Wednesday, December 2, 2009

this post has no title

I agree with what Mill says about how more economic growth doesn’t correlate to total well being of a population. It makes to me know how certain people hold the wealth in the word. An example would be corporations that set up shop in third world countries paying employees cents a day. They make huge profits and their products are sold in the wealthier nations that can afford to buy their products; it limits the movement of money to first word nations and because the third world employees are getting paid so little, little money moves between the first world and third world. Corporations like Nike, Dell, and once Union Carbondale have outsourced to the third world for the cheap labor. It’s a win/no-gain situation where the first world wins. The argument would be the trickle down affect but the trickle down affect is limited to the first world nations where the products are sold, because the only money in the third world goes to the workers which is very little. Third world nations aren’t in a strong position to fight back because these corporations one of their very few significant sources of income; if they start demanding more, then corporations can just uproot and go to another poor country that seeks their services. In essence the third world nations are at the mercy of the corporations. The fix to this problem would be to get a significant flow of money in third world nations. If they could produce their own product and sell it to first world companies not at dirt cheep prices, then they could start to see some improvement. Costa Rica has done this with real estate; it started out very cheap, but as more people moved in, the shops and restaurants in the area where first world citizens lived would have first world prices which has significantly helped improve the status of well being in their nation because the money has trickled down to the workers who have spent transferring it throughout the nation.

No comments:

Post a Comment