Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oprah Winfrey is doing more harm than good in Africa.
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 16 of 26 (455283)
02-11-2008 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
02-10-2008 10:39 AM


Re: Education does not = more work
Nator, I have obviously not been clear on what I am implying. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
It is a complicated issue. I believe the education of the african children in this way is missing vital steps. The education should be built on what they already have.
The example I can give is of the Aboriginal peoples here. The indigenous people were here thousands of years before the whites invaded. The whites only a couple of hundred. The aboriginal people already had a huge history in the spoken language and in art.
The black african peoples are exactly the same in that they have thousands of years history and a culture that is founded on their history. This is the starting point. They have the solutions themselves if only they were asked.
The good deeds of the whites dispossessed the Aboriginal poeples from their families and their history. They were expected to become extinct. A much reduced population is finally being heard. We are now learning much from them. I bow my head in shame.
I find your implication that we should withold education from people who currently, due to their lack of opportunity to become educated, are the labor pool which produces cheap consumer goods for rich western nations, simply because it would be terrible to not have cheap laborers anymore to be morally repugnant.
The implications of this view point truly gives me the shudders. The inequality is staggering.
Edited by paula rose, : No reason given.
Edited by paula rose, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 02-10-2008 10:39 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 02-12-2008 7:11 AM pelican has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 26 (455371)
02-12-2008 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by pelican
02-11-2008 7:34 PM


Re: Education does not = more work
Nothing in this post actually addressed anything in the post you are supposedly replying to.
At least, not in any sensical way.
I find your implication that we should withold education from people who currently, due to their lack of opportunity to become educated, are the labor pool which produces cheap consumer goods for rich western nations, simply because it would be terrible to not have cheap laborers anymore to be morally repugnant.
quote:
The implications of this view point truly gives me the shudders. The inequality is staggering.
Indeed.
Then why did you imply that it would be terrible if this cheap labor pool was lost and we all had to make our own clothing and draperies? You implied that, pr, so why does it make you "shudder" now?
Something tells me that you have a hard time keeping track of your own arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by pelican, posted 02-11-2008 7:34 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by pelican, posted 02-12-2008 10:59 AM nator has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 18 of 26 (455405)
02-12-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by nator
02-12-2008 7:11 AM


Re: Education does not = more work
We meet again and again. Are you following me? I'm glad you do. I do a lot of implying and do not always state clearly what I mean. I know what I mean and think everyone else does, so thanks again.
Then why did you imply that it would be terrible if this cheap labor pool was lost and we all had to make our own clothing and draperies?
..............
I was implying that it would be good if the cheap labour was lost and the 'pool' paid a living wage equal to other workers who put in the same amount of labour.
These skills and these jobs are an important part of our survival, just as the manufacture of every other commodity that comes from cheap labour. Hope this clarifes my position.
Through personal experience of working for many years in British sweat shops, cotton mills and clothing manufacturers, I know it was bloody hard work in cockroach, hot, dirty smelly conditions for low pay. I was lucky compared to others still enduring worse conditions and lower pay than I.
These skills and these jobs in the labour market are the backbone of the world. We cannot and should not educate ourselves out of these jobs. Who will empty my bin or yours?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 02-12-2008 7:11 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Creationista, posted 02-12-2008 12:35 PM pelican has not replied
 Message 20 by obvious Child, posted 02-12-2008 7:40 PM pelican has replied

  
Creationista
Inactive Junior Member


Message 19 of 26 (455431)
02-12-2008 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by pelican
02-12-2008 10:59 AM


Re: Education does not = more work
"These skills and these jobs in the labour market are the backbone of the world. We cannot and should not educate ourselves out of these jobs. Who will empty my bin or yours?"
So, because the black Africans have been doing these jobs for years, they should be forced to continue doing them by preventing them from attending higher learning institutions?
Why not let white people choose to do these jobs? Some will. Once upon a time, before white people went to Africa, there were black Africans who were "doctors" and chiefs and some variety of traditional "lawyer" and kings and merchants and farmers and of course garment makers and cleaners. So why should they be restricted to less than the full variety of jobs just because whites moved to Africa and took the top tier?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by pelican, posted 02-12-2008 10:59 AM pelican has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 20 of 26 (455532)
02-12-2008 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by pelican
02-12-2008 10:59 AM


Re: Education does not = more work
quote:
I was implying that it would be good if the cheap labour was lost and the 'pool' paid a living wage equal to other workers who put in the same amount of labour.
Then the price of mostly everything we import, if we made it ourselves or paid the vague 'living wage' would skyrocket. Our consumption levels would decrease, resulting in less purchases of their goods, resulting in less development in developing countries. With less development means less demand for Western goods, resulting in fewer jobs for Westerners. Your idea results in essentially stagnating growth, reducing consumption and preventing millions from raising their economic class. And every time an MNC gets caught paying less then the minimum wage in an country, they suffer serious economic consequences as well as bad PR.
If you want to help people, buy more sweatshop goods.
quote:
These skills and these jobs are an important part of our survival, just as the manufacture of every other commodity that comes from cheap labour. Hope this clarifes my position.
Perhaps where the world suffers an serious disaster maybe. But other wise no.
How is Westerners getting out of textile manufacturing an bad thing? If An American who is competing with someone in Thailand on socks, they have to be (8+)X times more efficient if they want to get paid 8x more.
And I find it disturbing that you would strip one of the few advantages LCDs have over the developed world. Do you believe that Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong should not have used cheap labor method to achieve the GDP per capita levels of the developed world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by pelican, posted 02-12-2008 10:59 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by pelican, posted 02-22-2008 5:10 AM obvious Child has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 21 of 26 (457274)
02-22-2008 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by obvious Child
02-12-2008 7:40 PM


