Living in the western "rich" world we are spoiled and don't understand harships! Agree?

Just saw a documentary on Bolivia how a woman gets up while it's dark, puts a barrel on her head and walks 10 Miles to get water for the day from a filthy well we would not swim in!....thats what 1 Billion or more people have to do everyday!  They also scavenge for a hand full of rice or dirty flour...meanwhile, I buy 4 litre "springwater" and run down to the supermarket to pick what fruit, vegetables, meat, I want to eat today.

Our kids want Nike shoes and PS 3 while there kids need food and medicine.....and clean water!  I jump in a nice car and complain about Petrol prices, while they walk many miles a day to work and home......I think we are lucky but don't know it, just born on the good side of the world.

agree?

I agree wholeheartedly, but our world is about to be rocked to pieces!

Those of us who haven't had the misfortune to experience those conditions, are going to learn what it's like.

Stay tuned.

Sylvia

Agreed. I would extend those 1 billion to several billions including the American lower middle class as well as the poor. They may not suffer to the same degree by far as the one billion you mentioned but the upper midddle class is every bit as isolated from them physically and intellectually as they are from the worlds poor.

I have relatives whose children are pampered getting everything for Christmas, playing (expensive) sports, going to expensive private schools. They live in a semi-secluded valley in a McMansion only ten miles from the homes of the working poor. One of the children is prejudiced against Mexicans and he didn't even know (He's ten) that he is half Mexican half Cuban.

villabolo

I agree that many in the rich western nations don't know what real hardship is.  I completely disagree with Villaboo's comment about the American lower class.  There is a world of difference between having to buy knock off designer jeans at Target and not having enough to eat. 

We complain if we drive a 5 year old car, or don't have a Blu-Ray player yet. Yep we don't know the real meaning of hardship.

I completely disagree with Villaboo's comment about the American lower class.There is a world of difference between having to buy knock off designer jeans at Target and not having enough to eat. 

I think your middle class existence has blinded you to the lives of other American citizens:  those who must buy ill fitting, used, blue jeans at Goodwill and go to food pantries in order to have something to eat.  We do have poverty in this country. 

Read "Nickled and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich if you want a glimpse of how America's working poor live. Poverty exists everywhere.

I think all things are relevant however, I couldn't say that all people living in the 'western' world don't understand hardship. Many have lived it. There are 1 million kids and rising, that are homeless in the USA right now and believe me, they could tell you their stories of wanting a warm bed and not a new DVD player. There are 35 million people and rising in this country, using food stamps - many of whom are working but unable to earn enough to pay for both a place to live and eat at the same time. 

I think many do understand and for the ones that have already suffered hardships, they see what is coming and will be better able to adapt. For those that have tied up their self worth in materialism - they will perhaps have to find other ways to cope than by a prescription, because even that might be rationed when they lose their job or the funds to buy the drugs. 

As one economist reported - the American middle class is dissolving before your eyes and will continue to erode until the USA is the 'richest' third world country. Rich and poor - each in their own enclave. China and India are emerging as the new middle class consumer and are expected to rise up and remain there for decades. 

Of course all this is shifting as the new currency comes into play - it might change in a heartbeat if the USA decides war is an option to restart manufacturing........sammieswife.

I agree that there are ones in the more affluent world that suffer from lack of food, housing, and good clothes. 

But the majority live in luxury compared to poorer third world countries.  Look at what the 2009 US poverty level for one person, $10,830 (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml).   A citizen of Malawi can spend $ 1.6 a day to make a living,
a citizen of Eritrea $ 2.5, the average US citizen spends $ 114 daily (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm).

Can the majority of those in the affluent nations of the world really know how those in poor countries live?  No.

the average US citizen spends $ 114 daily

Sorry, I have problems with the stats you quoted.  I am a middle class US Citizen and I guarantee you I do not spend $114.00 a day.  Sometimes I don't spend that much in a week.  Neither do my middle class US Citizen friends. 

I think this is an incorrect, rather ignorant blanket statement that may apply to a small percentage of people in the 'rich' western world.  There are many people in the western world just a paycheck away from trouble.  So, I am not so sure they would agree with this statement.  It also takes all you can do to stay afloat in the so-called 'rich' western world.  There are many needs forced on people in the western world just to survive.  Cars and phones are some things along with a computer.  It is very complicated to live in the western world and we cannot change any of it. 

The only thing I will agree with is that it is probably somewhat better to be poor in the western world than in the third world, only because the poor may have some access to services of some kind, but that's about it.

You cannot compare apples and oranges - it doesn't work. You cannot take a western standardized measure and apply it to another country where infrastructure costs, climate, technology, health, education, housing, military etc are all rolled into one and put it up against another country where half of those things do not exist - because of a government unwillingness or inability to progress in the same way. 

The poverty rate is set inside the country, because that is what the country has determined people should be able to exist on. In many cases, this is an unrealistic figure because it does not include the cost of food, transportation or utilities but it is still the figure that is determined statistically. The same figure cannot be applied equally to the same measure in another country that may not have the same measure of application.

It would be easier to compare say rental costs, food costs, medicine, education, transportation etc. If the poverty level in the USA is set at approximately $14.500.00 for a couple, and that couple for example is living in an 800 sq foot trailer in California it is very easy to see that said couple is not living on $114.00 a day. Average rent is about $800.00 a month plus utilities for about a minimum of $1,000. a month. That leaves the couple about $2500.00 for the rest of the year to live on - or about $200.00 a month or about $50.00 per week. 

