generally want to benefit themselves or their families. I do agree in the irony of the multinational corporations treatment of the low-income nations I would think the treatment would be better to improve the relations and moral of the people making one rich. In class we talked about the lower wages for women than that of men, if I got paid $50K and my wife with the same career made $50K annually we both bring in $100K versus the $90K with inequality. BHL005
DeleteWe have heard of the exploitation of others all throughout our lives, in this chapter of global stratification the focus of human trafficking and labor. However the focus is a broad concept of the conditions of exploitation in that when reading and going through the chapter we mainly think of the poor conditions. Everyone should know what blood diamonds are and should know that even though most of the high end businesses’ such as jewelers in the U.S won’t buy blood diamonds there are still ways of selling them to other countries or people who lack the morals of that of the U.S. Also there is still a civil war going on in Uganda for 30 years now, where the LRA will take children to fight for them. These are harsh realities of the various exploitations in our world today not saying that human trade and labor are not an important concept, but that there are more ways than the book is offering.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the exploitation or poverty will ever be abolished because there will always be someone who only cares care about their own needs. We as the U.S can attempt to end world hunger or poverty, but it will have to be done at a multinational corporation level as they have the control of their labor force. Say that this was the case and started a domino effect with other nations, which would most likely happen in such an event. There will still be a group that would rather exploit such an event to make themselves better off or get rich quick versus working a 9-5 that would support their family but would not make them rich. Even to get to that point you would still have to convince corporations to consider their morals and take a pay cut so the employees can actually be paid a cost of living salary.
Modernization and dependency theories define the cause and effect of poverty and I would have to say I agree more with dependency theory. Technology can have a huge impact as to build efficiency but does not solve the problems of multinational corporations. Most nations are dependent on high income nations to buy their goods or to supply labor to their workforce. China a middle income nation that is mainly agrarian lacks technology but has managed to become a middle income nation and if they added the technology they would most likely become a high income nation. With the U.S we have all kinds of different machinery for each of the crops grown here and manufacturers such as CAT make customizations to improve the efficiency, which is all china would need to do to increase productivity. BHL005
I totally agree with you that there it’s not possible to end poverty or world hunger. You were saying that the U S could attempt to end world hunger. Is there that much that the U S could do to help? Yes it would most likely have to be on a corporate level, but outside of our own nation how much could the U S actually help? Because the U S doesn’t own the smaller, more poverty stricken nations there is only so much the U S is able to do. And even then the U S still needs consent from those nations to be able to help them. Spoopy005
DeleteThis Global Stratification video gives great detail on what many of us are very oblivious to which is economic development in your country let alone the entire world, the explanation he provided of old verses new terminology helps you to understand the information presented and how many countries have grown or lack thereof. However the information on poverty is mind blowing of course you know it exist but not to the depths of up to 25,000 people dying daily because of hunger when we have so many resources in this world that nobody should ever wonder where their next meal will come from. It's amazing what we privileged Americans' so to speak take for granted we waste so much food, its one thing to have no food but have resources to get it rather it be in local soup kitchen that feed the hungry ( and yes I purposely put hunger) cause not every hungry person is homeless, but to be living in a country where you have no resources to get any help is very sad in many kids not living pass their 10 birthday due to starvation I couldn't even imagine a mothers pain to loose a child cause she couldn't provided them the basic necessity, collectively we all are living in one lost world no matter the title of low, middle, nor high income nation. Leathas005
ReplyDeleteThis video does give great detail on the entire world about global stratification and the explanation and the understanding of the old verse to the new verse of the world. I will agree that when he speaks about poverty it is very mind blowing. Absolutely when he got to the percentage and the numbers really made me go wow. He did open our eyes to many things about colonization theory, modernization theory, dependency theory and property. The amount of people dying daily from hunger is ridiculous due to the fact that he said there’s enough food in this world that everybody could be fat. We as American’s do take for granted the amount of food we have by wasting it daily. Your so correct just, because a person is hungry doesn’t mean they are homeless. It’s very sad that they live in a country where there is no resources to get help. Just the thought of a mother's child dying from lack of food is heart-wrenching. Cupcake005...
