I think dang what if that is all I had... and then I am more thankful for what I do have
2006-12-08 17:32:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by micheleh29 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I watched part of a program the other morning about two women from a U.S. company that buys from a company in China, the employees there were mostly young women that made about $2.00 a day, lived in a company apartment, deducting their expense's to the company, they had very little left over if any. They were not allowed to spend much time in the men's apartment area, and becoming pregnant was a real no, no, as in babies, no workie, I didn't get to watch enough of the program, had to get to work, but my impression was slave labor so we in the western world can have low cost products..
2006-12-09 00:18:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by xyz 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
A lot of people have less than that. Some people live completely without money. They live like people lived thousands of years ago. There are as many people living in absolute poverty as there are people in the developed countries. In each case it's about one sixth of the world's population. Everybody else is in between.
I got a book out of the library just to have something to read. It was "The End of Poverty," by Jefrey Sachs. I wasn't expecting much. I put the book down at 4:00 a.m. I highly recommend it. Change is possible.
2006-12-08 21:33:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mike D. 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Makes me think about how so much of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of only a few. Really, if there was a way for American technology and innovation to lay out irrigation systems in Africa, whole countries of people would be able to grow their own crops. If our medicines and condoms were allowed to be distributed and aide workers allowed to educate about sexually-transmitted diseases, we could stop the increased spread of AIDS.
BTW: I realize that this isn't a one-way street of wealthy nations being greedy. There are governments that could be on the receiving end that don't always want the outside intervention.
2006-12-08 21:25:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by FL LMT 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Those are deceiving statistics, as earnings for comparison across national boundaries in nominal terms are worthless, and are used to evoke whatever emotion the writer/speaker wishes to convey. The PPP per capita (Purchasing Power Parity per person) is much more useful.
2006-12-08 21:26:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jamie 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Probably both;
how these people struggle daily, working their behinds off for very little, but carrying on for their families. Here, for that amount of money? no one would work for that, we've been spoilt. I'm not saying the rights our unions fought for were wrong, just that we don't know anymore what real poverty is. (not talking about the homeless, just the working class folk).
2006-12-09 05:13:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Kesta♥ 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it's very little money either way, and that I didn't do anything to be so fortunate as to be born in this country. I could just as well be them. I want to do more to help the poor.
2006-12-09 01:56:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by Katherine W 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm thinking $2 can only just barley buy me a coffee.
2006-12-08 23:21:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by glasgow girl 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think mostly about what those two dollars will buy in their country.
2006-12-08 23:01:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ambassador Z 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think about both. It's amazing how what seems so like so little to me could go so far people elsewhere.
2006-12-08 21:20:40
·
answer #10
·
answered by not*a*placebo*81 3
·
0⤊
0⤋