The Bangladesh Sweatshop Fire and the Walmart Connection

[carepov]

2020! Seriously! Aren't we still in the year 2012? And if so, this report is yet another one extrapolating some present trends into the future without any examination of whether the trends can be supported.....and I don't believe they can be just on the basis of comparing the high population growth rates with the declines in arable land and fresh water resources.

Relax, I’m sure that 2020 was a typo, should be 2010.

We've been over this before! Like I said the last time, capitalist economic theory only measures what can be measured in dollars. And farmers growing a substantial portion of their own food supply does not add anything to the monetary economy....although the benefits to the farmer are better than earning meager wages and having to give back a good portion of those wages to purchase food that is likely the lowest price and more likely to be cheap calories with less nutritional value. We'll see how long the trend from farming to sweatshop labourers goes on before health, longevity and other measures of wellbeing start to take a nosedive.

You are putting up a straw-man – I have never brought up capitalist economic theory, nor have I raised any dollar figures at any time in this discussion.

Again, why don’t you name a single country where “health, longevity and other measures of wellbeing have taken a nosedive”?

And, this is a rehash of what we were talking about before. If anything, the continual pressure from Walmart, Disney, Gap and other U.S. corporations to cut costs, will reduce the real wages of Bangladeshi factory workers over the coming years, not increase them!

OK, why don’t you try to support this theory with some actual data? How about showing how real wages have declined in other countries that have been dealing with “continual pressure from Wal-Mart, Disney, Gap and other U.S. corporations” such as: China, Vietnam…?

And, not that I would even want globalization to be a permanent economic system to start with, but the costs of transportation necessary to outsource production halfway around the world, is going to get too expensive for one product after another, as the conventional oil reserves are declining, and the world is depending more and more on expensive, unconventional oil to transport people and goods.

I agree – but I think that this day is way out. (>20 years)

Well, that's a no-brainer -- 1971. Because children born last year in Bangladesh are 40 years closer to a time of reckoning, when an increasingly degraded environment and rapidly rising sea levels, lead to a time when storm and flooding disasters are great enough to force millions of Bangladeshis to try to flee, in search of food and dryer land. And it will be difficult to get out, as they are already hemmed in by the ocean, but India has been building miles of fences and barbed wire barriers to wall off any land passage for a wave of refugees to enter Indian territory by land.

Is it possible that you have an idealistic view of life in the "good ole days?" No one knows what the future will bring so perhaps you are right... but the no-brainer is that life in Bangladesh 2011 is way better than 1971. Again:

Life expectancy was 55 years in 1980 and now is 69 years.

Expected years of schooling was 4.4 years in 1980 and now is 8.1 years.

I could go on - infant/maternal mortality, access to sanitation, hunger...

A subsistence-farming-lifestyle may appeal to you but I doubt any of us would enjoy it for very long.

[carepov]

What does it tell us, that an obscenely wealthy organization like this has to be subjected to outside pressure, before they will stop trying to pressure suppliers to disregard health and safety concerns in factories where workers earn on average $37.00 per month for working 6 days a week up to 11 hours per day? Obviously nobody at the head office said anything like:'you know, we saving a fortune sending clothing production to this country, let's cut them a little slack. That conversation never happened....which was what the pro-free trade propagandists told us would happen 30 years ago. Western manufacturers have a strong incentive to keep countries like Bangladesh poor and marginalized. They have no intentions of allowing them to improve their living standards, as this might lead them to want to improve wages and working conditions even further in the future.

I have shown that living standards have gone up in countries like Bangladesh and I can easily show you the same for other countries where multinationals invest and source from. You have given me nothing but propaganda - no data.

No, these organizations are not the same kinds of organizations! Corporations only have a duty to serve the interests of their shareholders, not the public at large. The U.S. did operate with a system of demanding public accountability from corporations for the first hundred years as a nation. A corporation did not get a permanent charter to operate back then. It had to be reviewed on a regular basis; and the corporation had to demonstrate how it was acting in the public good, or at least was not causing public harm. But, those rules were chipped away on the road to corporations becoming "people too" as Mitt Romney would say. And the CEO's, and top executives, and major shareholders of corporations, have all of the personal qualities of the average psychopath or sociopath:

In Jon Ronson's widely acclaimed book The Psychopath Test, Professor Robert Hare told the author: "I should have spent some time inside the Stock Exchange as well. Serial killer psychopaths ruin families. Corporate and political and religious psychopaths ruin economies. They ruin societies."

http://www.independe...er-6282502.html

I maintain that in the long term good and successful corporations will best serve the interests of their shareholders by also serving the public interest. There are and always have been "evil" corporations Standard Oil, Arms manufacturers and tobacco come to mind. And I'm sure that some business leaders are psychopaths but some are genuinely philanthropic as well, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and ironically Rockefeller come to mind.

In the world I grew up in that might have been true for a time: unemployment was relatively low, a third of the private sector workforce was organized and members of unions or professional associations, and gaps in wealth and income were at historic lows. But all that started changing approximately 30 years ago, didn't it? As soon as the first free trade deal was inked, we started seeing the chipping away of bargaining power of the workforce, the beginnings of outsourcing production, and outsourcing and the threat of outsourcing leading to a steady decline in union membership and weakening of employees position in collective bargaining. The new reality is that all big business focuses on, and needs to focus on is maximizing profits. They don't need to worry about any other factors after they have successfully bought politicians and the political process itself. Antitrust laws have been weakened, both directly and indirectly through trade agreements. And with the lack of protection against consolidation of ownership and foreign ownership, a point is reached in many markets where a business no longer faces real competition. In markets where Walmart has forced other chains and small local retailers and grocers to close, they refrain from passing the savings on to consumers, and start pocketing the difference between retail price and the lowering of product cost from the suppliers. In a high unemployment environment, they don't have to be concerned about employee happiness....otherwise they would offer decent wages. Even safety laws and other regulations become meaningless in an environment where the corporate tail wags the political dog.

