[late]

"The poverty rate grew in 30% of counties between 2016 and 2018, according to a Stateline analysis of U.S. Census Bureau county estimates released this month.

Most of the biggest increases were in areas both rural and Southern."

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/12/19/poverty-grew-in-one-third-of-counties-despite-strong-national-economy

There are two Americas. One of them is suffering. This is just a snapshot, they have a host of other problems. Hospital closures mean millions are an hour or more away from emergency health care. The decline in income usually has a negative effect on education. It also means kids have to leave to find work. Will the last person to leave Kansas please turn the lights off.

So when Republicans attack Obamacare (they're still at it), cut programs for the poor (which they're still doing) and ignore a hundred other problems, guess who suffers.

Does anybody actually think Trump will do anything besides make a bad situation worse?

We are slowly unraveling what FDR did, with entirely predictable results.

[JohnRawls]

"The poverty rate grew in 30% of counties between 2016 and 2018, according to a Stateline analysis of U.S. Census Bureau county estimates released this month.

Most of the biggest increases were in areas both rural and Southern."

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/12/19/poverty-grew-in-one-third-of-counties-despite-strong-national-economy

There are two Americas. One of them is suffering. This is just a snapshot, they have a host of other problems. Hospital closures mean millions are an hour or more away from emergency health care. The decline in income usually has a negative effect on education. It also means kids have to leave to find work. Will the last person to leave Kansas please turn the lights off.

So when Republicans attack Obamacare (they're still at it), cut programs for the poor (which they're still doing) and ignore a hundred other problems, guess who suffers.

Does anybody actually think Trump will do anything besides make a bad situation worse?

We are slowly unraveling what FDR did, with entirely predictable results.

So wrong. The reason why people voted for Trump is BECAUSE of this. They saw him as a possible way out or a change of course. Whenever he can deliver is a different subject all together.

The Greatest half-truth ever told is that Neo-liberalism is making our life better. It is making the life of the world better overall but it is decreasing the well being of the middle class in Europe and US because the middle class are basically sponsoring the rest of the world and business.

If you think the republicans or the democrats are noticing the problem then you are dead wrong. The fixes are not social program, social issues, tax cuts, etc. The problem is far more problematic: The middle class in Europe and US has to compete against cheap labour oversees. The middle class of EU and US are competing on totally unfair grounds. This is not even a question of immigration and emmigration. Simply put, if a business can hire somebody for 10 to 20 times less the price then there is no reason for them not to do it as long as they have any education. (Quality doesn't matter) The profit margins matter too much and the financial market allows to compensate for any loss in quality of the product as long as that profit margin is good.

[Julian658]

"The poverty rate grew in 30% of counties between 2016 and 2018, according to a Stateline analysis of U.S. Census Bureau county estimates released this month.

Most of the biggest increases were in areas both rural and Southern."

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/12/19/poverty-grew-in-one-third-of-counties-despite-strong-national-economy

There are two Americas. One of them is suffering. This is just a snapshot, they have a host of other problems. Hospital closures mean millions are an hour or more away from emergency health care. The decline in income usually has a negative effect on education. It also means kids have to leave to find work. Will the last person to leave Kansas please turn the lights off.

So when Republicans attack Obamacare (they're still at it), cut programs for the poor (which they're still doing) and ignore a hundred other problems, guess who suffers.

Does anybody actually think Trump will do anything besides make a bad situation worse?

We are slowly unraveling what FDR did, with entirely predictable results.

This is the beginning of the end for people with no skills that live in rural areas in the middle of nowhere (both in the USA and Europe). UBI is the only solution. But sadly this will lead to nihilism, drug use, low self esteem and a dystopian world.

[Pants-of-dog]

So wrong. The reason why people voted for Trump is BECAUSE of this. They saw him as a possible way out or a change of course. Whenever he can deliver is a different subject all together.

While it is true that many people in these places voted for Trump because they (incorrectly) thought he would fix this, it does not change the fact that Trump and his administration will not fix the problem.

The Greatest half-truth ever told is that Neo-liberalism is making our life better. It is making the life of the world better overall but it is decreasing the well being of the middle class in Europe and US because the middle class are basically sponsoring the rest of the world and business.

I doubt that neoliberalism is making things better for the developing world.

It is only good for the rich.

If you think the republicans or the democrats are noticing the problem then you are dead wrong. The fixes are not social program, social issues, tax cuts, etc. The problem is far more problematic: The middle class in Europe and US has to compete against cheap labour oversees. The middle class of EU and US are competing on totally unfair grounds. This is not even a question of immigration and emmigration. Simply put, if a business can hire somebody for 10 to 20 times less the price then there is no reason for them not to do it as long as they have any education. (Quality doesn't matter) The profit margins matter too much and the financial market allows to compensate for any loss in quality of the product as long as that profit margin is good.

And these profits go to the shareholders of the multinational corporations, not the people working for pennies in the developing world.

And now these same neoliberal policies that have helped create and maintain poverty in the developing world are also bringing poverty to the developed world.

[Ter]

And these profits go to the shareholders of the multinational corporations, not the people working for pennies in the developing world.

And yet, what you call pennies lifts millions of people out of poverty.
In Bangladesh, four million people work in the garments industry, 80% of whom are women.
The 100 - 200 USD they earn per month feeds their family and pays for rudimentary housing, including dependants.
Globalisation benefits the rich in developed and developing countries and the poor in the poorest countries.
I agree with @JohnRawls the middle class in the West is the biggest loser in this scenario.

