Global economic growth is failing to translate into new and better jobs that lead to a reduction in poverty, said a report issued by the International Labor Organization (ILO) on Friday.
Around half of the world’s working men and women continue to live on less than 2 dollars a day, said the fourth edition of Key Indicators of the Labor Market. It is a statistic which has remained the same for the past decade.
“The key message is that up to now better jobs and income for the world’s workers has not been a priority in policy-making,” said ILO Director-General Juan Somavia in a statement.
“That has to change, and as many leaders have already said we must make decent work a central objective of all economic and social policies,” he added.
Profit is not just the central priority of Western business. It’s the shortsighted who make it the only priority.
Of course profit is not the only one – you need control over the government and power to control the people.
ANNNDDDD you need folks her ein the US among other places who are aware of the products they buy, how they are made and by whom and under what conditions.
Just becasue the lable says Made in USA or some other “civilized” country by no means is proof it was or the conditions were acceptable.
The justification of globalization in the US used to be quality jobs. That was WAY back when we were the world’s largest exporter. It made sense to break down tariffs and create free markets in which to sell our products.
However, that justification no longer exists. It makes no sense for as as the world’s largest importer to keep no tariffs and to promote free markets. Those same ideas that helped us are now killing us.
For a while they justified globalization by saying we no longer need factory jobs, as we’ll convert to having high paying tech jobs. During most of the 90s that mantra was accepted as fact. But now that tech jobs are being exported and imported without any impediment, you never hear that rustication anymore.
Nowadays corporations don’t even attempt justify the advantages to the common person to continue and further globalization. Because there are not any. Now profit is the justification in itself. Corporations constantly talk about “their investments” and their rights to profit from them. We’ve been brainwashed into believing that profit is the goal of our country for so long that even those adversely affected by globalization in the US believe it without question. It’s like we’ve completely forgotten that we’re a democracy and have been deluded into believing we’re a capitalist country. Capitalism is NOT a form of government, it’s merely an economic system.
I think it was Carly Fiorina who once said that the problem with the US isn’t the lack of education of its citizens, but that college graduates refuse to work for minimum wage once they graduate. Alluding to the abundant supply of cheap but educated labor in places such as India and China.
And let’s face it, there is NOTHING we can do about it. The US has become what I call a Reverse Fascist state. A fascist state is one where the government has absolute control over business. But it’s quite apparent that the reverse is true in the US now. Neither party gives a rat’s ass about citizens, but why should they? There’s no profit in that.
>decent work a central objective of all economic and social policies
In other words, it’s not worthwhile opening up a factory here. I’m sure the unemployed in other countries are going to love this. Do you think Nike is going to pay more money, or are they going to pack up the factory? If they have to pay that much in salary, then there’s no point in having it there, they might as well move it to Mexico, or even to the more productive US. No wonder the Third World stays poor, with the UN giving out this type of advice.
C’mon… lies, damn lies, and statistics… No change in the last decade? Wrong! China and India have seen tens of millions of people cross the poverty line to a better life.
And what does two dollars mean to the nomadic tribes of Mongolia? They live a substancence existance as their people have for thousands of years. This does not make them poor.
Poverty should only be measured by basic needs: food, clothing and shelter. Not by access to ANYTHING else, including modern health care, education, electricity, cellphones, whatever.
It would truly be sanctimonious and condescending of us to look at an alternate lifestyle (traditonal eskimos, Lapp landers in Norway, Amazonian tribesman) and say that they are poor, when they can and do live rich fulfilling lives.
If you read the article, Lou, you might have noticed the exception to the headline was most of Asia.
To disparage living longer because of anything to do with modern healthcare — is about as close to the stereotypical ivory tower belief in the “noble savage” I’ve ever seen. The majority of folks who actually live and work in penury generally do opt for material objects, systems and products when given the chance. The mistake [IMHO] is in idolizing the whole context when you’re fascinated by a bit of the workaday philosophy that makes poverty bearable.
I’d hate to have to tell any of the Aleut folks, here in town, that they’re required to go back to using dog sleds [for example] instead of snowmobiles. To keep the belief system of someone from the lower 48 all pat and comfy.
Eideard:
I in no way was using the noble savage line… nor am I saying that many people might aspire to the western type lifestyle. I am just saying that I am willing to draw a line in the sand, on one side, you get the food you need to thrive, you get shelter, you get clothes. On the other side, you are truly poor.
The Aleuts in your town may draw the line, those with snowmobiles, OK, those without, poor. Maybe in the USA, its those with flat screen TV’s, OK, those without, poor.
Sure the Aleut’s snowmobiles truly make life easier for them, but I’m sure maids and butlers make life much easier for the very wealthy, and in their minds, they are truly necessities.
I don’t like getting touchy-feely, but the only statistics that would matter to me, assuming it could be measured, is happiness and satisfaction with one’s life. A truly hungry person is not happy (let’s not argue about this one, OK?). And I’ll grant you that a sick person is not happy (so, to a pratical measure, lack of basic health care is wrong). But basing poor-rich on monetary and possession statistics results in an ever changing, culturely prejudiced , line in the sand.
It is not a noble savage theory to understand and believe that satisfaction with one’s life can and is completely independent of possessions or wealth. I have friends and aquaintences from every different strata available in this (my) country and there is NO correlation between salary and true happiness as I see it.
I completely understand that deep down in our instincts is the need to have more posessions that the “other guy”, to collect “shiny things” and to keep up with the Jones, so to speak. At one point, the person with more posessions lived longer, the person with the metal had better weapons, etc, with natural selection watching over all. But we’ve also seen our inate cravings for sweets and fat ruin the health of BILLIONS of people, who have tasted and have available “modern” food.
Humans instinctively covet, especially when their neighbors have more, bigger (use your superlative adjective here). I have seen people who have lived a life of comfort (compared to 99.999999% of those who have lived now, or for ever), ruin their lives by working 15 hour days to get more toys.
So pick your line between poverty and not poverty, and we can debate over the specifics. But a least have the guts to state a particular line, one that is not ever changing and so culturally dependent.
AGlobal economic growth link that loads quick and is the direct source.
Granted the report shows lots of points that could be spun either way. But I think it is the type of thing you have to leave in context. Moralizing either way does the report wrong. Sure it is not a great report.
The Quote I would use from it is:
“In recent years there has been a weakening relationship between economic growth and employment growth, meaning that growth is not automatically translating into new jobs.”
Now there is quote that will make you just go “Duh…”
Also if you want to know about the Lawyer Juan Somavia who studing the issue close for the rest of us.