There are grains of truth in the story you tell - but overall your story is just that - fiction. Big business always focussed on profits. What monopolies are you talking about? Do you consider 14% market share a monopoly? Health, safety and environmental laws have never been stricter and more enforced than they are today. Consumer prices, as a percentage of disposable income have never been lower for basic foodstuffs and goods. Yes income inequality has risen and this does displease me especially when the wealthy pay a lower tax rate than others - but living standards for lower income earners have risen and poverty has been reduced.

consider that 14% means 1.8 million employees -- which makes Walmart the largest employer in the U.S. after the U.S. Government.

jobs.lovetoknow.com/Largest_American_Employers

And as Walmart continues to grow and buy out competing chains, as they have done where I live, and Target being the only other major retailer adding stores, the choices for the retail worker are even less than before.

The retail worker and consumer can still choose to deal with the 86%, meaning over 11 million retail jobs.

This is getting tiresome:

In a related matter, two officials who attended a meeting held in Bangladesh in 2011 to discuss factory safety in the garment industry said on Wednesday that the Walmart official there played the lead role in blocking an effort to have global retailers pay more for apparel to help Bangladesh factories improve their electrical and fire safety.

Ineke Zeldenrust, international coordinator for the

Clean Clothes Campaign

, an anti-sweatshop group based in Amsterdam, said Walmart was the company that “most strongly advocated this position.”

The meeting was held in April 2011 in Dhaka, the country’s capital, and brought together global retailers, Bangladeshi factory owners, government officials and nongovernment organizations after several apparel factory fires in Bangladesh had killed dozens of workers the previous winter.

According to the minutes of the meeting, which were made available to The Times, Sridevi Kalavakolanu, a Walmart director of ethical sourcing, along with an official from another major apparel retailer, noted that the proposed improvements in electrical and fire safety would involve as many as 4,500 factories and would be “in most cases” a “very extensive and costly modification.”

“It is not financially feasible for the brands to make such investments,” the minutes said.

http://www.nytimes.c...-fire.html?_r=0

It does look like Wal-Mart, Sears and The Gap messed up here and should accept some responsibility. I guess I should feel a little guilty sitting here in my pyjamas made in Bangladesh. My questions would be: why were there no effective fire and safety laws in the first place? and what wouldn't the factory owners make the investments in fire safety in order to meet local laws in the same way that business takes places almost everywhere lese in the world. The buyers have some influence but do not have primary control or responsibility of the their supplier.

[August1991]

I guess I should feel a little guilty sitting here in my pyjamas made in Bangladesh. My questions would be: why were there no effective fire and safety laws in the first place? and what wouldn't the factory owners make the investments in fire safety in order to meet local laws in the same way that business takes places almost everywhere lese in the world.

carepov, why should you feel guilty?

If you had not bought the pyjamas, how would that help anyone - whether yourself or the factory worker in Bangladesh?

Polish Jews pleaded with the Allies to bomb Auschwitz during WWII. Mandela now thanks foreigners for the boycott of apartheid South Africa. No one in Bangladesh wants foreigners to stop buying garments made in Dhaka.

-----

After Christmas, many people in North America now have an unwanted fondue set or two. WIP's argument above makes about as much sense as sending a fondue set to a family in Bangladesh.

Edited December 30, 2012 by August1991

[Merlin]

Sweat shops are good if not a great thing for developing nations. They want more of them, not less. The standard of living they are afforded because of those factories is incredible and much higher than they could make by farming. They love to make our toys, clothes and shoes and want to make more of them.

If we paid factory workers in Canada to make those things they would be too expensive for us to buy. Since we have people willing to work for pennies on the dollar we, as consumers, make out very well as do the share holders and the workers themselves.

Everyone is happy.

[carepov]

...

Everyone is happy.

Well, not the 112 dead in the fire and their loved ones, eh?

[carepov]

carepov, why should you feel guilty?

If you had not bought the pyjamas, how would that help anyone - whether yourself or the factory worker in Bangladesh?

.... No one in Bangladesh wants foreigners to stop buying garments made in Dhaka.

The pyjamas were a gift from my wife... Shouldn't I feel a little guilty about them if they were made by one of the factory workers that died in the fire? Ideally, I would have gotten them from a store that sources from ethical suppliers, no?

I am certainly not suggesting a boycott of Bangladesh but I am not satisfied with the status quo either.

I also cannot help feeling guilty (perhaps guilty is not the best world) for being born into such a fortunate environment when billions are suffering around the world...

[Merlin]

Well, not the 112 dead in the fire and their loved ones, eh?

Accidents happen, it's a part of life. No big deal and nothing new.

if it happened in Canada it would be a factory fire but since it happened in a far away land people like to attach buzz words to it like "sweat shop". Give me a break, it was a factory fire, they happen, it's terrible of course but it happens. Let's move on and for get about it.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Merlin

[WIP]

You are putting up a straw-man – I have never brought up capitalist economic theory, nor have I raised any dollar figures at any time in this discussion.

Is it possible that you have an idealistic view of life in the "good ole days?" No one knows what the future will bring so perhaps you are right... but the no-brainer is that life in Bangladesh 2011 is way better than 1971. Again:

Life expectancy was 55 years in 1980 and now is 69 years.

Expected years of schooling was 4.4 years in 1980 and now is 8.1 years.

I could go on - infant/maternal mortality, access to sanitation, hunger...

A subsistence-farming-lifestyle may appeal to you but I doubt any of us would enjoy it for very long.

Again, why don’t you name a single country where “health, longevity and other measures of wellbeing have taken a nosedive”?

Why don't you do your own homework if you want to learn something new? Results can be found for four countries just on the first page of a Google search:

New evidence reveals Canadian wellbeing on the decline

UK wellbeing still 13% below pre-crisis levels

Why America Is in Decline

Stressful Events Show Trend in Declining Wellbeing - Report(Australia)

OK, why don’t you try to support this theory with some actual data? How about showing how real wages have declined in other countries that have been dealing with “continual pressure from Wal-Mart, Disney, Gap and other U.S. corporations” such as: China, Vietnam…?

Again, this is easy information to find out, if you really want to know what the connection is between ruthless western apparel retailers and where they have their suppliers set up manufacturing operations, and how to keep costs low. It's pretty clear after the smoking trail of memos, that the Tazreen factory in Dhaka that burned down, was told to cut costs regardless....safety measures be damned! This came right from pressure applied by Walmart and the other retailers to get the product to them at the lowest cost possible, or they would turn to outside suppliers.

