Global Inequality, what keeps poor countries poor and falling behind in the world? Most of the poor countries have not progressed pass Rostow's first stage of traditional living where poverty has been passed down through generations. There is little chance for education when the children are needed to work the streets for the family's survival. Two theories were mentioned: first Modernization Theory feels a better way of life is available to all through Rostow's four stages. However, for the poor country to prosper they need businesses or a natural resource to generate income. Second is the structuralism ideas of Dependency where rich companies like Nike go into a country to exploit its cheap labor force and the country is still poor. There is also the World System theory where Wallerstein says to study the world as a whole economy not individual countries. He feels capitalists exploit their own workers within the country and colonialism exploited their own workers within the country and colonialism exploited and is capitalistic by nature. Now that the how and why are answered, it is time to concentrate of solutions. Each country needs to find a source of income or natural resource and then build. Adults and children need to be educated. They need more than one industry, free elections and checks and balances in the government, budget transparency and free radio not under government control. I have seen an example on a cruise to the Caribbean Islands. In 1997 Holland American Cruise Lines bought the island of Little San Salvador for 6 million and re-named it to Half Moon Cay. They developed business's and beaches and all the amenities that vacationers want and staffed them with islanders. There is a grade school and solid small homes for workers and they have the hope of the future being even better for their children. They vote and send their children off the island to continue high school and college. Is the cruise line getting a cut? probably, however, the workers are better off. It would take a much bigger investment to improve a whole country and where do you find investors? Maybe the poor countries leaders could educated children with the purpose of using their knowledge and innovation to come back and help the country.grandma005
As you said, the investment required to perform a similar overhaul for an entire country would be larger (to the extent that it is not possible at all). This is another example of how it is not particularly difficult to make a system work on a small scale, much like the example of Amish communities. You mention getting the children educated so that they could come back and innovate for the country.The thing about poor countries leaders is that they often don't want their citizenry to be educated. If you recall, professor White mentioned in class that in poor countries, the income disparity is often even greater than in rich countries. It sounds strange at first, but its true. The leaders of poor nations often enjoy exuberant wealth and power because they exploit their citizens in order to afford their lifestyles and in order to stay in power by purchasing loyalty from key figures to power which are required to maintain control (military, police, banks, etc). Even in the case where a leader has a change or heart and grows a conscience, the second they start re-distributing wealth to their citizens instead of lining the pockets of their "keys to power" as I called them, they will be overthrown. There is always someone else whispering in the ears of those keys that if the current leader wont pay them what they want, then they will instead. In addition to needing to exploit citizenry in order to afford to buy loyalty from key figures, they also have to keep their citizens hungry and uneducated to prevent revolution. When revolution does finally happen, those with good intentions that take over the country often find themselves in the same difficult position the last leader was in. I recommend CGP Grey's video on youtube called "Rules for rulers" for a much better explanation of how this works since I can barely do it justice. Poet005
Well I've kinda ruined my ability to post well on this blog because I got a little ahead of myself on the global stratification blog. I feel like I've responded to this one already in the previous blog. It seems the summary of what the narrator had to say is that forms of communism and socialism are the knee-jerk reaction solution to the issues of stratification, but have been shown to fail miserably which I mentioned already. He then goes on to highlight how advancements in technology are slowly able to pull people out of poverty. He does not go into detail about how this is possible, but essentially it is because as our tech level increases, so to does our efficiency. As our efficiency increases, we are able to maintain the same level of quality of life with fewer resources needed to fuel that state of being. Therefore, the more efficient we become in affluent nations, the less intensely we have to oppress other nations populations to maintain our way of life, and opportunities are able to be created for those people. The book does not say this, neither do either of the videos. This is simply a harsh reality that I've observed after studying these subjects and paying attention to global systems and human nature. This is the main reason why in the other blog post I made for this week I mentioned the creation of an infinitely renewable energy source (such as fusion reactors) as being one of the only (if not the one and only) true solution to the negatives of global stratification. If we cannot rely on those in power to sacrifice quality of life so that the world can be more equal, then the only solution is to make it so easy for everyone to have what they want that they don't need to sacrifice for that to be a reality. That can only come with hyper-efficient technologies such as fusion reactors. Unfortunately as far as I can tell, the only way to reach that level of efficiency is for the most affluent countries that are responsible for most technological innovation today to continue being affluent so they can continue marching forward toward that goal. This means things can not change direction too drastically if we want that to happen. Poet005
