Globalization and the poor

I got this story from Bloomberg news. It talks about how some of the poorest parts of the USA compare to third world countries.
I copied and pasted most of it. There is a graph showing infant mortality that I cannot copy and paste, that is why I gave the link.
There is a graph showing infant mortality that I cannot copy and paste, that is why I gave the link.
I have read several times that 40% of the Philippine population live on $2 per day or less. I am not sure that many are so poor but that is what the newspapers have said many times.
I made a paragraph BOLD that explains part of the reason people here can live on so little. A lot of “houses” are made from any scrap material that people can find or from native materials that they go into the forest to build with. A “native hut” will use split bamboo for the floors and walls and some kind of thatched roof. Some of the people even lash everything together so they do not have to buy nails so a shack can be built for no expense.
I used split bamboo to weave between strands of barbed wire to increase the height of the wall about our lot. I even had the bamboo painted and it is falling apart now. That tells me that most of those “native huts” have to be rebuilt every 2-3 years because of decay.
The truly poor people walk far more than the average Filipino so they have almost no expense for transportation. They have no electricity and no running water. One of Les’s aunts has running water but it is not inside the house. They also use a very primitive outhouse. They have no electric because they are afraid of fire.
The aunt’s husband is a pilot. Being a pilot here means he climbs trees to harvest coconuts. He earns 4-8 cents for each coconut he harvests. I am not sure if he only has to get them out of the tree or if he has to haul them to the nearest road. The nearest road might be well over a mile away. Hauling them to the road may be a different person’s job but I do not know.
Even public schools here have expenses for books, uniforms (every school requires a distinct uniform) school supplies, etc. Several times I have had to buy a special item of clothing just for a school play or program. It burns my ass because most of those are clothes that will NEVER be worn again. I assume the public schools do not require things like that because they know the parents are poor but if you send your kids to private school, they know you have money.
I am guessing that in CDO about half of the kids go to private school but the farther from the city you get, the less money the people have.
As far as globalization goes, I FULLY agree that “globalization means that, by outsourcing, it is possible to impoverish an American community to the point where it is indistinguishable from a hard-up town in the dusty heartland of a third world country.”
There is only so much money in the world. If we send jobs to another country that means that country gets OUR money. OUR people suffer because they have no jobs. In a perfect world everyone would have equal money, job opportunities, access to doctors, etc. The last time I checked we do NOT live in a perfect world. Given a choice I say keep jobs and money in the USA.
Trust me there is NOTHING you can do to help the 4 BILLION poor people of the world. When a fire burned down a large part of Les’s mom’s subdivision of poor people they resorted to living under a bridge in very very close quarters. No walls, no water, no bathrooms, etc. I handed out rice and canned goods but the line was just as long when I ran out of food as it was before I started. That was over 110 pounds of rice and 200 cans of food. The poor of the world outnumber the middle class and rich about ten to one.
That is the way I see it.


How Mississippi Is Worse Off Than Bangladesh

MARCH 14, 2017 2:07 PM EST
a | A
Justin Fox
A year and a half ago, renowned travel writer Paul Theroux wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times — based on his then-new book “Deep South: Four Seasons on Back Roads” — that raised a lot of hackles. Some objected to Theroux’s views on manufacturing jobs and globalization, which we would now call Trumpian. Then there was this assertion:
I found towns in South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas that looked like towns in Zimbabwe, just as overlooked and beleaguered. It’s globalization, people say. … To me, globalization is the search for a new plantation, and cheaper labor; globalization means that, by outsourcing, it is possible to impoverish an American community to the point where it is indistinguishable from a hard-up town in the dusty heartland of a third world country.
To a wonky economic journalist, this begged for refutation. Annie Lowrey, writing for New York magazine, offered this:
No, economically depressed towns in the United States are not “indistinguishable” from economically depressed towns in countries like Zimbabwe. Even the poorest regions of the United States are vastly wealthier and better developed than comparable regions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Pick your data point. The state of Mississippi, the poorest in the country, generates about $30,000 of goods and services per person every year. In Zimbabwe, that number is $1,700. In one, infants frequently die of diarrhea. In the other, adults frequently die of heart disease. I think I’d rather be in the latter camp.
I was reminded of this exchange last week when, in a conversation with none other than Annie Lowrey, who is now at the Atlantic, economist Angus Deaton said:
If you had to choose between living in a poor village in India and living in the Mississippi Delta or in a suburb of Milwaukee in a trailer park, I’m not sure who would have the better life.
This has been a theme lately for Deaton, a Princeton professor who a few weeks after winning the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2015 published, together with his wife and fellow economist, Anne Case, the blockbuster finding that mortality rates have been rising among middle-class white Americans.
During a panel discussion at the American Economic Association’s annual meeting in January, Deaton said that the World Bank has started measuring incomes in rich countries as well as poor ones, and its latest data shows more than 3 million people in the U.S. getting by on incomes of less than $1.90 day — the international poverty line. This has generally “been discounted as impossible” by economists, Deaton said, but recent studies such as Kathryn Eden and H. Luke Shaefer’s “$2 a Day” and Matthew Desmond’s “Evicted” have shown that maybe it isn’t:
What you have to remember is that when the World Bank counts the poor in rural India or in rural Africa — those living on $1.90 a day — they’re essentially assuming that housing is free. Rural people in poor countries also spend very little on transport or on child care, whereas those three items — shelter, transport and child care — are making life a misery for the people that Desmond and Kathy Eden write about. So perhaps there are people living in the U.S. who are worse off than people in Africa or Asia.
Deaton said that when he makes such observations, he usually gets the response that poor people in the U.S. are much healthier than their counterparts in India or Africa. Which is mostly true — there’s a vastly better public health infrastructure here, along with sewage systems and (mostly) easy access to clean water. Nevertheless, he concluded, “life expectancy in much of Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta is lower than in Bangladesh or in Nepal.”
Part of the story here is that some countries — Bangladesh and Nepal among them — have made enormous strides. As the late Hans Rosling tried and tried to get across with his TED talks and Gapminder animations, there is no longer a clear divide between a third world and a first world, just a continuum of nations that have had varying degrees of success in fostering economic growth and improving their citizens’ health.
Zimbabwe, to which Theroux compared the rural South, is decidedly not one of those countries. Decades of misrule by Robert Mugabe and devastation wrought by AIDS have left real per capita income at about half what it was in 1985, life expectancy barely higher, and infant mortality down only modestly. (Neighboring Botswana, while it has had similar health struggles, saw real incomes more than double over that period.)
Still, there are lots of other poor or once-poor nations, especially in Asia, where incomes and health indicators have been rising and rising. In the U.S. there’s lots of debate over whether poverty has been getting worse or not, but things certainly haven’t been getting much better over the past 15-plus years. So nowadays, when you compare the worst-performing U.S. states with countries around the world on a measure such as infant mortality, you find some interesting peers.
Infant Mortality in States and Countries
Deaths per 1,000 live births, 2015
Sources: World Bank, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Infant mortality in Bangladesh is, at 30.7 deaths per thousand in 2015, still much higher than in any U.S. state. Still, the trajectory is pretty encouraging (the rate was was 117.9 in 1985, and 176.3 in 1960). That has to make a difference. As writer Anand Giridharadas put it in his book “The True American,” paraphrasing the thoughts of a Bangladeshi immigrant working in a Dallas minimart: “The poverty of a place that is breaking can differ from the poverty of a place still being made.”
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story:
Justin Fox at
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Brooke Sample at


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s