Real wages is a joke term in a dirt-poor country like Bangladesh. Why do western retailers need people (including children) working for 37c an hour + unpaid overtime? The growth in Walmart's share value indicates that the profits go right past workers in third world countries and through the Walmart employee ladder, right up to the top, where the six heirs of the Walton fortune reside. But, they need the money; right?

And I'm not going to waste time going back over information I posted previously on Bangladesh, showing that economic growth from globalization has not improved the quality of life of factory workers who have been forced to give up farming and take low wage jobs in the cities. They lose the opportunity to grow their own food, and have control over their daily lives, once they move to a city and work in a garment factory. Most of the gains from the transition to textiles has gone to higher income earners...not the sweatshop workers....just like all the other nations who go through trade liberalization:

XI.DOES INEQUALITY DRIVES POVERTY?

The mainstream argues that sustained and equitable economic growth inevitably leads to poverty reduction. There is widespread concern that economic growth has not been shared fairly, and that the current economic crisis further widens the gap between the rich and poor. However, the impact of growth on poverty reduction can be lessened, if the growth is accompanied by rising inequalities. In Bangladesh, the number of people living in poverty has increased due to rising disparities in the distribution of resources within this country. Unequal accesses in different forms of services hamper the expected level of growth in reducing poverty. Furthermore, persistent geographical or social biases in the allocation of subsidies and public investment are also not favourable to achieve the desired poverty alleviating targets. Unequal growth pattern has a weaker poverty alleviating effect and has been shown to be harmful to growth, and it will also reduce the growth and thereby exacerbate poverty. Therefore, reduction of poverty is hard to pin down without addressing inequality.

XII. QUESTIONING THE POVERTY LINE

There is no denying the fact poverty measurement is plagued with many problems, particularly due it’s over emphasis on income. The official poverty measurement is determined through income and uses an unrealistically low estimate of USD 1.25. For example, if a person has an income of one USD per day is defined as poor, after one year his income has increased to USD 1.3 and is counted as non-poor. But, in reality, he may be faced with more problems to maintain his livelihood compared to previous year (though he is rewarded as non-poor). Increase in his income is not adjusted with the inflation. Another example, considering the present circumstances, a conservative estimate suggests a minimum spending of about Tk. 50 (USD 0.71) to obtain 2122 Kilocalories per day. That person also needs non-food essentials, including education, clothing, healthcare, accommodation, transportation etc. If a calculation is made based upon expenditure, considering these non-food essentials with food, it is very difficult to survive with the income of USD 1.25 per day per person.

Recently Abul Barkat contradicted the estimate of the government about the number of poor in the country, saying that 83 percent population of the country is now poor and not the 32 percent as the government claims (The Daily Star, 9 October 2011).

During the last five years (2005 to 2010) the growth rate of monthly household income was 11.87 percent, 11.67 percent and 11.50 percent at national, rural and urban area respectively. However, the growth rate of monthly household expenditure was 16.52 percent, 16.14 percent

Poverty and Inequality in Bangladesh 18 | P a g e

and 16.40 percent of which the growth rate of expenditure on food was 17.59 percent, 16.67 percent and 19.20 percent at national, rural and urban area respectively. Higher growth rate of household expenditure than that of the income may indicate that more people are suffering to manage their livelihood in the recent time. Therefore, many households might be newly gone under the poverty line. Hence, it is the time to take consumption cost (considering inflation) while measuring poverty.

http://www.unnayan.o..._Bangladesh.pdf

Then, there is the added problem that regional inequality is not broken down or discussed in those average income measurements you cited previously. And the regional disparities in Bangladesh have increased since globalization, as discussed in this report:

Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty Trends in Bangladesh:

Implications for Development Strategy

Edited December 31, 2012 by WIP

[carepov]

Why don't you do your own homework if you want to learn something new? Results can be found for four countries just on the first page of a Google search:

New evidence reveals Canadian wellbeing on the decline

UK wellbeing still 13% below pre-crisis levels

Why America Is in Decline

Stressful Events Show Trend in Declining Wellbeing - Report(Australia)

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/new-evidence-reveals-canadian-wellbeing-decline-0

“…improvements in Canadian wellbeing over the same 17-year period [1994-2012] saw only a small 5.7% increase”

UK wellbeing still 13% below pre-crisis levels

This reports deals exclusively with the same economic indicators that you seem to shun so much in previous posts. Yes the Great Recession has taken a toll on the UK.

Why America Is in Decline

This article is informative, but I don’t see anything here that supports your thesis (not that I know exactly what your thesis is)

Stressful Events Show Trend in Declining Wellbeing - Report(Australia)

Please tell me that you are joking.

Again, this is easy information to find out, if you really want to know what the connection is between ruthless western apparel retailers and where they have their suppliers set up manufacturing operations, and how to keep costs low. It's pretty clear after the smoking trail of memos, that the Tazreen factory in Dhaka that burned down, was told to cut costs regardless....safety measures be damned! This came right from pressure applied by Walmart and the other retailers to get the product to them at the lowest cost possible, or they would turn to outside suppliers.

Real wages is a joke term in a dirt-poor country like Bangladesh. Why do western retailers need people (including children) working for 37c an hour + unpaid overtime? The growth in Walmart's share value indicates that the profits go right past workers in third world countries and through the Walmart employee ladder, right up to the top, where the six heirs of the Walton fortune reside. But, they need the money; right?

http://www.unnayan.o..._Bangladesh.pdf

http://www.unnayan.org/reports/Poverty_and_Inequality_in_Bangladesh.pdf.

Your source is very informative. The key line for me is:

“Bangladesh has witnessed a modest progress in reducing poverty since the early 1990s. However, there is no room for complacency.” (page 9)

Then, there is the added problem that regional inequality is not broken down or discussed in those average income measurements you cited previously. And the regional disparities in Bangladesh have increased since globalization, as discussed in this report:

Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty Trends in Bangladesh:

Implications for Development Strategy

Also a good source but the data and conclusions support my claim that poverty is diminishing in Bangladesh and living standards are improving:

“Incidence of poverty (as per upper poverty line) has declined from 56.6 percent in 1991-92 to 40.0 percent in 2005. On the other hand poverty incidence (using lower poverty line) has reduced from 41.0 percent in 1991-92 to 25.1 percent in 2005.” (page 45)

Yes, regional inequality is an issue, however: “Human Poverty in all the districts was reduced

between 1995 and 2000.” (page 50)

Again, these are two good sources that help us understand the current situation and trends in living standard of Bangladesh. What is notably missing from these reports is anything supporting your thesis that globalization/trade liberalization is worsening life for Bangladeshis.

