(Photo from the Wall Street Journal)
I don't know if this blog post is properly titled, or even if I have a concise and cogent topic for the post, but I just want to throw out a few things that I've been thinking about lately.
To get started, please click here and check out the Global Rich List. You put in how much money you earn, and see how much of the world's population is poorer than you.
Go ahead.
Do it.
I'll wait.
OK, now that you've done it, perhaps you're feeling richer than you did before you clicked on the link. Maybe you just found that you're in the richest 10 percent, or 4 percent, or 2 percent of the world. But your place there is not surprising, since half of the world (roughly 3 billion people) lives on less than $2.50 a day. And the richest 20 percent of the world accounts for three-quarters of the world's income.
Some people would like to think that this is changing--that as more wealth is created throughout the world, more people have access to wealth. But according to the UNDP, 80 percent of the world's population lives in countries where the income differentials are actually widening.
Whenever I start thinking about poverty, I invariably find myself considering my own place and role in the continuing existence of world poverty. After all, the world is rich in resources and wealth, but that wealth is unequally distributed. So the wealthy have more wealth, and as a result they (we) are able to consume more resources. This means that the richest people in the world consume far more resources than the poorest people in the world. In fact...
I got this image from a Global Issues blog:
If you break it down even further, the richest 10 percent of the world's population consumes nearly 60 percent of the world's resources. (By the way, in case you're interested, the breakdown in the United States is no less shocking--in the U.S., the richest 1 percent of the population holds 40 percent of the country's financial wealth.)
So what I keep thinking about is: How much of that consumption am I responsible for?
And the more I think/read about it, the more I feel like there is a crucial link between the widening gap between the rich and the poor, and the overconsumption by rich countries of the earth's (limited) resources.
My sister-in-law told me that when she was young, when her parents would say something like "Eat your dinner because there are starving children in China," she would respond with, "Then why don't you pack up this food and send it to them?!" It's funny, but it's also sort of a valid question. How does my eating everything on my plate change the lot of a hungry person in China (or Ethiopia, or Bolivia)? What is the connection between the amount of resources I consume and the amount of resources other people have access to? I definitely have a sense that this is a moral issue, and that it is immoral for me to consume extravagant amounts of resources when so many people don't even have enough to eat. So I believe that I should consume resources responsibly, AND I believe that we have to find ways to improve the distribution of goods and services so that the income gap doesn't continue to widen... but I want to hear people's ideas about how these two things are linked. Because I believe that they are, but I'm having a hard time explaining myself.
[This is where I'm really hoping that some of you (I know you're out there reading this, but most of you are COMMENT-SLACKERS) will step in, comment, and tell me what you think, because I feel like it's important and I also feel like there is something I'm missing.]
Of course, I can think of lots of things that each of us can do to reduce our ecological footprint and consume the earth's resources in a more responsible way, and it seems like this would be a good place to mention a few. A few suggestions, each with a link that will explain why it's relevant/important:
*Eat less (or no!) meat.
*Eat (real) food that is locally grown.
*Remember that famous maxim: Reduce, reuse and recycle.
*Assess your own ecological footprint and think about how to reduce it.
*Diagnose yourself: Do you have affluenza?
What else?
Posts
7 comments:
I think that the "recycle" bit gets overemphasized and that the "reduce" and "reuse" pieces get passed over too often. Honestly, I think this "recession" has been good for people to realize that we all need to STOP BUYING CRAP and live within our means. Just because you want it, doesn't mean you need it. Just because you can afford it, doesn't mean you need it. I mean, really, what do we NEED? Not a whole lot, actually. Shelter, food, love.
Buy used goods. Give more money to good charities. Live as minimalists. Grow your own food.
I think a big part of it, too, is living ethically. Make sure that, when you do purchase something, you're making a statement with your dollar. Buy from companies that you believe in and do research on which ones are improving the global economy and which ones are ravaging it. If you buy from a company that has factories overseas, make sure that they pay their workers a decent wage and that they treat them fairly. Sometimes you pay much, much more for an ethical product, but you're doing your part to support ethics. Part of the huge problem with globalization (and capitalism) is that we are so often looking to cut costs and "bargain shop" that we forget just how much our quest to save 50 cents affects people worldwide.
Wow. I'm speechless.
Last year, I read a book called "The Geography of Bliss," wherein I was not [in the least] surprised to find out that the happiest countries in the world also happened to be relatively poor.
The happiest country as decided by researchers? Bhutan. Instead of measuring GDP, the have something called the "General Happiness Quotient," where they base their success as a nation on the happiness of their people. And you know what? They're poor by our standards.