Global inequality! Why poorer countries not developing like the rest of the world? the video list several valid reason why this maybe taking place and to me it seem like the less fortunate countries are in many ways being exploited by more profitable countries, you have these big companies leaving their main country to set up shop so to speak to get their products produce at unbelievable rate just to bring to another country in the max amount on the product. So are we higher income companies are to blame, I cant say we are but we sure do play an major role in it; look at how majority of major brands go oversea to have many products made knowing that many of the worker are kids, teenagers women etc. who are forces to work in unbearable conditions not to mention the pay. Global capitalism is all over but it only benefit the fortunate countries it will continue to be dominant and always over look the less fortunate countries which hinders the poor countries from developing to become equal this video is a perfect example of the phrase of why the rich is getting richer and the poor are staying poor. Leathas005
I agree because those big companies setup shops all over the world. They are paying pennies and the people are producing products at an astounding rate. The companies are charging probaly hundreds of dollars for the things they produce. I think the higher income countries are to blame because they are well aware of the level of poverty that exist. Im sure they sit at the round table smiling and laughing about how they made millions while the workers only get 1% of what they will bring in. Its a sad reality however it is a true one. I know that if they wanted to they could build better conditions for people to work in and pay them just a litte more and they would slightly decrease poverty. Every little bit counts. 12mc-oo5
Global stratifiction really states the obvious, the rich gets richer and the poor is just that. High income countries has always had the means to stay wealthy and maintain a suitable way of living. Because you have low income people that are hungry or desperate to survive another day. So at the cost of cheap labor for a meal or whatever they may have needed they worked extremely hard and was determine to see things through. While the countries got richer by giving them just enough to get by. I agree with the professor when he said the system is not perfect and yes there is more then enough food to feed the world to stop hunger. Yet so many people are greedy and would rather waste then to give to a person in need. Ethnocentric play a big role also because people are so intuned with judging others cultures that are inferior to ours. Relative proverty is big because people lack resources that others take for granted. Then you have absolute poverty in places like Africa where medical is hard to come by and most people die before reaching teenage years. I understand that some low income countries resist change do to their traditional ways of living. But if they are just thrown in the water and told to swim how can they when they havent been given the lessons. I beleive the rich only give enough so the poor can get by and their okay with it because theyre getting a little more of what they need. As long as there is someone stating how and when economic resources are distributed among nations and within nations then things will continue to be as they are. The rate of death do to hunger and lack of medicines will only increase.12mc-005
well stated I agree the rich income nations are barely even spoon feeding the poor nations; but the greed of it all keeps them at the turning a blind eye to the situation at hand because no not all countries have to be a high income nation but the least the higher income nation can do is to keep them from being in such poverty to where they can strive to make their world as best as it can be; even with limited resources to education, health, shelter etc. but these greedy nations wont allow that to happen just so they can remain at the ''top'' but are they really at the top when you stopping others wellbeing. With all the research our government take part in I'm sure many know or have come up with ways they could better the low income nations but refuse to do so. Leathas005
I definitely agree with the idea that the rich only give the poor enough to get by in order to profit capitalism. When you use workers who are either living illegally in a country or living in a country devastated by poverty, labor can be cheap and profit can be increased. If you don’t have a legal minimum wage requirement or give workers jobs under the table, a lot of money can be taken from wages to maximize the potential earnings for a huge company while the workers who actually made the product leave the job almost empty-handed. Global stratification is definitely majorly fueled by capitalism and human greed, disregarding the other humans completely. lasagna005
It is kind of sad the way the world works, but it is the way it is. If companies and/or the rich could choose to do so they would always pay the bare minimum they can ti have the workers work diligently and loyally. This is seen in today's world with the huge debate on the issue of minimum wage. Another example is the huge illegal immigrant issue that is all over the news. Companies surely would higher these illegal immigrants at a lower price than they would someone else, no? I don't see this ever changing sadly, unless forcefully done so. We'll see the road the world takes and even our own countries path. Acer005