And I'm not going to waste time going back over information I posted previously on Bangladesh, showing that economic growth from globalization has not improved the quality of life of factory workers who have been forced to give up farming and take low wage jobs in the cities. They lose the opportunity to grow their own food, and have control over their daily lives, once they move to a city and work in a garment factory. Most of the gains from the transition to textiles has gone to higher income earners...not the sweatshop workers....just like all the other nations who go through trade liberalization:

First of all you have not posted any data to support your above opinions.

Second, you are claiming that subsistence farmers of Bangladesh have lost “the opportunity to grow their own food, and have control over their daily lives”. What do you imagine farming in Bangladesh to be like? Do you think that the 204/1,000 children that died before the age of five, and their parents in 1980 had “control over their daily lives”? (2009 = 52) Do you think that an average child born in 1980 that can expect 4.4 years of schooling would have “more control” over their life than on born today expecting 8.1 years of schooling? Do you think that women from Bangladeshi farms had “more control over their daily lives” than Bangladeshi women of today? Have you every visited a rural area of any developing nation?

[August1991]

I also cannot help feeling guilty (perhaps guilty is not the best world) for being born into such a fortunate environment when billions are suffering around the world...

You make, perhaps, a key point here.

What can you, or any individual, do to help another?

------

Think of Haiti, and think of South Korea. In 1955, both were impoverished countries with a GDP per capita in three digits. South Korea had just suffered a terrible civil war.

We donate (and continue to donate) billions to Haitians: The food bank solution. Years later, Haitians are still impoverished.

With Koreans, we gave (give) them money if they have something to offer.

[WIP]

https://uwaterloo.ca...being-decline-0

“…improvements in Canadian wellbeing over the same 17-year period [1994-2012] saw only a small 5.7% increase”

Did you miss this aspect of relationship between economic growth and wellbeing:

“The findings uncover some troubling truths about the connection between our economy and our wellbeing,” says Romanow. “When Canada’s economy was thriving, Canadians saw only modest improvements in their overall quality of life, but when the economy faltered our wellbeing took a disproportionate step backward.

I keep seeing the point that improvements to wellbeing are marginal during times of economic expansion (up to a general level, where improvements stop and even decline during times of economic increase), while the declines during recession are much greater, in studies made of developed, developing and undeveloped economies all over the world. The message to economists is that personal wellbeing do not track GDP numbers! Otherwise, we would be twice as satisfied as the population of the 1950's, and not less satisfied, with increases in depression and anxiety-related disorders. Maybe the economists should have learned that old truism: money can't buy happiness!

UK wellbeing still 13% below pre-crisis levels

This reports deals exclusively with the same economic indicators that you seem to shun so much in previous posts. Yes the Great Recession has taken a toll on the UK.

And, as noted above with the Canadian study, an end to the recession will not see a 13% increase in sense of wellbeing.

Why America Is in Decline

This article is informative, but I don’t see anything here that supports your thesis (not that I know exactly what your thesis is)

If you noticed the contentious, often irrational debate about gun control in the U.S. and the causes of the recent spike in extreme violence incidences (as exhibited on at least a couple of the discussion threads here!), many Americans, from professionals to just average folks trying to figure out what's going wrong, are at a loss to try to explain the cause, or causes. It appears that the U.S. will finally have no choice other than dealing with their lax attitude about guns; since there doesn't seem to be any other strategy to reduce the violence. Even the NRA made note of negative social trends that are believed to be root causes (not that the NRA has been any help dealing with them!), but those will be expensive, long term issues to deal with....if they are ever dealt with, while taking the gun away, or severely restricting access and use, will reduce the likelihood that the gun is available when the perpetrator goes postal! The psychological devastation from austerity measures taken in Europe are even worse than the U.S.; so if similar drastic spending cuts, cuts to infrastructure, and tax increases occur in the U.S., it's unimaginable to try to guess what the level of gun violence will be under a similar scenario.

To understand America's economic decline and unraveling collective identity, we have to go back to the promises made (and promises broken) of Neoliberal economic theory, as the U.S. has seen one of the largest increases in income inequality of any nation on the planet during the last 30 years, and consider all of the warnings from the social scientists of the possible repercussions of allowing poor sectors of the economy decline to third world status in an extremely wealthy, extremely materialistic society. Poor neighbourhoods have already seen their schools defunded, their parks and recreation facilities left to rot and become territories for drug gangs, their housing to crumble...not to mention the increase in homeless population who have no permanent places to live, even if they have children. As long as the poor were marginalized in urban no-go zones, and up to half of the young male population was carted off to prisons, America could function smoothly.... more or less! But, since 2008, a large segment of the white middle class has lost their jobs, lost their homes, and taken huge psychological hits that are still uncalculated in monetary and societal terms....but they still have guns, and some of them have been looking for causes of their anguish and looking to lash out. Conservatives were warned for many years that there would be a price to pay for allowing so many people to fall through the cracks; now it looks more and more like the U.S. is a nation becoming unhinged, after allowing it's social infrastructure to largely disappear.

In his book, America’s Engineered Decline, William Norman Grigg, editor of the New American, contends that America’s decline has occurred because it is exhibiting the same characteristics of poverty, crime, and illiteracy and ill health that are found in third world countries. Grigg cites a quote by Mahatma Gandhi who said the roots of conflict and violence within a nation are “wealth without work, pleasure without

conscience

, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice and politics without principle.”

Whatever the causes, the decline of America as a dominant world power, with serious internal economic and social issues, has already begun, and is not likely to be reversed, without substantial political, economic and social changes

Stressful Events Show Trend in Declining Wellbeing - Report(Australia)

Please tell me that you are joking.

Nope! Compare a study with stress and wellbeing with what's happening to the Australian economy, after allowing itself to become dependent on resource exports for its economic viability:

Australia facing a hard landing: Andy Xie Australia may suffer a financial crisis in 2013

Inequality and the top 1% in Australia

The Aussie story of the last 30 years: embrace Neoliberal economic theory and globalization -- transition from protectionist economy to unregulated economy dependent on resource exports to China, Japan and Korea -- see dramatic increase in wealth and income inequality -- see declines in health, mental health and wellbeing....if you don't like that article, this one dealing with Australian youth paints an even bleaker picture:

What’s causing the decline in the health and wellbeing of young people?

http://www.unnayan.o..._Bangladesh.pdf.

