That article is about how it saved one village.  That's may seem like a template for world wide implementation, but there is a distinct difference between the poor of that village and the hundreds of millions around the world.  The sheer size of the population is enough to show it.

it'd probably cost more to set it up and keep it running than there'd be money actually ending up where it should go

I say just ignore the poor.

the poor are absolutely necessary until we can find a  way to make robots do all the menial jobs.

Nah we can't have robots doing everything.  Then we'd get fat and lazy and ultimately be smothered by our own girth.

Too easy.

*slaps his forehead*

Xeno you honestly don't know the answer to that question? Trust me, you won't like the answer. I don't think anybody does really but nothing much you can do about it ATM.

But, if we pay them that kind of money over there.

It'll mean that we can not get their vegetables at the prices we're getting them now.
Which means we'll have to buy from our own country, ergo a lot more expensive than we were buying at right now.
So the african nations will have less export, giving them no advantage either.

Big companies will pull back to the west, seeing as we provide more qualified employees for pretty much the same salary.

So, I'm quite sure that upgrading their salaries would pretty much make them unemployed.

Are you trying to get the third world fired, Firewing? >=|

> Lizon wrote:

> *slaps his forehead*

Xeno you honestly don't know the answer to that question? Trust me, you won't like the answer. I don't think anybody does really but nothing much you can do about it ATM.

Here's what you've gotta ask yourself on this question:

If the US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand were the only countries on Earth, what goods would we be missing?  What could nations develop economies to produce?  Are there any countries/industrialized provinces I'm missing here?

There needs to be a distinction between so-called "productive poverty" and useless poverty.

Now, if you're arguing that, for example, people in impoverished Chinese factories are essential to the 1st world, then you just might have a point.

However, what about in various African countries?  If poverty in some countries is important for the growth of other countries, then it would mean those countries would actually be producing some essential goods.  In fact, it's quite the opposite: The deeply impoverished create an economic drain on 1st world nations via foreign aid and various assistance programs.

To compare, let's put a microcosm comparison: The beggar vs. the homeless guy who does random odd jobs.

A beggar produces little in an economy.  Money is earned via the generosity of others.  But the beggar has potential assets that can be turned into economic wealth.  Their economic status is simply a creation of a waste of potential assets.

In contrast, a homeless person who does random jobs WOULD be a potential asset.  Now, whether his place in life is essential for this goal is up for debate... but he is a contributor to an economy.

But I want to throw one more thing out here: Even crappy jobs can be made valuable due to supply and demand.

Example: Plumbing.  It's not really a highly specialized field.  It's not dangerous.  However, people in the field charge $80 an hour, or even more.  Why?  Even though the field isn't THAT difficult to get into, it's the lack of people in the field that makes it a strong engine of growth.

There are other positions like this.  Electricians, car repair... there is some expertise needed in the fields, but it's not Ph.D-level expertise at all... Supply and demand MAKES those positions valuable.

Here's what I'm getting at: Certain positions are highly paid only because there are just a few people that could fill the role, even if the position doesn't require many skills.  As such, once we bring a good portion of impoverished people out of said poverty, the roles they once filled will now have very few people competing for said positions.  As such, the positions they would otherwise fill would become vacant, increasing the demand for work in those positions, which consequently would increase the pay for people in those fields.

It's that simple.

Introducing a Minimum Wage causes more problems than it solves.

"The premise is that in order for human society to function there necessarily should be a scarcity of resources"

Why is that?