A big question that I got out of this video was, why are poor countries staying poor and why haven’t they developed yet. In this video, they try to use certain theories to answer this question. Like the modernization theory which is basically saying giving the right circumstances a country will either prevail and develop or fall behind. But then I question what did low-income nations not do right to prevail or what they didn’t do which made them fall behind? They give a good example of this using the Nike company in Bangladesh. I truly believe that low-income nations exist because like they said in the video rich countries exploit or take advantage of poorer countries because they may or may not be smarter than us or have the knowledge of knowing when they’re being taken advantage of. Another thing they talk about in this video is that poor countries have natural resources and offer cheap labor which could also be another reason low-income nations are being taken advantage of. It makes me wonder and want to know more about the reality of the current economic situation low-income nations are in and why they are still in the hands of manipulative rich countries. Food005
You have good questions, but they are general questions that can have multiple answers. We have talked about dependency theory but even that can go in multiple directions. Scotland for instance chose to stay with England because they thought if they were separated, economically they couldn't they would suffer and wouldn't have England to assist them if needed. Where as we learned low-income nations depend on high-income nations to provide a standard of living whether equal or not dough today is bread tomorrow. It is just that the high-income nations take advantage of the low-income nations in their own dependency for lower costs. The exploitation is not the lack of education but the need for a standard of living, they are hungry now and cannot wait the many months for food that it would take to break out on their own. Sure you can have an opinion but lets just let corporate to ponder over it but before I send it up how long can you go without food. Its going to take people that actually have a heart in order to make better changes. BHL005
I had the same questions as you. why are these countries not being developed and etc... I also agree with you when you say these poor countries are being used and exploited. We can see how prevalent it is to because in my opinion as I said in post when you put these "rich" companies like the jordans and the nike and you pay these people little to nothing that is defiantly taken advantage of them. Its almost a form of slavery we talked about in class just in a different way. they will make these products we pay top dollar for and they don't even make enough to feed their family or their selves I wish I knew the answer to the last part of your question when you say why are low income countries still be in the hands of the rich countries -kyw005
I like the world system theory as to me this is a good definition of how global stratification of inequality. You can’t say that Donald trump has no power in other nations when he is a capitalist and Donald Trump does not represent the U.S in his own business ventures. Even though now he is the President his ties with other countries that have already been established are in association with him and not the U.S. It is the capitalists of the world that define the global stratification and the capitalists of each nation to define the extent of poverty and cost of living. A nation’s government could easily say they do not like the working conditions of their citizens and work to make such conditions more acceptable however the likelihood of the citizens conditions improving are unlikely. The government could either pocket what was made from the conditions or they can get paid for keeping quiet about the conditions in the first place. Sure technology would help with poverty if the issue was of productivity but the main issue in low-income nations cannot be helped with such technology. Dependency is mainly a means that a nation cannot support themselves but with such dependencies they cannot improve or grow into middle-income nations. These are just a couple of theories and more theories could be produced just by trying to figure out the cause of global stratification. BHL005
So, I might be wrong but this is what I’m getting from this video is that rich will always be rich and the poor well will always be poor? another thing I got from the video once again not really knowing if I’m right or wrong, but why are the poor countries not being developed like the rich companies? This puzzles me because take for example Nike we know they make about 20 something a million maybe more a year, but they have production shops located in places that need help like Bangladesh, Indonesia, China, Taiwan, India and so forth. Okay so we know the shops are there why are these people still low income and why are is their country not developed. Well in my opinion I feel as if they put those shops in low income area and pay them almost nothing because they know the people need the money and will do it. Going back to Jordan’s we pay 200 and up for a pair BUT the workers make 25cent a day so when you do the math if they work every day and there is roughly 30 days a month those workers make about 8.00 dollars a month, which isn’t enough to feed their families. It makes me so upset these people sit back and get rich but use people to do the work for them for nothing. Obviously, we know that this wouldn’t work in America we have all kinds of rules and so forth to make sure that it wouldn’t happen. Like we discussed in class which I really didn’t know when you donate money to certain organizations the money doesn’t go directly to the organization or the purpose, the head people sit there and pocket majority of it and give the last little bit to the organization. This explains why these people are sitting here on big cars and houses. It’s just so sad the world we live in everybody deserves to be treated the same way! not any way differently -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