Your source is very informative. The key line for me is:

“Bangladesh has witnessed a modest progress in reducing poverty since the early 1990s. However, there is no room for complacency.” (page 9)

Read further:

Though, there is a declining trend in the percentage of population living below the poverty line, the progress is not matched due to the increase in the monthly household expenditure. It is evident that monthly household income, expenditure and food expenditure have increased between 1995-96 and 2010. However,

food expenditure has increased at a faster rate than that of income.

................Higher growth rate of household expenditure than the income may indicate that more people are suffering to manage their livelihood in the recent times.

VIII. POPULATION UNDER POVERTY LINE

Despite progress in reducing the overall incidence of poverty during the last two decades, the

number of population living under poverty line is still increasing

. Soaring food price and food

IX.FOOD INFLATION AND POPULATION LIVING BELOW THE POVERTY LINE

Bangladesh has already experienced a double-digit food inflation on point-to-point basis since July 2007. The soaring prices of essential commodities, especially, food prices have imperilled the poor and worsened equity. Food inflation has a profound nexus with poverty and inequality. Food inflation hits hard the poor since their purchasing power decreases due to the erosion in real income.

XI.DOES INEQUALITY DRIVES POVERTY?

The mainstream argues that sustained and equitable economic growth inevitably leads to poverty reduction. There is widespread concern that economic growth has not been shared fairly, and that the current economic crisis further widens the gap between the rich and poor. However, the impact of growth on poverty reduction can be lessened, if the growth is accompanied by rising inequalities. In Bangladesh, the number of people living in poverty has increased due to rising disparities in the distribution of resources within this country. Unequal accesses in different forms of services hamper the expected level of growth in reducing poverty.

XII. QUESTIONING THE POVERTY LINE

There is no denying the fact poverty measurement is plagued with many problems, particularly due it’s over emphasis on income. The official poverty measurement is determined through income

and uses an unrealistically low estimate of USD 1.25.

For example, if a person has an income of one USD per day is defined as poor, after one year his income has increased to USD 1.3 and is counted as non-poor. But, in reality, he may be faced with more problems to maintain his livelihood compared to previous year (though he is rewarded as non-poor). Increase in his income is not adjusted with the inflation. Another example, considering the present circumstances, a conservative estimate suggests a minimum spending of about Tk. 50 (USD 0.71) to obtain 2122 Kilocalories per day. That person also needs non-food essentials, including education, clothing, healthcare, accommodation, transportation etc. If a calculation is made based upon expenditure, considering these non-food essentials with food,

it is very difficult to survive with the income of USD 1.25 per day per person.

Recently Abul Barkat contradicted the estimate of the government about the number of poor in the country, saying that

83 percent population of the country is now poor and not the 32 percent as the government claims

(The Daily Star, 9 October 2011).

Deficiency of equalizing income augmenting employment system

The growth process in Bangladesh has not been matched with increases in jobs. Moreover, the people have entered into labour market with wages below the poverty, creating a huge amount of people, who can be termed as “working poor.”

The report also notes the effects of increasing population and environmental degradation, are having on the economic wellbeing of the poor, but doesn't go in to enough detail, focusing instead primarily on how wealth is distributed. This can be expected from a liberal/progressive think tank, which does not challenge globalization and the shift to a textile export economy directly, but wants to tinker around the edges with how the benefits are distributed.

This might be a good point to step back and take a look again at the issue that motivated me to do a little reading about the situation in Bangladesh -- that fire which killed more than a hundred employees, and the role globalization and foreign multinational corporations played in contributing to the cause of that fire! As was noted earlier on, from memos sent by Walmart reps to the Tazreen owners, Walmart and the other buyers of cheap clothing made at their factories expected costs to be continuously reduced. They cared nothing about safety standards, decent wages, decent working conditions etc.....everything was about THE MONEY! And if Tazreen raised their prices, whether to increase wages or spend on upgrading the facilities, or if, as advised by a liberal think tank...... the Bangladeshi Government increased taxes or regulations on these operations, Walmart was threatening to cancel future contracts and go to Sri Lanka, or other dirt poor regions of the world, where they can get people to work for slave wages! So, what does that tell you about globalization? Or the likelihood that benefits of globalization will filter through the to the lowest rungs of the ladder.....the rural poor in third world countries, which supplied one of the core arguments for free trade and globalization policies back 30 years ago?

What Tazreen represents on the contrary, is that free trade has not only allowed wages and working conditions to decline in the West, but also to remain marginal in those new startup operations in the third world, as well as causing inequality in developed and third world nations to increase dramatically. Globalization has allowed a return to the abominable conditions that Charles Dickens wrote about at the start of the Industrial Revolution in England 150 years ago. And this time it's worse! Because a sweatshop that puts children to work for 12 hours a day, and allows physical and sexual abuse of children and female workers to go on, would eventually not be tolerated if it was next door or at least in our home town. But when the sweat shop is half way around the world......out of sight, out of mind for most people! It's a return to slavery and the colonial economy whether or not the terminology is used. And the only time a sweatshop in Bangladesh, or anywhere in the third world makes the news over here, is when more than 100 people die in a single fire!

First of all you have not posted any data to support your above opinions.

Second, you are claiming that subsistence farmers of Bangladesh have lost “the opportunity to grow their own food, and have control over their daily lives”. What do you imagine farming in Bangladesh to be like? Do you think that the 204/1,000 children that died before the age of five, and their parents in 1980 had “control over their daily lives”? (2009 = 52) Do you think that an average child born in 1980 that can expect 4.4 years of schooling would have “more control” over their life than on born today expecting 8.1 years of schooling? Do you think that women from Bangladeshi farms had “more control over their daily lives” than Bangladeshi women of today? Have you every visited a rural area of any developing nation?

