@deusx
>> You can list as many stats and numbers from the UN as
>> you like, it's all meaningless because the stats are bull$hit.

Yes, you are right. The UN is a totally ridiculous organization that has no idea what it does. It is bought entirely by big corporations.

>> UNICEF says there are over 1 billion children living in poverty

You are fully aware that UNICEF is a UN organization, right? So, if UN stats are bull, then UNICEF stats, by extension, are bull. Right? The only thing that is bull$hit here is the number you are quoting above, not because it is wrong but because it is entirely meaningless. It says NOTHING about how the world is developing. It is a STATIC number from a SINGLE POINT IN TIME.

If you read the UNICEF website, they use a very, very different measure of poverty for children than is used for poverty in general. They even have a long lecture explaining how and why it is different. They have seven measures of deprivation, and if a child suffers ONE of those, it is defined as living in poverty.

>> Why would I believe your stats and not these

Why would you "believe" anything at all. Belief is for the religious among us, Jesus followers, Santa Claus believers, followers of the Tooth Fairy and the equivalents. What is relevant here is what is measured, and given the topic, how the parameters change over time. Let's look at some:

1/ War - we've never had as little problems with conflict as we do now. Fewer wars, fewer people killed in wars, fewer people affected by war. It's been going down constantly since we started large organized conquests. The numbers are up a little right now due to the Syrian conflict.

Example: The wars of Genghis Khan killed off 11% of the world population on the war path. WWII "only" offed about 2.6%.

2/ Pollution - your chance, as a world citizen, of dying of pollution-related illness in 1900 was about 0.18%, today it is 0.04%.

3/ De-forestation. It's basically stopped. Globally that is, locally it is still a significant problem.

4/ Life expectancy - in Africa life expectancy increased from 50 to 56 in the past decade alone according to the WHO. In India it's been going up by 4-5 years every decade since 1960.

5/ Child mortality - in 1950 one in four newborns would not see their fifth birthday, today that number is on in twenty. A huge improvement.

6/ Sanitation - in 1950 1.5 in 1000 people would die due to polluted drinking water, today that is 0.4 in 1000 and it is expected to drop to less than half that in the next few decades.

7/ Literacy - in 1900 70% of the world population was illiterate, today it is still high, but "only" 23%. A good improvement. The average person in the world today has eight years of education. Here we also see a HUGE improvement in gender equality, the average female has 7.5 years of education. Only a couple of decades ago women were significantly lower than men.

8/ Disease - terrible ones have been eradicated completely or are under control. Children are (safely) vaccinated and even though nut jobs like Jenny McCarthy is trying her best to kill children by stopping them from getting vaccinations (she and her friends are directly responsible for more than a thousand dead children in the US alone), the numbers are getting better every day (see child mortality above, partly fixed by vaccinations).

9/ Crime - in the western world crime is dropping dramatically. In the G5 countries homicides are down 35% since '95, robberies 20%, vehicle theft down 60%. Violent crime in the US, down more than 30% since 1990.

Again, if you are looking at the trends, the world is improving in almost ALL areas. The main area where the world is not improving is in biodiversity.

To your "it's all meaningless because the stats are bull$hit" I have only one more comment, and it is meant is an advice, not as a personal attack: Grow up!

@Dave H.
A) You missed out one item on how people got rich: greed.
B) As for wages. I think I mentioned it earlier that I am for "fair" wages. If you pay an employee just as much as it takes to survive and you yourself just bought a second house then I do have an issue with that.
C) You said "Most people who live in poverty can do more to try and change it than they are doing, they may need help, and that..."
They most certainly need help because most of them have lost hope because of the way the system works; they need access to education, opportunities and hope. I believe in humanity. I believe that "almost" anyone can become a doctor. But I also believe that the world needs more then just doctors and lawyers and that we have to respect the work of those too.

In the time I spend in Asia I was responsible for the South East Asian Region and that included Bangladesh. I took a one week business trip to Dhaka and surrounding area to survey their existing Natural Gas Distribution System. It was an eye opening and very shocking trip for someone that comes from Central Europe to see actual poverty. Later that day we where invited to the Gas Distribution Company's Managing Director's home for dinner. When you see that "huge" difference in living quality you really fell very sick afterwards.

