[saymaListserv] Where's the Money? Economic Social Concerns

[Janet Minshall]

Hi Sharon, As you may have noticed recently, I don't know much about 
"netiquette" and am just trying to hold back a little to let others 
have their say. Apparently Steve Livingston is busy, out of town, or 
otherwise engaged, so I will respond to the messages from you and 
from Steve (below my message).

First, I really like your hourglass image.  I think it accurately 
describes the current situation of many workers in the US.  It is, as 
you say, the sand distributed from the bottom of the top of the 
hourglass (low end workers in wealthier countries) who first fall 
through the opening in the middle. "And where does that sand land? 
At the top of the heap in the bottom half (of the hourglass),of 
course."

You are quite right about the money from both US aid and US contracts 
going first to corrupt government officials and rich factory owners 
in many less developed countries abroad.  The analogy falls apart 
there, however, because the economists who have measured the effects 
of outsourcing and globalization find  that while the corrupt and the 
rich do indeed benefit, the primary impact many times over, the 
greatest effect by far, is on the income and standard of living of 
the poor.  The effect is so marked that the huge populations in India 
and China, which were in dire circumstances before 1980, have had 
their incomes, the average income per person,  rise dramatically from 
1980 to 2000.  In India the rise in income per person was 100%, and 
in China it was more than 400%.  What I'm saying here is that the 
projections of antiglobalization activists have been proven 
decisively wrong.  To quote again from Martin Wolf's book, Why 
Globalization Works, p.143   "never before have so many people, or so 
large a proportion of the world's population, enjoyed such large 
rises in
their standard of living..."

Contrary to Steve's suggestion, it seems to me that the best way to 
support the  world's poor is to buy clothing and items from other 
countries which are the product of outsourcing, as these have been 
shown to have the greatest effect on the incomes of the poor.  I 
think learning to live on less here in the US is not so much a tactic 
of change as it is an adaptation to changed circumstances.  We have 
less to live on!

As to Steve's further comments on the transfer of wealth from the 
poor to the rich in this country, he reads the stats differently than 
I do.  The transfer, borne out by the cries of pain we are hearing, 
is from the middle and working class of this country to the poor of 
other countries.  The rich in this country have stayed nearly in the 
same place, while the middle and working classes have gotten much 
poorer. This has caused the percentage of wealth controlled by the 
wealthy to increase dramatically.

For more than twenty years now, the middle and working class in the 
US has tried vainly to hold back the tides of change instead of 
adapting to them.  What happened in India and China is that the 
middle class in those countries  suddenly found that the investment 
they make in their children's education actually makes a huge 
difference and that well educated Indian and Chinese young people are 
now being hired by companies that used to hire predominantly Western 
European labor.

The only way we can turn this around so that young people in the US 
have a shot at the higher paying jobs available in the world is to do 
a better job of educating them. If we prepare young people in the US 
to work at a higher level, at the level where innovation is 
happening, they will begin to want to go on to learn advanced skills. 
As it is 60% of the students in US graduate programs are from other 
countries, many from India and China.