Did you notice that some of the interviews with rural Bangladeshis who moved to the cities to work in sweatshops were invariably unhappy with the choice, and moved because they felt they had no other options? Their land is being expropriated from them through the same forces of globalization and trade liberalization that are building these sweatshop factories. While multinational corporations are interested in cheap labour, especially for making textiles, they are also increasingly interested in oil....which the Government has dealt away without benefits filtering down through the population, and land is becoming the hot commodity, even in crowded third world countries for private and national corporations to grow cash crops. This is happening on a large scale in Africa, and it is happening to a smaller degree even in Bangladesh, as Indian and other companies fence off area to grow cash crops and displace landless peasants who had previously rented the land to grow a variety of food.

But, even the landless sharecroppers preferred growing their own food, and having at least a little control over their daily routines, rather than go to a foul, polluted city and work 12 to 14 hours a day in a sweatshop, to try to earn enough money to buy food of dubious quality at the local markets. And then the other great intangible has to be factored in -- that the move to third world cities in Asia and Africa has come at the cost of breaking up family relationships that extend back generations. These are people who have never dealt with this "nuclear" family situation before, and it is a primary motive behind the rise of religious fundamentalism and extremism, as ways to deal with the alienation and social isolation that happens after they move to the cities. And, once again, these are factors that can't be calculated by economists! But, they are important for wellbeing and personal satisfaction.

[carepov]

You make, perhaps, a key point here.

What can you, or any individual, do to help another?

------

Think of Haiti, and think of South Korea. In 1955, both were impoverished countries with a GDP per capita in three digits. South Korea had just suffered a terrible civil war.

We donate (and continue to donate) billions to Haitians: The food bank solution. Years later, Haitians are still impoverished.

With Koreans, we gave (give) them money if they have something to offer.

There are lots that I and others can do. We should start with the no-brainers:

-Stop war and violence (or at least reduce it’s impact by banning landmines, cluster bombs, controlling arms trade, enforce international law…)

-Promote democratic institutions

-Protect Human Rights

-Help supply basic care to people

-Educate children, especially girls

-more…

As individuals we can support NGOs that do these things and pressure governments to take these actions. In Haiti only one or maybe none of these missions were accomplished – in South Korea, it took time, but all were accomplished.

Other actions will help too but require careful study because, even with the best intentions, actions may actually worsen the problem (poverty and human suffering). For example:

- It was right to control DDT but not an outright ban senselessly cost the lives of many, this is similar for many chemicals (I cannot believe that Greenpeace was/is calling for a ban on Chlorine!!).

- Reducing carbon emissions is very tricky, however most energy savings actions are no-brainers.

- Trade embargos and boycotts can often backfire. Trade deals are usually good but it is far from a no-brainer, IMO calling for action that completely block trade deals are counter-productive.

- Banning/hindering GMOs or nuclear energy are other counter-productive actions along with turning food into fuel and excessive promotion of organic foods.

- The drug trade is a tricky issue but we can say that the current US war on drugs is a failure.

- Taxation levels are another tricky issue

Nothing bothers me more than people taking actions to solve a problem that are worsening the exact problem they are trying to solve!

[carepov]

…

Ok – I get it already: It is 2013 and life on planet Earth sucks. It sucks big-time and it sucks everywhere.

When and where, and by what objective measure, did it ever suck any less than it sucks now?

[WIP]

Ok – I get it already: It is 2013 and life on planet Earth sucks. It sucks big-time and it sucks everywhere.

When and where, and by what objective measure, did it ever suck any less than it sucks now?

Well, if it's England for example, Brits today are less happy even though they are 3 times richer than the 50's: Britain is less happy than in the 1950s - despite the fact that we are three times richer.

That BBC article was written more than six years ago btw.....long before recent austerity measures could be blamed for reducing personal satisfaction. So, once again, increasing consumption, energy use, and GDP, did not lead to greater happiness and wellbeing. And that comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with The Equality Trust, founded on research by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett:

Equality Not Growth

In Brief

Further economic growth will not improve our health or well-being. For a better quality of life we need greater income equality.

Edited January 4, 2013 by WIP

[carepov]

Well, if it's England for example, Brits today are less happy even though they are 3 times richer than the 50's: Britain is less happy than in the 1950s - despite the fact that we are three times richer.

That BBC article was written more than six years ago btw.....long before recent austerity measures could be blamed for reducing personal satisfaction. So, once again, increasing consumption, energy use, and GDP, did not lead to greater happiness and wellbeing. And that comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with The Equality Trust, founded on research by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett:

Equality Not Growth

In Brief

Further economic growth will not improve our health or well-being. For a better quality of life we need greater income equality.

Thank you WIP for the excellent response, I appreciate that you addressed my question directly. Your links do make good arguments that support the theory that happiness is declining in some developed countries. This may or may not be true, despite dating from 2007, some good links on the issue seem to suggest happiness is increasing in most developed countries:

http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_122/files/RisingHappinessPPS.pdf

http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_106/files/trends.doc

What all studies agree on is that, in developing countries, average income plays a huge role in happiness; your links are specific to developed countries.

“What the happiness research suggests is that once average incomes reach about £10,000 a year, extra money does not make a country any happier.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4771908.stm

We could discuss possible reasons for the slow increases or decreases of happiness in developed countries but I would prefer to stay with Bangladesh and other developing countries. If you don’t mind I will restate my question:

When and where, and by what objective measure, did it ever suck any less than it sucks now – in a developing country/region?

[GostHacked]

Try this: Make a list of all countries that produce goods shipped to Wal-Mart and then another list that does not ship to Wal-Mart. Then ask yourself, in which list of countries would you rather live?

It's not just Walmart. Most of our goods come from one country, China. Globalization has allowed coroporations to build and hire in foreign countries because:

1) human rights are not as good

2) lax environmental standards

3) results in cheaper labour

4) results in more profit for the company making the products.

We know that simply by outsourcing overseas has not changed the price of anything, it has stayed the same. And the quality has been noticeably degraded which forces you to buy that certain thing again and again.

Remember when quality was something to shoot for? Remember when things lasted a long time?

[carepov]

Most of our goods come from one country, China.

You are wrong.

Canada’s Top 10 Import Sources

Import Sources %

United States 49.52

China 10.8

Mexico 5.51

Japan 2.93

Germany 2.87

United Kingdom 2.32

Korea, South 1.48

France 1.24

Algeria 1.23

Italy 1.14

http://international...lang=eng&view=d

For the US: http://www.census.go...les/12s1301.pdf

Globalization has allowed coroporations to build and hire in foreign countries because:

1) human rights are not as good

2) lax environmental standards

3) results in cheaper labour

4) results in more profit for the company making the products.