We all know that the world is unequal. But why is this so? Are they being exploited by richer countries? It seems so. For example, Nestle has had multiple scandals involving their bottled water branch. It was made known that they would set up shop in poorer countries and take all their clean, fresh water and leave the country with almost no water left. Companies do this because they can make an easy buck abusing these ignorant countries and leaving it in ruins. Of course they don't have any remorse doing this and if they do it does n't affect them enough to not want the profits from doing it. I don't see this ever changing sadly, as these companies are always left unpunished from what could be considered crimes. Global stratification is in effect and we don't even think about it. We are even part of it. Its such a huge topic its pretty hard to apply it just to yourself. That's what this class is all about though isn't it. Slowly though, the world is generally improving, but what are others doing to help? There is a lot of aid given to struggling countries but there is also a lot done to hurt them as with the nestle example. ACER005
In the way you are describing the abuse of low-income nations it is done by large companies more so than high-income nations. So maybe a question to go off of your thoughts would be why aren’t high- income nations regulating companies better? There is obviously much more that high-income nations could be doing to help keep low-income nations from being taken advantage of, but they really aren’t doing much. There is the aspect of not being able to regulate companies and industries that have their headquarters in a different nation. It’s like CAT moving talking about moving to another state so they wouldn’t have to pay as much in taxes. Companies, especially big ones, are going to do whatever they can to make the most money regardless of the harm they are causing. Spoopy005
A harsh truth that not many people are willing to bring to light is the fact that we will always have poverty. The way that our world measures wealth is by comparing to how little poor people make and vice versa with measuring poverty. But just because there will always be poverty in the world doesn’t exactly mean that in a hundred years poverty is going to look the same. Maybe in a hundred years poverty will be a family of four only being able to afford a two bedroom apartment- and seeing what poverty is right now, this could be a very optimistic way of looking at it. If poverty were no longer around wouldn’t that also mean that there is no longer wealth, because everyone would be at the same level? Even though there will always be poverty that does not necessarily mean that the people who are living in poverty will be struggling to make a living. All of these aspects apply to the nations as a whole as well as the people living in them. It’s possible that America will always be more prosperous than the nations in Africa, even if those nations were able to hit such an advancement that there would be barely any infant mortalities. Spoop005
Global Inequality, what keeps poor countries poor and falling behind in the world? Most of the poor countries have not progressed pass Rostow's first stage of traditional living where poverty has been passed down through generations. There is little chance for education when the children are needed to work the streets for the family's survival. Two theories were mentioned: first Modernization Theory feels a better way of life is available to all through Rostow's four stages. However, for the poor country to prosper they need businesses or a natural resource to generate income. Second is the structuralism ideas of Dependency where rich companies like Nike go into a country to exploit its cheap labor force and the country is still poor. There is also the World System theory where Wallerstein says to study the world as a whole economy not individual countries. He feels capitalists exploit their own workers within the country and colonialism exploited their own workers within the country and colonialism exploited and is capitalistic by nature. Now that the how and why are answered, it is time to concentrate of solutions. Each country needs to find a source of income or natural resource and then build. Adults and children need to be educated. They need more than one industry, free elections and checks and balances in the government, budget transparency and free radio not under government control. I have seen an example on a cruise to the Caribbean Islands. In 1997 Holland American Cruise Lines bought the island of Little San Salvador for 6 million and re-named it to Half Moon Cay. They developed business's and beaches and all the amenities that vacationers want and staffed them with islanders. There is a grade school and solid small homes for workers and they have the hope of the future being even better for their children. They vote and send their children off the island to continue high school and college. Is the cruise line getting a cut? probably, however, the workers are better off. It would take a much bigger investment to improve a whole country and where do you find investors? Maybe the poor countries leaders could educated children with the purpose of using their knowledge and innovation to come back and help the country.grandma005
