[NickC25]

My assumption may or may not be short sighted, but is a reflection of the fact that I've spent a while in developing countries and understand that people want nothing more than to provide for their families - yet their opportunities to do so are significantly limited, more than anyone in the developed world could understand....and there are both internal and external forces in these countries that want nothing more than to preserve the status quo, which is that they get a huge cut and the workers get jack-fucking-shit to the point where $2-3 USD an hour is a massive windfall.

Maybe the guy in the example did leave the country, maybe he didn't. But either way, those workers were given a massive windfall for a short time, and I'm willing to bet that some of those workers took that money, invested in their families to the point where their children were able to get some form of education, and those children didn't have to lead the same impoverished lives their parents did. They were able to use that money as a stimulus for real growth. That counts.

[nostrebored]

I've lived in the developing world too. There's a reason why locals who actually want their country to succeed generally hate this. Nobody says "paying well" is a bad thing, but you have to realize that well is relative.

As someone who has been poor, the idea that the massive windfall is better is so frustrating. It's not. At least where I lived, people could not explain to you how a bank worked. People often did not save money, and if someone found out you had money, you were immediately asked for 'loans'. Beyond that you have to think about _lifetime earnings_. If you hire all of the lumberjacks for your slick handmade-in-africa table business, what happens to the SYSTEM of these people when other businesses go out of business and liquidate their assets then you leave? It's not as simple as some new business popping up and employing people.

[ninjagoo]

Ah yes, the timeless principle of I have not, therefore others must have not. Is that the basic crux of the argument you are making? Or did I misunderstand?

If I may point out, the argument (upholding the system) appears to be structured around justifying why others must have not by saying that all non-high-paying lumberjack-employing businesses will go out of business, and then this high-paying business will leave. Is there any reason why this high-paying business would leave? It sounds from your statement that this is guaranteed, for whatever reason. And if it does leave (because obviously no business is guaranteed for all time) is there reason to believe another external business would not step in to fulfill that demand for handmade-in-africa table business? Or that the newly unemployed lumberjacks (but flush with cash relative to local conditions from their high-paying salaries) will sit around and twiddle their thumbs for all time instead of starting their own lumberjack-related business?