DeleteGlobal Stratification is broken down into different groups. They change the way we use terminology when we’re referring to countries. They are the high income meaning richest, middle income countries are considered somewhat poor, and the low income countries are the lowest productivity and extensive poverty. This video breaks down how unequally we live as people all over the world. He spoke on global income and global wealth and the fact that it is very unequally distributed around the world. The high income class people they say are the best off they control the world’s financial markets. These are the people that end up having control over other countries. They exploit the poor societies that makes inequality. Middle income has about one third of the people in the world. Their needs are somewhat met but they may still suffer from some poverty. Low income class is where there is hunger, death, disease and unsafe housing and that’s their livelihood. Low income countries leak in modernization because they leak in change. They don’t do good with learning new things. That’s why they’re victims of dependency theory. That’s just my opinion on how I took it. This is wrong on so many levels. Low income countries has the most absolute poverty. He also spoke about the sadness of world hunger and children in sex trade. Do you think we can change some of these problems and unjust treatments in the world? Cupcake005...
ReplyDeleteIn watching this video one thing stood out to me the most. The thing that stood out to me the most was the fact that low income nations have more than half of the country’s population in it but is yet the poorest and most slowly advanced countries in the world. Global stratification is a very real and sad thing to talk about because you realize how selfish and greedy high income nations are. The fact that there is enough of money to be split in the world where everyone could at least be living comfortably but we still have countries like sub-Saharan Africa and countries in Asia like India that have poor education systems, unsafe water and little to none health care shows the cruelty of humans. The food that we throw away could feed a whole village in Africa but we continue to throw the food away which is mind boggling to me because if the shoe was on the other foot how would we feel? How would we be living? Who would be there to help us? Those are probably many questions that people in low income nations ask their selves every day but we’ve yet to come together as a nation and not only answer but fix these problems. Another thing about global stratification is the life expectancy in low-income nations. The life expectancy of low-income nations is 45. When I hear this, it makes me realize how short that life expand is for someone to live it. My mom is 40 years old. If I were to live in a low-income nation she would only have 5 years left which makes me realize the severity of how bad low-income nations are that their life expectancy is so short. What makes these low-income nations life expectancy so short is the poverty that they live in. As mentioned in the video there are two different kinds of poverty. There is relative poverty and absolute poverty. Relative poverty is like me being upset because my mom wouldn’t buy me a bag of chips in the store or that I don’t have the latest version of the iPhone. But in low-income nations like china or India they don’t even have the opportunity where they could be able to want these materialistic objects. They get upset because they don’t have enough of food to eat throughout the week so they must go without eating for 3 or plus days until they get the opportunity to find or get food which is absolute poverty. Food005
ReplyDeleteYour absolutely right the way we Americans live and other higher earning nations live is ridiculous especially on the billions of food waste that happens and not to mention the most of our world has gone to be so materialistic that their only focus is themselves or what someone in the celebrity wearing or when the latest Jordan's come out. Another thing that was mind blowing was the life expectancy it real sad when life expectancy is that low and its not because of crime, disease but due to poverty but the saddest of all is the fact that higher income nation we live in sit back in do nothing about it is more troublesome. Leatahs005
DeleteI agree with the fact that we have enough money to distribute it around the world evenly and better everyone but the question is can we, and would we? Say that the 8% that holds our wealth in their hands knew this knowledge and they acted on it, what would that cause? That would make a Utopia and everyone over the age of 13 knows, a Utopian society can never be reached. It is impossible. People don’t want a Utopian society and world that is why they will never and could never do that. It sits in the back of everyone who knows this heads and they can’t really do anything about it.
DeleteDolla005
Here we are talking about Global Stratification. Global stratification can be described as the unequal way of living for certain people. We have 3 standards or ways of life that are universal. We have the high-income places like: The U.S, and Britain. Then it goes middle income like: Egypt, and Morocco. Lastly you have low income like: the whole sub-Saharan Africa. People have been known to say that some nations and some countries shouldn’t even be associated together due to how they both differ in income and money. High-income places as of the U.S can sit back and enjoy 64% of the world’s income comfortably. Where does that leave other little places like Haiti? They don’t have the luxury of saying that. Wealth is distributed in so many wrong and unequal ways around the world it is crazy. Low income places have disease, death at high ratings, hunger. Hunger is the biggest part. Millions die of hunger daily in these low income places and there is a way to stop that. There are people in some of those places that carries that places wealth and they show greed. They show greed to their own people. Them people live everyday not for fun but to get by. They live to survive. There is the most poverty in the low income nations then anywhere. Their living is unsafe and they have to live in fear day in and day out. We in the U.S take our way of living for granted. I am a prime example. I spend $200+ on shoes that are made in a middle to low income country by a worker who is getting paid only 25 cents a day. People in the U.S cry and bicker over not getting the latest iPhone. Ask Haitians do they have that luxury. Ask them do they have the latest iPhone and hear the response you get.