FANTASTIC post, Missy.
Big issues. Having lived abroad among the poor - cardboard for walls etc, having become familiar with their problems I have known for a long time that I lived among the top - the richest. If you include those who have passed through history - to some extent at least - I live better than the kings and queens through out history. No comparison. Part of this is due to the fact that we live in a country with unpredecedented freedoms. It gives us the ability build like never before. Technology has spurred that growth. I defintely believe in being frugal - waste is wrong. At the same time our consumption of goods and services supports industry. That is why free markets and international trade is important. Changing the system won't happen over night. Support freedom in other countries will help. Fighting corruption will help - that is the reason for poverty in so many countries - corrupt official. The US has resources - but we are not the most resource rich country by a long shot. There are still more undeveloped resources than developed. Resources can be developed with out depleting and stripping the earth. Ok. I better stop for now or I will be here way to long. In the meantime if you are looking for something you can do: http://www.kiva.org
is a good place to start.
YES, LIZ, thank you for bringing up fair trade! It's such a crucial part of the puzzle, and I totally neglected to mention it in my post. Supporting businesses that offer fair wages and good working conditions for their employees (or the artisans or farmers that they buy goods and raw materials from) is a hugely important way to ensure that you are not inadvertently exploiting someone you've never met/seen. If you go to fairtradefederation.org, you can search for products that are fair trade certified.
Jen, I seriously wish that we did a little bit of "GHQ" measuring around here too :)
And Vic--thanks for joining us! I always love hearing from people who are passionate about these kinds of issues. I think you've rightly identified some other issues that are connected to questions of poverty and consumption: freedom, accountability, and the responsible use of earth's resources, to name a few. Oh, what a tangled web! :)
I think Liz's comment is connected to some of the issues you raised in your comment, too. When we buy goods we are supporting industry, but I do think it's so important to think about WHO we are supporting. Are we supporting a multinational corporation that employs child laborers in India, padding the pockets of rich CEOs while the child workers and their families languish in poverty despite all their grueling work? Or are we buying from a company that has paid its workers a fair wage for their labor? Acknowledging that we are connected to (and yes, complicit in) a highly inequitable global economy is the first step toward taking responsibility for our own choices that may be affecting other people.
(And thanks for the KIVA link. I'm a huge fan of microlending and one day soon I'm going to do a post on it!)
I definitely agree about taking time to be aware of where your merchandise comes from. I think sometimes multinational companies have received unfair criticism. The ford plant in Chihuahua Mexico pays its employee very very low wages compared to here in the US [or at least it did a decade ago]. However, they were actually capped by the Mexican government as to how much they could pay their employees. Ford wanted to pay more - Mexico didn't allow it. So Ford compensated by providing scholarships to private schools for ALL the employees' children. It is important that multinational companies be pushing upwards as far as wages and conditions but it is unfair to expect them to provide the same standards as locations in the US. Providing an opportunity to work is the first step, then pushing wages and standards up comes next. I think that is a fair representation of the point of view of 3rd world citizens. There are obviously limits, of course. Again I think it comes down to freedom, and freedom from corruption. Argentina in 1910 had a higher standard or living that the US. It is still a very resource rich country, but the socialist policies and corruption of Peron and others put in Argentina in a place they still have yet to recover from.
oops - my last comment was made from my wife's account - as this one is too I guess [yes I am too lazy to sign out and sign back in]. Thank you for posting on important issues and allowing me to throw in my 2 cents to the discussion. Its probably worth what you paid for it.
Vic, join in anytime. Sorry for my delayed response, I'm having a busy week.
I hadn't heard about the Ford plant in Chihuahua. To be honest, more often I encounter stories like these, about labor issues and multinational corporations:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/27/ken-saro-wiwa-shell-oil
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/221/46956.html
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-12-voa39.cfm
http://www.cleanclothes.org/turkish-workers-tour-europe-to-tell-of-repression-at-prada-suppliers
Of course I'm not saying that all multinational corporations are involved in these kinds of practices, but I do think it's important for us to ask questions and be willing to speak through our buying habits. For instance, I will never, ever purchase Shell gasoline (see www.wiwavshell.org).
I do feel a little skeptical of the argument that the first thing is to provide jobs, then let working conditions improve from there. This argument has been used to justify child labor, exploitation, and horrendous working conditions for generations--including in places where, over years, labor conditions have not in fact improved. The sad fact is, workers have far less power to improve their conditions than their employers. Why not emphasize appropriate working conditions from the beginning? Why not treat fair pay and humane working conditions as basic human rights?
Post a Comment