Terje:
If you have equal opportunity then you will have more motivation to excel. Nobody is born with "skills" but with instinct. Skills are a result of learning, learning is part of education and that is where equal opportunity starts. Aside from all that, should we all become lawyers and doctors? Who is going to do fill in the rest of the jobs?
Yes I am altruistic and it has gotten me into my own financial trouble one time. But I do have the opportunity to make back the money I "gave" away; my maid didn't have it. Her daughter will have a better opportunities in live and hopefully so will have her children.
We also raised her motivation and she stayed with us for 10years; our friends had new maids almost every year and complained that they don't do their job and might even be stealing from them.
Any foreign company that goes to a low labor country for manufacturing will pay higher then a local company in those countries because you want to have the better worker. My opinion however is that such companies should pay high import tax for the goods manufactured overseas to compensate for the jobs lost in their home country.

I’m in full agreement with what Old Smoke says. But I think the divisive issue is how to get there. A basic foundation of ethics toward fellow man would solve all these problems. Fair wages would come from the top and there wouldn’t be gaming of the system by those on the bottom.

Modern society steers us toward selfishness at every turn. Advertising, economics, politics, even the current educational system provides great rewards for those who can find the loopholes in systems that were intended to provide a level playing field. The typical attitude of today's adult is: “I pay too many taxes, I pay too much to others for their services, I am not paid enough for mine. My estimation of success is based on how much I can personally collect, rather than on what I offer to benefit society.”

We have yet to find a successful way to legislate attitudes.

"A) You missed out one item on how people got rich: greed."

If I write a book and sell 20 copies out of the trunk of my car, and it helps the people who bought it (and I make $5 a book or $100 profit), I'm perceived in a very positive light. Inventive, creative, a go-getter, helpful, etc. If that same book sells 1000 copies and helps a bunch more people, and I make $5000 profit I'm seen as a successful small business.

If that same book sells 4 million copies, helps (or entertains) millions of people, and I make $20,000,000 profit I'm suddenly evil, greedy, and must be punished with higher taxes and how dare I make that amount of money, no one nees that much money, look at the house he bought, no one needs a house that big.... it's the same book, it just became wildly popular and helped a huge number of people.

Did I get rich because I was greedy? Or did I get rich because I provided a service that a whole bunch of people wanted?

I don't agree with or believe in the fixed-pie theory of economics. That if I make more money, then by default someone else gets less. No, by and large people become wealthy because they worked hard, saved and invested wisely, read books, had natural talent, and in some cases certainly luck plays a part. But the bottom line is - if you want to make more money, you need to become more valueable in the marketplace (and now I've digressed into a minimum-wage discussion, but the argument applies).

By the way, according to Tom Stanley's book The Millionaire Next Door, 80% of America's millionaires are first-generation rich. Which means they started with basically nothing and made it themselves.

The spirit of envy - which says "if I can't have it, no one else should have it either" - is running rampant in our culture (in the US) and it is dangerous. Stop telling me what you think the government should do with the money I've earned, and go get some of your own. (figuratively speaking...again, all still friends here)

OH by the way, did you know that the evil 1% are the one's who give the most to charity? The last statistic I read was 70% of all charitable donations were from the wealthiest 1% (or maybe 10%, sorry I don't remember which)

I've heard it said that the evolution of a society is similar to a mountain climbing expedition. Those near the summit are always connected by their safety line with those near the bottom. If a group reaches the top (or becomes angered by those who are delaying their advancement) and cuts the rope, you now have two societies. Some would say this has already happened.

This kind of analogy opens the door for a wide range of comments, depending on how one prioritizes Self vs. Society.

David:
I think you miss my point. In your example it would very depend on where you printed the book. If you go out and print it in China where it is cheaper because no one cares what kind of ink is used and where the paper comes from so that you can make an extra 2 Dollars, that is where I have an issue with it and that is what I call greed.
What harm would it do to Apple to fully manufacture their product in the USA? How many jobs would that create? I know that this was mentioned on CNN and an iPhone for example would be $42.00 more expensive. That means $42.00 to achieve the "same" profit. By all means, lets share the $42.00, put 21 on the consumer and 21 on the shareholders... what do you think?
As for your charity example. I would love to give to charity as much as the wealthy ones do but I cant because I don't have as much to give. I still do by the way; we are sponsoring kids in Africa to get them shoes and school supplies. Does the statistic mention how the money given to charities relates to their income in percentage?