Federal minimum wage is $7.50 and out of that wage, taxes are taken which go into a pool of taxes which in turn a portion is diverted into impoverished countries for medical or other aid. 

There is therefore, no way to realistically compare except to say that there are many people in the USA who have gone to bed hungry and cold. There are many seniors and poor who eat sparsely. There are many who close off rooms in their homes during winter because they cannot afford the heating costs. Many cut back on medicine or go without because they cannot afford what they need. Tonight, thousands will sit in the dark because the power has been cut off and thousands more will receive eviction or foreclosure notices for housing they cannot afford. Hundreds more will be moving out of the tents the cities are evicting them from and moving into another tent somewhere else, while somewhere another hundred thousand fathers are putting blankets over their kids sleeping in the back seat of the car - their new home. 

Standards set in the 'western' world were set because it was believed this was a standard of quality of life in that 'western' world - when we have disintegrated into a level where we believe our people must feel poverty as determined in the 'underprivileged' countries, it says a lot for how low our standards have dropped and to what we may start to find acceptable. sammieswife.

I agree we are spoiled.  But I don't take our modern conveniences for granted or lightly as I have lived without:

-  indoor plumbing (no running water indoors using a hand pump from a well, having to use an outhouse, and taking sponge baths)

- electricity

- gas or oil heat

Prior to the discovery of petroleum, we all lived this way.  There are basic needs for life.  Access to clean water, nutritious food, and shelter are essential.  I personally believe these are fundamental human rights.

Poverty takes away peoples' human needs - Physical, Emotional, Mental, and Spiritual.  It's ugly.  Those in power can do something but in many countries, they turn a blind eye.  My colleague from Africa calls it 'corruption'.  How do the WTS and JWs help in this vein?  It always bothered me that they didn't take a more active role in helping out in this regard.

Poverty tugs at my heartstrings.  We talk about it often at work.  I feel education is key.  There are groups around the world working towards helping people.  If you are educated properly, you can do things to better your situation, regardless of whether you are 'industrialized' or not.  Water capture/harvesting systems may be a better option for these people in Bolivia.  But do they know how to do this and have access to resources to execute?

I have been learning about a topic called "Permaculture".  These people have gone into desert areas and 'greened' them.  Basically making a desert area into a 'food' forest.  There are ways to bring people out of poverty -- there are people doing this around the world.  If you have time check out Geoff Lawton's video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S6kTlz6Mk4 

Just because one billion people have to do without is no excuse for Osama Obama to go ahead and make that 1.3 billion.  Whatever happened to creating value to drive prices down, so those in "poor" countries would have to do without less--ultimately having some of those value creators in those "poor" countries that would start giving them things that we will have to "do without"--until Osama Obama is impeached.

I don't feel like working so I can bring home a paycheck, pay that whole thing to Osama Obama, have him distribute it to the "poor", and leave me even poorer than the "poor" originally were.  If the "poor" countries cannot get out of their stagnation because of their governments, why should Osama Obama force me to help those governments and give them incentive to maintain oppressive policies?  Now, how many people would have to do without if someone were to radically advance the technology to guarantee perfect harvests of perfect crops?  Or, to take the dirtiest water and create pure water from it?  Or, take the CO₂ out of the air and make more oil, in such quantities that we would never run out?  If someone were allowed to do that, the "poor" countries would be able to get rich quickly without impoverishing anyone else.

I hope Osama Obama gets impeached trying to sign us up for the One World Totalitarian Government, or for signing us on to Codex Alimentarius (which will cause even worse problems as health care costs are driven up by monopoly drug prices and vitamin deprived people getting sick). 

I think your middle class existence has blinded you to the lives of other American citizens: 

All I can say is you don't know me, and what I have done with my life.

those who must buy ill fitting, used, blue jeans at Goodwill and go to food pantries in order to have something to eat. 

Fair enough.  So there is a world of difference between having to buy your clothes at Goodwill and not having anything to wear.  There is a world of difference between being able to go to the food bank and not having anything to eat. 

Incidently the second quote used to describe me. 

There is a world of difference between being able to go to the food bank and not having anything to eat. 

Many food banks are running out of food.  There is poverty in America.  People are losing their jobs, nest egg, homes, cars, unemployment compensation and are living in tents. 

I never said there wasn't poverty in America.  But I am saying it is relative.  If you want to see the difference, go to Calcutta. 

I never said there wasn't poverty in America.  But I am saying it is relative.  If you want to see the difference, go to Calcutta. 

You don't have to go that far, try Mexico.

There is an equalisation going on at the macrolevel.  Wealth is being transfered eastward.  Africa is still mainly out of the picture.  The bailouts that bush started is transfereing wealth from the american middle class to the upper class.  Maybe, the bailout should have been a lot more limited.

S

You pretty much dismissed poverty in America when you poo-pood villabolo's statement about the suffering of the lower classes in the U.S. 

Then you tell me to go to Kolkata if I want to see really poor people. 

Why should I go to India when I can go to the Appalachians to see starvation, deprivation, and people living in houses with dirt floors and no indoor plumbing?  People who have to go to the bathroom in holes they dug in their back yard?