Thanks for your message Sharon Phelps.  Best Regards, Janet Minshall




>Hi Janet Minshall,
>
>I am perhaps not familiar with a point of netiquette, but although I
>addressed my email to Steve (because it was an answer to his posting), I
>really intended it for all on the list and welcome any responses. So, as far
>as I am concerned, I hope you will go ahead and post. If your consideration
>is for Steve, then I will wait patiently with you for him to reply first.
>
>Peace,
>Sharon
>
>
>>Steve,
>>
>>Your comments reinforce a model of sorts that has been developing in my
>>mind. It is not well-seasoned, or well-supported, as is, but I offer it in
>>hope that you and others on this list will consider it and comment on it.
>>
>>Redistribution of wealth in the global economy can be compared to the
>>movement of sand in an hourglass. Wealthy societies are the top of the
>>hourglass, poor ones are the bottom. Of each of these halves, the top part
>>represents the upper classes, the bottom part represents the lower classes.
>>I doubt we could graph the statistics to show these perfectly balanced
>>inverse cones, but I think we can agree that in wealthier societies, those
>>above some "poverty level" outnumber those below, while the reverse is true
>>in poor societies, giving us the inverse shapes of the top and bottom
>halves
>>of the hourglass.
>>
>>As sand, representing wealth, trickles from the top of the "hourglass" to
>>the bottom, it is necessarily the sand distributed at the bottom of the top
>>half (representing the lowest economic class of the richer societies) that
>>first passes through the opening in the middle. And where does that sand
>>land? At the top of the heap in the bottom half, or course.
>>
>>This model seems to fit the scenario of low-paying textile-industry jobs,
>>for example, that are exported to developing countries. It is the
>>barely-surviving blue-collar workers in depressed mill-towns in the US that
>>lose their jobs and can't find another, while corrupt government officials
>>and rich factory owners in the developing countries are further enriched
>>long before factory workers at the lower classes enjoy any real prosperity.
>>
>>That's about as far as I've gone with this. I can identify some holes in
>the
>>analogy myself, but I will leave that to others on this list.  I do believe
>>that a more equal distribution of world resources is a good thing. I also
>>believe that with the way it happens now, we find the "bottom falling out"
>>for the lower classes of our society (and sand getting shifty for
>>once-stable middle classes). We are torn by our compassion for the global
>>poor and our compassion for our poor neighbors in our society. (For some of
>>us, our compassion for either may be trumped at times by our fear that we
>>might join those poor neighbors.)
>>
>>Rather than arguing about the size of the hole between top and bottom of
>the
>>hourglass, and when to turn the hourglass over, maybe we need to invent a
>>new way to "keep time" - something more balanced in shape, like a round
>>clock face?
>>
>>Peace,
>>Sharon Phelps
>>West Knoxville Monthly Meeting
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: sayma-bounces at kitenet.net [mailto:sayma-bounces at kitenet.net]On Behalf
>>Of Steve Livingston
>>Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:16 AM
>>To: sayma at kitenet.net; Janet Minshall
>>Subject: Re: [saymaListserv] Where's the Money? Economic Social Concerns
>>
>>>   The question has been asked "to increase the incomes of the poor in
>>>   the rest of the world, are we willing to have less and buy less?"
>>>   Well, are we?
>>>     Best Regards, Janet Minshall
>>
>>I think this is an excellent question for us as Friends, Janet. I would be
>>very interested in hearing what Friends are currently doing, either as
>>individuals or as groups, to make that happen.
>>
>>Statistics indicate that most Americans are indeed "having less",
>>whether they want it that way or not. Janet refers to statistics that show
>>"between 1980 and 2000 75% of the world's population achieved an
>>enormous increase in bothaverage incomes and living standards". For
>>your perusal I offer these statistics
>>
>>http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html
>>
>>that show that in America, during approximately the same period,
>>concentration of wealth has fled from the lower and lower middle
>>classes, into the hands of the upper class. In 2001, the latest year for
>  >which the statistics were analyzed, the wealthiest 1% of Americans
>>controlled 32.7% of total wealth. At the same time, the lowest 50% of
>>Americans controlled only 2.8%. From 1983 to 1998, the lower and
>>lower middle classes lost over 75% of their net worth.
>>
>>Clearly, the majority of Americans have already sacrificed a great deal
>>of their share of accumulated worth and buying power. However these
>>statistics show that it has not been entirely sacrificed in the manner that
>>Janet suggests, and with which many of us Friends would eagerly unite.
>>
>>How do my purchasing decisions enable people of developing nations to
>>enjoy a better quality of life? How can I divert the flow of my capital
>from
>>the wealthiest 1% of my fellow citizens to the less wealthy 99.9995% of
>>the world's citizens? Does "living simply" assure that others may "simply
>>live", or am I called to do more? These are questions I ask myself often,
>>and Friends I admit to you that my self-assessment is not very good. I
>>find that my lifestyle and my condition are not conducive to my
>>testimony. I don't think buying "Fair Trade" coffee is enough for me.
>>
>>How is it for you, Friends?
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list
>>posting address: sayma at kitenet.net
>>subscribe/unsubscribe: http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list
>>posting address: sayma at kitenet.net
>>subscribe/unsubscribe: http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kitenet.net/pipermail/sayma/attachments/20050520/840f0c25/attachment-0001.htm