It’s a mixed bag. Third world countries provide natural resources at low prices but the world economy would probably be richer if those billions of people were creating more valuable goods and services.
Underdeveloped nations are easier to exploit for cheap resources and cheap workforce. If they develop more they might charge more for their natural resources, or they might use those resources themselves to produce more complex industrial goods and sell those instead, and their workers might demand higher wages. This would be bad for the people and corporations in the west that are currently exploiting these nations. But how much that affects the common population of western nations is less certain, since the prosperity of our corporations don’t necessarily translate into prosperity for the general population. So for the common working class of the west it might not matter or might even have positive effects as there’d be less incentive for western corporations to outsource their workforce to these formerly underdeveloped nations, thus keeping more jobs in their own countries.
Part of our current lifestyle is eased by the fact we can leverage the workforce of developing countries. One extreme example is tourism, where we can generally get better services for cheaper in developing countries (the canonical example is Thailand).
On the other hand, when those countries develop, we can benefit from the innovation of those countries. Some of my favourite objects are from Japan for example (why are they the only ones to manufacture really great ball pens for example ?).
The argument for western hegemony is that the world exists largely in a state for the benefit of the west. The people of western nations are wealthier, healthier, safer, and generally live happier lives. Obviously the gross cost of this is the misery and abuse of the other nations who are largely exploited and abused.
If these exploited and abused nations were allowed to build themselves up, they might not necessarily come looking for a fight (although we all understand they might) they will most certainly come asking for better and more fair treatment, which the people living in the west would experience negatively. Like if a huge part of your life is predicted on like cheap Toyotas made in Mexico by people making $10 per hrs or less, those Toyota are gonna cost more. If your house was built by undocumented immigrants who get paid illegally low wages and who themselves or their parents fled from central American countries brought to ruin by the CIA destabilizing them… building houses is going to become more expensive. Basically the exploitation allows us to buy everything for cheap and work fake email jobs while some poor foreigner slaves away in a horrible factory or something. If their factories become less slavey and less horrible, that’s going to cost us probably more than. We can afford.
More so than the revenge thing, which like Honduras and Cuba and Columbia aren’t seeking revenge on the US or anything, not even Vietnam is (Venezuela is though, north Korea is). Most of these countries and these people just want to live in a peace and prosperity that is actually good for them and that would force the west to really feel the humiliation (that is to say, “be made humble”) of losing the embarrassment of riches only made possible by the exploitative world order. A lot of people in the west would completely Karen out about it, but even the more stoic and austere would still visibly recognize basically a step down in conditions. The buildings and cars that we have don’t go away or anything, but like it’s like of like I have $100 and you have $1 and we pool and redistribute so we each have $50, you feel like you gained $50 and are happy, i feel like a rich person who just got robbed. Never discount the absurd lengths the privileged will go to cling to their status. A lot of people even recognize the abuse and exploitation and sort of justify it as good because it makes their lives good. There’s all kinds of mental gymnastics.
No, if anything, we win. We have large established industries that create a lot of machinery and luxury products, the more people we can sell to, the better.
The yes: Part of the reason the developed world funds development in Third World countries is because developed countries buy more stuff. A fully developed Africa is a huge customer to buy goods and services from the West.
The no: A fully development Africa (and Asia) with a carbon footprint the size of the USA or a scaled up Australia would disastrous for the environment. It’s one thing having a small country like Australia having a big per-person carbon footprint, it’s another having India having a big per-person footprint.
Financially it’s a good thing to have wealthy countries buying your stuff, environmentally, not so much.
I think what a lot of comments don’t take into consideration is that developing countries account for something like 83% of the world’s population, and have MASSIVE differences between them. Some of them are barely industrialized, some of them are more industrialized, but still mostly provide low-cost, low added value labor, some of them are pretty close to being developed. Hell, my country is technically still developing, yet many people would probably call us developed when compared to many countries in the Middle East, Africa, or South Asia.
Technically speaking, a lot of goods Westerners purchase for cheap (relatively speaking) are made in Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam, Indonesia or Cambodia, or South Asian countries like Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. But if all of these countries became developed and suddenly, the cost of labor would be higher, there are still MANY countries in Africa that are craving to be industrialized. As much as Westerners think factories in developing countries are exploitation (and don’t get me wrong, they definitely are, ESPECIALLY when we view them through Western lens), locals still tend to prefer it to extremely dangerous mining or subsistence agriculture. If a lot of African countries became more stable and we invested more into their infrastructure, the West could definitely create countries like Vietnam, Indonesia or Bangladesh for manufacturing there, while actual Vietnam, Indonesia and Bangladesh would develop well. And the West could still benefit from their development.
You sort of already saw this with China. In the 2000s, China was the place of low-cost, low value-added labor with horrendous child labor and terrible conditions. Fast forward to now: while work life in China still has many, MANY issues, factories are a lot more automated, more people work in services compared to manufacturing now, and China itself manufactures a lot of its stuff in Vietnam now. Many things that were previously manufactured in China also turned to Vietnam or Thailand, but China itself still manufactures a lot of stuff that we use.
West loses cheap labor. When China increased their min wage, US companies had to move their production to Vietnam and Bangladesh to get a lower price on manufacturing.
Generally the west gains if third world countries develop. Yes, they lose an easily exploitable workforce, but they gain stronger economy trading partners.
Comments
It’s a mixed bag. Third world countries provide natural resources at low prices but the world economy would probably be richer if those billions of people were creating more valuable goods and services.