ReplyDeleteAs you said, the investment required to perform a similar overhaul for an entire country would be larger (to the extent that it is not possible at all). This is another example of how it is not particularly difficult to make a system work on a small scale, much like the example of Amish communities. You mention getting the children educated so that they could come back and innovate for the country.The thing about poor countries leaders is that they often don't want their citizenry to be educated. If you recall, professor White mentioned in class that in poor countries, the income disparity is often even greater than in rich countries. It sounds strange at first, but its true. The leaders of poor nations often enjoy exuberant wealth and power because they exploit their citizens in order to afford their lifestyles and in order to stay in power by purchasing loyalty from key figures to power which are required to maintain control (military, police, banks, etc). Even in the case where a leader has a change or heart and grows a conscience, the second they start re-distributing wealth to their citizens instead of lining the pockets of their "keys to power" as I called them, they will be overthrown. There is always someone else whispering in the ears of those keys that if the current leader wont pay them what they want, then they will instead. In addition to needing to exploit citizenry in order to afford to buy loyalty from key figures, they also have to keep their citizens hungry and uneducated to prevent revolution. When revolution does finally happen, those with good intentions that take over the country often find themselves in the same difficult position the last leader was in. I recommend CGP Grey's video on youtube called "Rules for rulers" for a much better explanation of how this works since I can barely do it justice. Poet005
DeleteWell I've kinda ruined my ability to post well on this blog because I got a little ahead of myself on the global stratification blog. I feel like I've responded to this one already in the previous blog. It seems the summary of what the narrator had to say is that forms of communism and socialism are the knee-jerk reaction solution to the issues of stratification, but have been shown to fail miserably which I mentioned already. He then goes on to highlight how advancements in technology are slowly able to pull people out of poverty. He does not go into detail about how this is possible, but essentially it is because as our tech level increases, so to does our efficiency. As our efficiency increases, we are able to maintain the same level of quality of life with fewer resources needed to fuel that state of being. Therefore, the more efficient we become in affluent nations, the less intensely we have to oppress other nations populations to maintain our way of life, and opportunities are able to be created for those people. The book does not say this, neither do either of the videos. This is simply a harsh reality that I've observed after studying these subjects and paying attention to global systems and human nature. This is the main reason why in the other blog post I made for this week I mentioned the creation of an infinitely renewable energy source (such as fusion reactors) as being one of the only (if not the one and only) true solution to the negatives of global stratification. If we cannot rely on those in power to sacrifice quality of life so that the world can be more equal, then the only solution is to make it so easy for everyone to have what they want that they don't need to sacrifice for that to be a reality. That can only come with hyper-efficient technologies such as fusion reactors. Unfortunately as far as I can tell, the only way to reach that level of efficiency is for the most affluent countries that are responsible for most technological innovation today to continue being affluent so they can continue marching forward toward that goal. This means things can not change direction too drastically if we want that to happen. Poet005
ReplyDeleteGlobal inequality! Why poorer countries not developing like the rest of the world? the video list several valid reason why this maybe taking place and to me it seem like the less fortunate countries are in many ways being exploited by more profitable countries, you have these big companies leaving their main country to set up shop so to speak to get their products produce at unbelievable rate just to bring to another country in the max amount on the product. So are we higher income companies are to blame, I cant say we are but we sure do play an major role in it; look at how majority of major brands go oversea to have many products made knowing that many of the worker are kids, teenagers women etc. who are forces to work in unbearable conditions not to mention the pay. Global capitalism is all over but it only benefit the fortunate countries it will continue to be dominant and always over look the less fortunate countries which hinders the poor countries from developing to become equal this video is a perfect example of the phrase of why the rich is getting richer and the poor are staying poor. Leathas005
ReplyDeleteI agree because those big companies setup shops all over the world. They are paying pennies and the people are producing products at an astounding rate. The companies are charging probaly hundreds of dollars for the things they produce. I think the higher income countries are to blame because they are well aware of the level of poverty that exist. Im sure they sit at the round table smiling and laughing about how they made millions while the workers only get 1% of what they will bring in. Its a sad reality however it is a true one. I know that if they wanted to they could build better conditions for people to work in and pay them just a litte more and they would slightly decrease poverty. Every little bit counts. 12mc-oo5
DeleteGlobal stratifiction really states the obvious, the rich gets richer and the poor is just that. High income countries has always had the means to stay wealthy and maintain a suitable way of living. Because you have low income people that are hungry or desperate to survive another day. So at the cost of cheap labor for a meal or whatever they may have needed they worked extremely hard and was determine to see things through. While the countries got richer by giving them just enough to get by. I agree with the professor when he said the system is not perfect and yes there is more then enough food to feed the world to stop hunger. Yet so many people are greedy and would rather waste then to give to a person in need. Ethnocentric play a big role also because people are so intuned with judging others cultures that are inferior to ours. Relative proverty is big because people lack resources that others take for granted. Then you have absolute poverty in places like Africa where medical is hard to come by and most people die before reaching teenage years. I understand that some low income countries resist change do to their traditional ways of living. But if they are just thrown in the water and told to swim how can they when they havent been given the lessons. I beleive the rich only give enough so the poor can get by and their okay with it because theyre getting a little more of what they need. As long as there is someone stating how and when economic resources are distributed among nations and within nations then things will continue to be as they are. The rate of death do to hunger and lack of medicines will only increase.12mc-005