ReplyDeleteDolla005
I can relate to you when you use yourself as a example. I also do the same thing, I take for granted the check I earn form work complaining that it isn't enough money. I take for granted that I get above and beyond from my mom and grandmother. We take a lot for granted until we sit back and think and look at the other countries who don't even have clothes on their back ! sometimes its not even other countries it can be seen right here in our city. The day I found out that I spend 200 on jordans and the workers only get about 25 cents a day I honestly stopped buying them I stopped at 4 pairs and I'm not going back. I complain about 100 dollars isn't enough and those people would be glad to make a 100 dollars off of their hard work that they do.
Delete-kyw005
This chapter is honestly really opening my eyes to the struggles of other countries. Lately, I've been feeling sorry for myself a lot because I just moved out and am experiencing the financial struggles of being an adult, but me living paycheck to paycheck is a lot better than me being unemployed or paid unfair wages. Looking at the poverty and troubles of low income nations in this chapter helped me feel a lot better about my life. I have a job, I live in a country where my rights and opinions matter, and I'm able to pay my bills every month on time. It's essential for everyone to remember how good we have it and to be grateful for our lives and opportunities. lasagna005
DeleteThis video is talking about global strafication and the high middle and low income countries. Its true that people in the rich countries are far away from those people in the low-income countries almost like another world away. The high-income countries would be defined as the United States, and Western Europe etc.… these countries enjoy 64 % of the worlds income and with this income. The middle class would be countries such as African countries and Latin countries. Their life is somewhat difficult because they don’t have high percentage of funds they suffer from little to no healthcare and education. Its noted that 1/3 of people live in middle class. Lastly the low-income countries account for ½ of the world’s population which is very sad and should not be at all. We know for low income people the life expectancy is short and they suffer from hunger and not having any shelter. One thing from the video which I didn’t know is that much of Asia is a low-income country. Every 10 minutes 100 people die from hunger which is equal to 25,000 people a die. The fact that these number are so high makes me sick to my stomach. Also, the fact that in low income countries children are forced to work the streets and survive, and young girls are being trafficked. Working in a retirement center I am in the kitchen and I see how with all the food that’s left over they just dump it. Every day I take containers of food with me just to donate. Instead of helping with the problem I feel like we are contributing to it. We take for granted the little things other people would love to have such as having a meal and going to bed full, having a bed and house to sleep in, a job, money here and there. I’m not saying that makes life goodie goodie for us but we are more fortunate than some other people. I really am learning to sit back and think when I get a attitude because I’m not getting the latest iphone or the Jordan’s, or I catch a attitude because my mom cooked something I don’t want to eat. I need to think about the people who would love to have that food that’s being cooked and who love to have the necessities plus the extras
ReplyDelete-kyw005
Global stratification is both beneficial and detrimental to our society. For the rich, it’s beneficial. It allows the wealthy, along with their descendants. to stay wealthy and in control. That’s a big reason why the most wealthy people in the world are related: the money stays in the bloodline due to global stratification. For the poor, it’s detrimental because those impoverished people are unable to achieve extreme economic success or increase their social standing significantly. Global stratification has been prevalent in the United States since its colonization. The white Europeans captured Africans and brought them into the country to be slaves, creating a system of oppression, poverty, and limited opportunities: all elements of global stratification. Even when not legally slaves during the years after the Thirteenth Amendment, they were unable to climb the social hierarchy because they were stuck in sharecropping jobs that made them little money and discriminated against in the workforce, preventing them from getting jobs that would've made them enough money to improve their wealth. Global stratification is society’s way of keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. It benefits the powerful people, so the powerful people keep that in place. I don’t think humans will fully be able to break this vicious cycle, but we can each individually do our part to try and even the playing fields. lasagna005
ReplyDelete