Sometimes true and sometimes not.

We know that simply by outsourcing overseas has not changed the price of anything, it has stayed the same.

Again you are wrong. Try tracking the price of goods over time in real dollars (adjusted for inflation).

And the quality has been noticeably degraded…

I disagree, there has always been low-grade merchandise available. There have been huge improvements in quality, think of: cars, razors, tools, paints and chemicals, camping and sporting equipment, home building materials, appliances, cameras computers and electronics.

…which forces you to buy that certain thing again and again.

No one forces anyone to buy anything.

Remember when quality was something to shoot for? Remember when things lasted a long time?

What things are you talking about?

Edited January 4, 2013 by carepov

[August1991]

There are lots that I and others can do. We should start with the no-brainers:

-Stop war and violence (or at least reduce it’s impact by banning landmines, cluster bombs, controlling arms trade, enforce international law…)

-Promote democratic institutions

-Protect Human Rights

-Help supply basic care to people

-Educate children, especially girls

-more…

Huh?

We now live in a global, price market system.

The best way to help others around the world is to signal their good efforts through your purchase.

From Bangladesh to Shanghai to BC, the best way to help smart young women is to give them an honest job. The best way to help the world is to shop wisely.

Why have food banks when we have an efficient food distribution system already?

Edited January 5, 2013 by August1991

[carepov]

Huh?

We now live in a global, price market system.

The best way to help others around the world is to signal their good efforts through your purchase.

From Bangladesh to Shanghai to BC, the best way to help smart young women is to give them an honest job. The best way to help the world is to shop wisely.

Why have food banks when we have an efficient food distribution system already?

Counter-Huh?

Yes, maybe partially true for Bangladesh and China, but what can you or want to buy from Haiti, Bolivia, Somalia, Niger, Angola, Laos, Whateverstan, etc...?

Are we signalling "good efforts" by importing oil from Saudi Arabia?

Maybe I don't even like shopping...

[August1991]

Yes, maybe partially true for Bangladesh and China...

Several hundred million people live better now and you say "partially true".

... but what can you or want to buy from Haiti, Bolivia, Somalia, Niger, Angola, Laos, Whateverstan, etc...?

Maybe people in Haiti, Bolivia, Somalia etc should rethink life. People in China and Bangladesh did.

The question is: how can people think differently? I suspect that leadership matters more.

Are we signalling "good efforts" by importing oil from Saudi Arabia?

Good point.

I agree that Saudi Arabia is a fundamentally evil empire. Like the Soviets, our best approach is to engage individuals (since we're a free people) but ostracize the State.

We must ensure that individuals in such societies know that they are not alone.

Maybe I don't even like shopping...

I hate shopping.

[WIP]

Thank you WIP for the excellent response, I appreciate that you addressed my question directly. Your links do make good arguments that support the theory that happiness is declining in some developed countries. This may or may not be true, despite dating from 2007, some good links on the issue seem to suggest happiness is increasing in most developed countries:

http://www.worldvalu...appinessPPS.pdf

http://www.worldvalu...iles/trends.doc

What all studies agree on is that, in developing countries, average income plays a huge role in happiness; your links are specific to developed countries.

The first study is 268 pages long, and I had planned to read the whole thing before responding, and for some reason, I couldn't get the 2nd document to open. The problem here is that garbage in/garbage out is the general rule of statistical analysis regardless of subject. Political polls can produce varied results depending on questions asked, and who's responding; at a time when the overwhelming expert consensus on global warming agreed with James Hansen's conclusions that there was a definite signal of anthropogenic climate change in global temperature data, we had idiots like self-proclaimed lord monckton running around with their own graphs and charts claiming that global temperatures had started cooling.

And here, in this analysis of happiness under the direction of a Ronald Inglehart, I find that he is only measuring self-reported measures of happiness, whereas the wellbeing studies conducted by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett for the Spirit Level:Mental Health subsection, is using physical evidence of depression and psychosis, and drug abuse, that are more reliable as true measures of wellbeing than just going by surveys of people checking boxes on a multiple choice question sheet. And it's also worth noting that Inglehart's study is at least 5 years old. So he is missing a lot of what is happening lately in many economies around the world, as many people go from struggling to keep up with the cost of living, to struggling to put food on the table and facing at the prospect that they and their families will be homeless.

I can't help notice while glossing over some other stuff that Inglehart has written, that he is a genetic determinist; in the same or at least similar camp with evolutionary psychologists like Stephen Pinker - who believe most of our behaviour is hardwired, but have a long view of history that human progress is putting more stuff on the table and making life easier, and this continued and expanding cornucopia will be the key to making us happier and less violent and antisocial. Among other reasons why this is a fallacy is the greater likelihood that other psychologists and philosophers of mind share, that an organism's phenotype (development of physical and behavioural traits) depend more greatly on the environmental factors that guide an organism's gene expression, than the genetic blueprint itself.

Also, his claim that rising happiness is just a matter of economic growth and democratization do not explain why the U.S. performs more poorly on this and so many other measures of personal wellbeing than poorer nations. Even Costa Rica, with about a third of the U.S. GDP, outperforms the U.S. on the Happy Planet Index. That seems to me to be a finishing blow to any theories that increased wealth alone can improve societies. My suspicions are that Inglehart is just another one of those university academics who works as a hired gun for business interests....since his libertarian theories so closely coincide with the modern business approach to economics and political theory.

“What the happiness research suggests is that once average incomes reach about £10,000 a year, extra money does not make a country any happier.” http://news.bbc.co.u...ula/4771908.stm

I think that's the same report I posted previously.

We could discuss possible reasons for the slow increases or decreases of happiness in developed countries but I would prefer to stay with Bangladesh and other developing countries. If you don’t mind I will restate my question:

When and where, and by what objective measure, did it ever suck any less than it sucks now – in a developing country/region?

Did it occur to you yet that you are asking a nonsense question? And you even provided a link to show that it "sucks" more in England now than it did in the 1950's.....same as U.S. and Canada.