ReplyDeletewell stated I agree the rich income nations are barely even spoon feeding the poor nations; but the greed of it all keeps them at the turning a blind eye to the situation at hand because no not all countries have to be a high income nation but the least the higher income nation can do is to keep them from being in such poverty to where they can strive to make their world as best as it can be; even with limited resources to education, health, shelter etc. but these greedy nations wont allow that to happen just so they can remain at the ''top'' but are they really at the top when you stopping others wellbeing. With all the research our government take part in I'm sure many know or have come up with ways they could better the low income nations but refuse to do so. Leathas005
DeleteI definitely agree with the idea that the rich only give the poor enough to get by in order to profit capitalism. When you use workers who are either living illegally in a country or living in a country devastated by poverty, labor can be cheap and profit can be increased. If you don’t have a legal minimum wage requirement or give workers jobs under the table, a lot of money can be taken from wages to maximize the potential earnings for a huge company while the workers who actually made the product leave the job almost empty-handed. Global stratification is definitely majorly fueled by capitalism and human greed, disregarding the other humans completely. lasagna005
DeleteIt is kind of sad the way the world works, but it is the way it is. If companies and/or the rich could choose to do so they would always pay the bare minimum they can ti have the workers work diligently and loyally. This is seen in today's world with the huge debate on the issue of minimum wage. Another example is the huge illegal immigrant issue that is all over the news. Companies surely would higher these illegal immigrants at a lower price than they would someone else, no? I don't see this ever changing sadly, unless forcefully done so. We'll see the road the world takes and even our own countries path. Acer005
DeleteA big question that I got out of this video was, why are poor countries staying poor and why haven’t they developed yet. In this video, they try to use certain theories to answer this question. Like the modernization theory which is basically saying giving the right circumstances a country will either prevail and develop or fall behind. But then I question what did low-income nations not do right to prevail or what they didn’t do which made them fall behind? They give a good example of this using the Nike company in Bangladesh. I truly believe that low-income nations exist because like they said in the video rich countries exploit or take advantage of poorer countries because they may or may not be smarter than us or have the knowledge of knowing when they’re being taken advantage of. Another thing they talk about in this video is that poor countries have natural resources and offer cheap labor which could also be another reason low-income nations are being taken advantage of. It makes me wonder and want to know more about the reality of the current economic situation low-income nations are in and why they are still in the hands of manipulative rich countries. Food005
ReplyDeleteYou have good questions, but they are general questions that can have multiple answers. We have talked about dependency theory but even that can go in multiple directions. Scotland for instance chose to stay with England because they thought if they were separated, economically they couldn't they would suffer and wouldn't have England to assist them if needed. Where as we learned low-income nations depend on high-income nations to provide a standard of living whether equal or not dough today is bread tomorrow. It is just that the high-income nations take advantage of the low-income nations in their own dependency for lower costs. The exploitation is not the lack of education but the need for a standard of living, they are hungry now and cannot wait the many months for food that it would take to break out on their own. Sure you can have an opinion but lets just let corporate to ponder over it but before I send it up how long can you go without food. Its going to take people that actually have a heart in order to make better changes. BHL005
DeleteI had the same questions as you. why are these countries not being developed and etc... I also agree with you when you say these poor countries are being used and exploited. We can see how prevalent it is to because in my opinion as I said in post when you put these "rich" companies like the jordans and the nike and you pay these people little to nothing that is defiantly taken advantage of them. Its almost a form of slavery we talked about in class just in a different way. they will make these products we pay top dollar for and they don't even make enough to feed their family or their selves I wish I knew the answer to the last part of your question when you say why are low income countries still be in the hands of the rich countries
Delete-kyw005