Yes, we lose our savior complex
Underdeveloped nations are easier to exploit for cheap resources and cheap workforce. If they develop more they might charge more for their natural resources, or they might use those resources themselves to produce more complex industrial goods and sell those instead, and their workers might demand higher wages. This would be bad for the people and corporations in the west that are currently exploiting these nations. But how much that affects the common population of western nations is less certain, since the prosperity of our corporations don’t necessarily translate into prosperity for the general population. So for the common working class of the west it might not matter or might even have positive effects as there’d be less incentive for western corporations to outsource their workforce to these formerly underdeveloped nations, thus keeping more jobs in their own countries.
Well, look at China 30yrs ago VS today… they invested in education, science, infrastructure, etc.
Meanwhile in Amerikkka, the opposite, now China can build things we cannot.
Plus, everyday that passed and the commander in shit open his mouth, the world hates Amerikkka AND Americans more and more.
The West don’t lose because other countries thrives, it loses BECAUSE POLITICIANS, simple as that.
Part of our current lifestyle is eased by the fact we can leverage the workforce of developing countries. One extreme example is tourism, where we can generally get better services for cheaper in developing countries (the canonical example is Thailand).
On the other hand, when those countries develop, we can benefit from the innovation of those countries. Some of my favourite objects are from Japan for example (why are they the only ones to manufacture really great ball pens for example ?).
Theoretically it loses influence and hegemony.
The argument for western hegemony is that the world exists largely in a state for the benefit of the west. The people of western nations are wealthier, healthier, safer, and generally live happier lives. Obviously the gross cost of this is the misery and abuse of the other nations who are largely exploited and abused.
If these exploited and abused nations were allowed to build themselves up, they might not necessarily come looking for a fight (although we all understand they might) they will most certainly come asking for better and more fair treatment, which the people living in the west would experience negatively. Like if a huge part of your life is predicted on like cheap Toyotas made in Mexico by people making $10 per hrs or less, those Toyota are gonna cost more. If your house was built by undocumented immigrants who get paid illegally low wages and who themselves or their parents fled from central American countries brought to ruin by the CIA destabilizing them… building houses is going to become more expensive. Basically the exploitation allows us to buy everything for cheap and work fake email jobs while some poor foreigner slaves away in a horrible factory or something. If their factories become less slavey and less horrible, that’s going to cost us probably more than. We can afford.
More so than the revenge thing, which like Honduras and Cuba and Columbia aren’t seeking revenge on the US or anything, not even Vietnam is (Venezuela is though, north Korea is). Most of these countries and these people just want to live in a peace and prosperity that is actually good for them and that would force the west to really feel the humiliation (that is to say, “be made humble”) of losing the embarrassment of riches only made possible by the exploitative world order. A lot of people in the west would completely Karen out about it, but even the more stoic and austere would still visibly recognize basically a step down in conditions. The buildings and cars that we have don’t go away or anything, but like it’s like of like I have $100 and you have $1 and we pool and redistribute so we each have $50, you feel like you gained $50 and are happy, i feel like a rich person who just got robbed. Never discount the absurd lengths the privileged will go to cling to their status. A lot of people even recognize the abuse and exploitation and sort of justify it as good because it makes their lives good. There’s all kinds of mental gymnastics.
Poor countries are easier to exploit and loot
No, if anything, we win. We have large established industries that create a lot of machinery and luxury products, the more people we can sell to, the better.
Nope the West is stacked. Lakers in 4
If developed countries became like richer ones, climate crisis would become far worse.
A great deal of the prosperity of 1st world nations comes from exploiting developing countries.
Yes and No.
The yes: Part of the reason the developed world funds development in Third World countries is because developed countries buy more stuff. A fully developed Africa is a huge customer to buy goods and services from the West.
The no: A fully development Africa (and Asia) with a carbon footprint the size of the USA or a scaled up Australia would disastrous for the environment. It’s one thing having a small country like Australia having a big per-person carbon footprint, it’s another having India having a big per-person footprint.
Financially it’s a good thing to have wealthy countries buying your stuff, environmentally, not so much.
I think what a lot of comments don’t take into consideration is that developing countries account for something like 83% of the world’s population, and have MASSIVE differences between them. Some of them are barely industrialized, some of them are more industrialized, but still mostly provide low-cost, low added value labor, some of them are pretty close to being developed. Hell, my country is technically still developing, yet many people would probably call us developed when compared to many countries in the Middle East, Africa, or South Asia.
Technically speaking, a lot of goods Westerners purchase for cheap (relatively speaking) are made in Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam, Indonesia or Cambodia, or South Asian countries like Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. But if all of these countries became developed and suddenly, the cost of labor would be higher, there are still MANY countries in Africa that are craving to be industrialized. As much as Westerners think factories in developing countries are exploitation (and don’t get me wrong, they definitely are, ESPECIALLY when we view them through Western lens), locals still tend to prefer it to extremely dangerous mining or subsistence agriculture. If a lot of African countries became more stable and we invested more into their infrastructure, the West could definitely create countries like Vietnam, Indonesia or Bangladesh for manufacturing there, while actual Vietnam, Indonesia and Bangladesh would develop well. And the West could still benefit from their development.
You sort of already saw this with China. In the 2000s, China was the place of low-cost, low value-added labor with horrendous child labor and terrible conditions. Fast forward to now: while work life in China still has many, MANY issues, factories are a lot more automated, more people work in services compared to manufacturing now, and China itself manufactures a lot of its stuff in Vietnam now. Many things that were previously manufactured in China also turned to Vietnam or Thailand, but China itself still manufactures a lot of stuff that we use.
Cheap labor to exploit.
West loses cheap labor. When China increased their min wage, US companies had to move their production to Vietnam and Bangladesh to get a lower price on manufacturing.
Generally the west gains if third world countries develop. Yes, they lose an easily exploitable workforce, but they gain stronger economy trading partners.