My question remains: why are we allowing banks and international corporations to overrun the power of all political institutions (including national governments) when the claims they made in advance of open trade have only enriched themselves and are impoverishing everyone else? We heard that globalization would allow poor nations like Bangladesh to get in on the ground floor of modernization, and a patronizing approach to less developed nations just presented it as a given, that modernization (textile industries and cash crop agriculture) would improve their lives. The Tazreen Factory Fire has opened the window a crack on a world that is ignored here in the West, by those who think all's fair as long as a global conglomerate sells us $10.00 shirts and pants. We have discovered that the "ground floor" to modernization is virtually bottomless! There is always somewhere cheaper, where the Borg can set up their supply operations....Sri Lanka, or a recent offer from China...which has lost a lot of the bargain basement export business lately....to set up prison labour operations that are even cheaper than the competitors.

[Moonlight Graham]

I believe that the responsibility to protect worker’s safety and the environment lies with national governments that implement and enforce laws.

And so what if governments in developing countries do not have the laws or the means to enforce the laws to protect worker's safety and the environment? What if actions by the businesses/corporations could help worker's safety in certain countries they deal with? What if pressure by consumers could force businesses to ensure higher worker safety standards? So do you just wash your hands of all it and say "ah well, it's all the responsibility of the national governments"? Do you think this is an ethical mindset?

When buying new, Wal-Mart, Superstore, Old Navy, Best Buy, Amazon, Canadian Tire, Dollarama are all stores that I typically shop at and I do not see any reason that a change in my shopping habits would have a positive impact on human development – but I welcome opposing viewpoints.

Let me use a hypothetical. What if you wanted to buy a gold necklace for your mother, and had a choice to buy it from Company A for $80 or Company B for $70. Company A buys the gold used in the necklace from a Nigerian mining company that pays its local African miners $2 per hour to mine the gold, works the miners 10 hours a day, gives them extra money for overtime, and provides them with adequate safety standards within the mines (resulting in a low number of mine accidents, injuries, and deaths . Meanwhile, Company B buys the gold used in its necklaces from a Nigerian mining company that pays its local African miners $1 per hour to mine the gold, works the miners 16 hours a day, gives them no compensation for overtime, and provides them with very poor safety standards within the mines (resulting in a high number of mine accidents, injuries, and deaths).

Obviously, the human social conditions for Nigerian miners contracted by Company A is better than Company B. However, because Company B buys from mining co.'s providing poorer worker pay/conditions it is able to sell its gold necklaces for $70 instead of $80. So would you buy your mother's gold necklace from Company A or Company B? Which company would other consumers likely buy from? Is buying from Company B over A ethical?

What’s wrong with Wal-Mart anyways?

http://corporate.wal...thical-sourcing

It says: "The foundation of Walmart’s business has always centered on helping people live better. This mission applies not only to our customers and associates, but also to the workers who make our products." Sorry, but the foundation of Walmart's business and most other businesses on the planet is profit. Walmart is only one link along a global supply chain so they can't be blamed 100% if there is ever any unethical activity along the supply chain. Yes, local governments and the factories can also be held accountable, as well as consumers themselves who perpetuate demand for the products without raising a peep.

[carepov]

Did it occur to you yet that you are asking a nonsense question?

No this did not occur to me. You did such a good job the first time that I asked it that I decided to ask it again, only this time limiting it to developing countries only. Would you be so kind as to humour me and answer my nonsensical question? I will gladly try to answer any of your clearly stated questions.

When and where, and by what objective measure, did it ever suck any less than it sucks now – in a developing country/region?

[carepov]

And so what if governments in developing countries do not have the laws or the means to enforce the laws to protect worker's safety and the environment? What if actions by the businesses/corporations could help worker's safety in certain countries they deal with? What if pressure by consumers could force businesses to ensure higher worker safety standards? So do you just wash your hands of all it and say "ah well, it's all the responsibility of the national governments"? Do you think this is an ethical mindset?

You may have misunderstood me. I support putting pressure on corporations to source ethically.

Let me use a hypothetical. What if you wanted to buy a gold necklace for your mother, and had a choice to buy it from Company A for $80 or Company B for $70. Company A buys the gold used in the necklace from a Nigerian mining company that pays its local African miners $2 per hour to mine the gold, works the miners 10 hours a day, gives them extra money for overtime, and provides them with adequate safety standards within the mines (resulting in a low number of mine accidents, injuries, and deaths . Meanwhile, Company B buys the gold used in its necklaces from a Nigerian mining company that pays its local African miners $1 per hour to mine the gold, works the miners 16 hours a day, gives them no compensation for overtime, and provides them with very poor safety standards within the mines (resulting in a high number of mine accidents, injuries, and deaths).

Obviously, the human social conditions for Nigerian miners contracted by Company A is better than Company B. However, because Company B buys from mining co.'s providing poorer worker pay/conditions it is able to sell its gold necklaces for $70 instead of $80. So would you buy your mother's gold necklace from Company A or Company B? Which company would other consumers likely buy from? Is buying from Company B over A ethical?

If I knew the facts above with reasonable certainty I would pay $80. In the real world we do not know and it is not nearly as clear-cut as above.

It says: "The foundation of Walmart’s business has always centered on helping people live better. This mission applies not only to our customers and associates, but also to the workers who make our products." :lol:Sorry, but the foundation of Walmart's business and most other businesses on the planet is profit. Walmart is only one link along a global supply chain so they can't be blamed 100% if there is ever any unethical activity along the supply chain. Yes, local governments and the factories can also be held accountable, as well as consumers themselves who perpetuate demand for the products without raising a peep.

It looks like we mostly agree. You may laugh at Wal-Mart’s statements but they are at least responding to the demands by consumers. Try to find “social and environmental responsibility” of other retailers. I also agree that Wal-Mart should continue to improve.

[carepov]

Several hundred million people live better now and you say "partially true".

Yes, hundreds of millions of lives did improve, but why? There are surely many reasons.

Maybe people in Haiti, Bolivia, Somalia etc should rethink life. People in China and Bangladesh did.

The question is: how can people think differently? I suspect that leadership matters more.

Yes, I agree.

I agree that Saudi Arabia is a fundamentally evil empire. Like the Soviets, our best approach is to engage individuals (since we're a free people) but ostracize the State.

We must ensure that individuals in such societies know that they are not alone.

This is one reason that I strongly support Human Rights.

I hate shopping.

And yet you suggest that we buy from Bangladesh, China, etc…