@Old Smoke >> Nobody is born with "skills"

That's absolutely nonsense. Of course people are born with different skills. Certain people are never going to be world champion runners no matter how much they work out. Others are never going to be software developers since they simply are not wired for advanced maths. In the 1970s a lot of psychologists assumed we were born more or less as "clean slates" and that environment was the strongest driver for our development. That has long since been proven utterly wrong. You inherit a significant portion of your "skills", others are of course learned. Latest in genetics has shown that a at least traumatic experience can alter your genetic material in such a way that your offspring inherits the trauma to a degree.

I applaud you for your altruistic approach to paying your maid. I would do the same.

As for foreign companies in poor countries, they are the primary reason for the economic development in these countries. In 1970 South Korea was poorer than most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Not so today. Bangladesh has been seriously poor since it became a country, economic development there is phenomenal at the moment. All of this thanks to "exploitative" western companies.

@Old Smoke >> If you go out and print it in China where it is cheaper because
>> no one cares what kind of ink is used and where the paper comes from so
>> that you can make an extra 2 Dollars, that is where I have an issue with it

I am in total disagreement with you. The primary driver for lifting people out of extreme poverty is the fact that he goes out and prints the book in China. Let's say a worker in the US gets $2 for each book printed, the Chinese worker only gets $0.2. So, the guy gets published for $1.80 less in China. The printer in the US may lose his job too. Bad. What else? Well, the Chinese worker gets to feed his family now. Before he had to sell his children to make ends meet.

Why should the guy who saves money on printing, but ALSO gets the Chinese worker out of poverty be punished? Remember, this is the main reason poor people in the world are getting less and less poor. For every job moved from the US to a low-cost country you can be sure that many lives are saved or at least significantly improved. That is a Good Thing (TM).

Terje:
I hope that you can accept the "to bad" when your boss sends you home because he just outsourced editing in India. The western world has established over many years a certain working environment that is safe for workers. What good is the new job to the Chinese worker if he dies at the age of 40 because the ink he uses is poison? I am all up for developing other countries but not on the back of the workers in my own country. The only thing that this can lead to is diminishing buying power in your own country. Of course the boss doesn't care because he made his money already and now can be very generous and contribute to charities. With diminishing buying power comes the next problem. More and more companies will close their factories because they can't produce a product at a price that the locals can afford hence more and more products are now imported from overseas, certainly tax and duty free to further support foreign companies.
I am actually facing the exact problem. Aside from editing I also design and manufacture small jet engines for model aircrafts, www.ijets-usa.com . A small business I started in Malaysia after I left the Oil&Gas industry. When I came to the US in 2011 I had all the good intentions to make a USA made product but very soon I had to accept that this is impossible. Not because of skills or lack of support from local suppliers but because of cost and sales value being driven down be manufacturers in Asia with competing products in the local market. If I would make the same product here it would cost twice to three times more then coming from Asia. All I can do is follow the trend and get my parts from Asia leaving the local suppliers in the dust.
IMHO We already have reached the point where we no longer can afford buying products entirely made locally because we don't have sufficient buying power. That doesn't only apply to the States, Europe isn't any better. Well done, I can only say, well done.

Jet engines? Very cool. I enjoy viewing those YouTube videos where the aircraft have real radial piston engines or jet engines.

It's a real dilemma. After WWII, the US was far ahead of China and Malaysia in education and industrial expertise. But the world has caught up, and I don't see how we can go back to the previous model. Workers are willing to perform skilled engineering for dollars a day in many countries, so why should an American company want to hire local talent costing five times as much? So from a "cheapest product for the consumer" viewpoint, it makes obvious sense to use foreign labor.

But from a "provide jobs at home" viewpoint, it makes sense to keep the jobs local. Traditionally, countries have imposed limitations and tariffs on not just labor but also steel, aluminum, helium, and thousands of other items. Why? So that in times of war when regular overseas supply lines are cut the country still have the domestic supply and expertise to survive and prosper.

So what is the ideal balance point? I don't know, but right now the US consumer is able to buy an astonishing level of product sophistication with his dollars due to cheap shipping and cheap foreign labor. Is this good for the US long-term? No, but ironically what might save the US's bacon is the rapid rise of cheap natural gas due to fracking. I saw a graph showing the cost of domestic gas cost versus Japan; the ratio is now about 1:5. This implies that many industries will now be moving back to the US due simply to lowered production costs. Is that right or wrong? Neither--it just IS. Just plain economics. Capitalism has its faults, but it wonderfully focuses the mind and rewards efficiency. Natural selection and all that.