I like the world system theory as to me this is a good definition of how global stratification of inequality. You can’t say that Donald trump has no power in other nations when he is a capitalist and Donald Trump does not represent the U.S in his own business ventures. Even though now he is the President his ties with other countries that have already been established are in association with him and not the U.S. It is the capitalists of the world that define the global stratification and the capitalists of each nation to define the extent of poverty and cost of living. A nation’s government could easily say they do not like the working conditions of their citizens and work to make such conditions more acceptable however the likelihood of the citizens conditions improving are unlikely. The government could either pocket what was made from the conditions or they can get paid for keeping quiet about the conditions in the first place. Sure technology would help with poverty if the issue was of productivity but the main issue in low-income nations cannot be helped with such technology. Dependency is mainly a means that a nation cannot support themselves but with such dependencies they cannot improve or grow into middle-income nations. These are just a couple of theories and more theories could be produced just by trying to figure out the cause of global stratification. BHL005
ReplyDeleteSo, I might be wrong but this is what I’m getting from this video is that rich will always be rich and the poor well will always be poor? another thing I got from the video once again not really knowing if I’m right or wrong, but why are the poor countries not being developed like the rich companies? This puzzles me because take for example Nike we know they make about 20 something a million maybe more a year, but they have production shops located in places that need help like Bangladesh, Indonesia, China, Taiwan, India and so forth. Okay so we know the shops are there why are these people still low income and why are is their country not developed. Well in my opinion I feel as if they put those shops in low income area and pay them almost nothing because they know the people need the money and will do it. Going back to Jordan’s we pay 200 and up for a pair BUT the workers make 25cent a day so when you do the math if they work every day and there is roughly 30 days a month those workers make about 8.00 dollars a month, which isn’t enough to feed their families. It makes me so upset these people sit back and get rich but use people to do the work for them for nothing. Obviously, we know that this wouldn’t work in America we have all kinds of rules and so forth to make sure that it wouldn’t happen. Like we discussed in class which I really didn’t know when you donate money to certain organizations the money doesn’t go directly to the organization or the purpose, the head people sit there and pocket majority of it and give the last little bit to the organization. This explains why these people are sitting here on big cars and houses. It’s just so sad the world we live in everybody deserves to be treated the same way! not any way differently
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
ReplyDeletewrong blog ignore this one. lasagna005
DeleteWe all know that the world is unequal. But why is this so? Are they being exploited by richer countries? It seems so. For example, Nestle has had multiple scandals involving their bottled water branch. It was made known that they would set up shop in poorer countries and take all their clean, fresh water and leave the country with almost no water left. Companies do this because they can make an easy buck abusing these ignorant countries and leaving it in ruins. Of course they don't have any remorse doing this and if they do it does
ReplyDeleten't affect them enough to not want the profits from doing it. I don't see this ever changing sadly, as these companies are always left unpunished from what could be considered crimes. Global stratification is in effect and we don't even think about it. We are even part of it. Its such a huge topic its pretty hard to apply it just to yourself. That's what this class is all about though isn't it. Slowly though, the world is generally improving, but what are others doing to help? There is a lot of aid given to struggling countries but there is also a lot done to hurt them as with the nestle example. ACER005
In the way you are describing the abuse of low-income nations it is done by large companies more so than high-income nations. So maybe a question to go off of your thoughts would be why aren’t high- income nations regulating companies better? There is obviously much more that high-income nations could be doing to help keep low-income nations from being taken advantage of, but they really aren’t doing much. There is the aspect of not being able to regulate companies and industries that have their headquarters in a different nation. It’s like CAT moving talking about moving to another state so they wouldn’t have to pay as much in taxes. Companies, especially big ones, are going to do whatever they can to make the most money regardless of the harm they are causing. Spoopy005
DeleteA harsh truth that not many people are willing to bring to light is the fact that we will always have poverty. The way that our world measures wealth is by comparing to how little poor people make and vice versa with measuring poverty. But just because there will always be poverty in the world doesn’t exactly mean that in a hundred years poverty is going to look the same. Maybe in a hundred years poverty will be a family of four only being able to afford a two bedroom apartment- and seeing what poverty is right now, this could be a very optimistic way of looking at it. If poverty were no longer around wouldn’t that also mean that there is no longer wealth, because everyone would be at the same level? Even though there will always be poverty that does not necessarily mean that the people who are living in poverty will be struggling to make a living. All of these aspects apply to the nations as a whole as well as the people living in them. It’s possible that America will always be more prosperous than the nations in Africa, even if those nations were able to hit such an advancement that there would be barely any infant mortalities. Spoop005
ReplyDelete