Re: Education does not = more work
Our consumption levels would decrease,
Would this not be for the greater good?
If you want to help people, buy more sweatshop goods.
Could we not buy less and send them the money we would have spent on things we did not need?
Perhaps where the world suffers an serious disaster maybe. But other wise no.
Don't you think these people are not already suffering a serious disaster?
I understand there would be huge economic upheaval to bring equality to the world's population but don't you think it may be worth every penny?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by obvious Child, posted 02-12-2008 7:40 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by obvious Child, posted 02-23-2008 2:58 PM pelican has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 22 of 26 (457451)
02-23-2008 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by pelican
02-22-2008 5:10 AM


Re: Education does not = more work
quote:
Would this not be for the greater good?
That's what Mao said. And millions of people died.
That's what Stalin said. And millions of people died.
Less consumption = a reduction in the quality of life. So you're saying that as Americans, we should cut back our consumption so everyone else (who may not be able to buy such goods) will be better off?
quote:
Could we not buy less and send them the money we would have spent on things we did not need?
Only if you want to cause mass inflation in that society...
quote:
Don't you think these people are not already suffering a serious disaster?
I understand there would be huge economic upheaval to bring equality to the world's population but don't you think it may be worth every penny?
It wouldn't be huge economic upheaval if done incrementally over 50 years. And we don't need to fund them significantly. Just get them out of severe poverty to where they don't have to consume everything they make and put some assets into investments. It is bad enough we have massive welfare in the US. We don't need to extend that to the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by pelican, posted 02-22-2008 5:10 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by pelican, posted 02-23-2008 10:30 PM obvious Child has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 23 of 26 (457533)
02-23-2008 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by obvious Child
02-23-2008 2:58 PM


the money game
I see your observations are from an economis viewpoint. Although it is important, whilst the value of money is prioritized above the welfare of humanity, nothing will change. Many don't wish for change. Many do, and nothing can stop change. It's only a matter of time.
The world economy suits only some and is very detrimental to others. If the money game collasped, the only ones untouched will be those with nothing to lose or are willing to lose. The poorest people would survive as they have for god knows how many years. Could we survive? Is money worth worshipping or are we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by obvious Child, posted 02-23-2008 2:58 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by obvious Child, posted 02-24-2008 3:35 PM pelican has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 24 of 26 (457632)
02-24-2008 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by pelican
02-23-2008 10:30 PM


Re: the money game
quote:
Although it is important, whilst the value of money is prioritized above the welfare of humanity, nothing will change.
Except that your method of changing the welfare of humanity results in everyone being poor. The requirements to bring the 3rd world's quality of life to the 1st world will bankrupt not only the 1st but the semi-periphery countries as well. Without wealth to fund trade, everyone essentially goes broke. I fail to see how that is the better alternative.
quote:
The world economy suits only some and is very detrimental to others.
That is the nature of comparative advantage.
Why are you so focused on money? It's far more then that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by pelican, posted 02-23-2008 10:30 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by pelican, posted 02-24-2008 6:31 PM obvious Child has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 25 of 26 (457662)
02-24-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by obvious Child
02-24-2008 3:35 PM


Re: the money game
Except that your method of changing the welfare of humanity results in everyone being poor. The requirements to bring the 3rd world's quality of life to the 1st world will bankrupt not only the 1st but the semi-periphery countries as well. Without wealth to fund trade, everyone essentially goes broke. I fail to see how that is the better alternative.
It would level the playing fields for those millions already in poverty. The balance of power would be equal. Fantastic.
It isn't the money that is of value but the goods that are traded with money. The goods have value far above the monetry value. Peoples lives are invested in these goods which are just thrown away.
I would think most people fear poverty and whilst poverty exists, there will always be the fear of poverty perpetuating itself over and over again. The power of money is the creator of poverty. An ingenius game don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by obvious Child, posted 02-24-2008 3:35 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by obvious Child, posted 02-25-2008 3:31 PM pelican has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 26 of 26 (457793)
02-25-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by pelican
02-24-2008 6:31 PM


Re: the money game
quote:
It would level the playing fields for those millions already in poverty.
So you're saying that instead of having millions of people wealthy, millions middle class and a huge number in poverty, you'd rather have everyone in poverty. Again I fail to see how that is the better alternative.
The USSR, aside from the relative few that were rich, resulted in the masses being extremely poor. Russia went from a wealthy aristocracy, with some middle class to virtually everyone being poor. How is that a good thing?
You are clearly avoiding how your senario results in more poverty, not less.
quote:
The power of money is the creator of poverty.
No, it's the power of wealth and assets and people's greed that creates poverty. But it is also the power of wealth and assets and greed that creates innovation and development.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by pelican, posted 02-24-2008 6:31 PM pelican has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024