[JohnRawls]

And yet, what you call pennies lifts millions of people out of poverty.
In Bangladesh, four million people work in the garments industry, 80% of whom are women.
The 100 - 200 USD they earn per month feeds their family and pays for rudimentary housing, including dependants.
Globalisation benefits the rich in developed and developing countries and the poor in the poorest countries.
I agree with @JohnRawls the middle class in the West is the biggest loser in this scenario.

Indeed. But its a perspective that actually people who have been to those places can understand. Or know people from those places and actually talked to them.

Are the left wrong at saying that this is explotation? Not really. Because at its core it is explotation of both the people in the West and those countries. The people work in those sweatshops and factories simply because there is no alternative. On top of there being no end in sight. People are forgetting that there are still hundreds of millions unemployed in India, China, Asia, Africa etc. That is a huge pool of cheap labour that the global business can tap in to. The problem is only how to make sure that they move closer to the coast line. (And semi-stability I guess)

What is the solution to this? I can think of 1 not so humane one which we are heading to right now. Eventually the West will cut off trade ties between the developing world and itself. Basically we will only trade between each other "freely". The longer the situations continues the more bloodier this change will probably be both for the West and the developing countries.

This is not even a question of ideology. Some centrists are shifting in this direction. Right(Far?) have aknowledged the problem some time ago but still stuck with solutions that were not exactly designed to tackle this. The same story is for the left. Actually the first ones to point this out were people like Chomsky and Zizek, come to think of it. (At least from my memory when i didn't pay much attention to this) So there are groups within the right, left and centre who are slowly gaining more and more support in this regard.

The current trend, in my opinion, is further intesification of this. Both the "Far" right and centrists in mainland Europe are influencing each other in a way. The right more or less understand now that the EU is here to stay nor is there a reason to remove it and the centrists will probably side with the right because of this over the next decade. The situations on the left is different. Although I will attribute Chomsky and Zizek with analysing the problem first(And others), they still failed to spread the idea among the left side of the spectrum so the left is in a bit of trouble where both their ideas and solutions are not really resonating with the reality for the people. Does it mean that they will loose power everywhere? Probably not, but they will definitely loose support unless they can think of a solution to the given situation even if they are not interested in saying the underlying reason out loud.

[Pants-of-dog]

And yet, what you call pennies lifts millions of people out of poverty.

No. Getting paid hardly anything does not lift people out of poverty.

Even the IMF is backing away from neoliberalism because it is not delivering as promised:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 52416.html

In Bangladesh, four million people work in the garments industry, 80% of whom are women.
The 100 - 200 USD they earn per month feeds their family and pays for rudimentary housing, including dependants.
Globalisation benefits the rich in developed and developing countries and the poor in the poorest countries.

Are you seriously arguing that the conditions of sweatshop workers in Bangladesh is something to which developing countries should aspire?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvolod ... 5ae1bf2ca1

The fire began late Wednesday night. In a small restaurant at the bottom of Wahed Mansion, in the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka, a young boy was pulling fresh chapati out of the oven as two men stood patiently waiting, watching the boy slap rounds of dough back and forth between his wetted palms. Behind them, cycle rickshaws rattled by on Nanda Kumar Lane. Then something exploded. Fire and dust went everywhere, debris filled the streets and people scrambled to get away as the flames began to spread.

"My son died," said a vendor named Mohammed Alamgir. "He was with me in the store just before the incident. I told him to go home and have his dinner. Ten minutes after he left, I heard some big noise. I came out and saw a large fire."

The blaze ripped through the streets, killing 80 people and leaving whole blocks blackened and gutted. Among the dead were a two-year-old named Tonmoy and a three-month-old named Yasmin. Reports later said a gas canister had exploded in the back of a delivery truck. Or that the truck was part of a wedding procession. Or that a transformer had caught fire. Whatever the cause, the blast took place in the ancient Chawk Bazaar, a bustling labyrinth of winding alleys and tiny shops that offered the fire plenty of fuel — storefronts adorned with colorful plastic garlands, stacks of cardboard boxes, faulty electrical wiring, warehouses full of fabric and illegal stores of chemical barrels used for making cosmetics.

"Unscrupulous businessmen frequently store and use hazardous chemicals in residential areas, and government agencies have turned a blind eye to this for years," said Muhammad Asif, whose father died in the blaze. "It doesn't matter how many fires and deaths there are, nothing changes."

Bangladesh is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and its public sector is no exception. In an interview published today, the architect Mubasshar Hussain said Dhaka is the only capital in the world surrounded by four rivers, yet firefighters struggled to put out last week's fire because Old Dhaka has no water hydrants. Meanwhile, he added, the money spent on building one flyover could be used to supply the entire area with hydrants, yet even though these flyovers reportedly serve only 8% of the city's residents, they continue to be built "because those involved get commission from these projects."

Officials aren't the only ones cashing in at the public's expense. Dhaka is one of the poorest, densest and most populous cities in the world. The country imports 12% of all raw cotton for its textiles industry, which represents over 90% of its exports, making it the second-largest clothing exporter after China. It's a $29 billion industry, but for years, garment workers have only made about $0.35 an hour while multinationals like H&M, Walmart and Aldi take advantage of the country's dismally low minimum wage.

This flood of foreign business has overwhelmed the country, which lacks the infrastructure to meet demand. Working conditions have suffered as a result, and Bangladesh is now one of the worst countries in the world for worker rights. Poor infrastructure, including shoddy electrical work, and stores of fabric and chemical dyes, have also led to disasters such as the 2010 Dhaka fire, which killed 126 people, and the 2012 Dhaka fire, which killed up to 124 people. Then there was the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse, in which workers who evacuated a crumbling building in Dhaka were told to return to work the next day only to have it collapse, taking 1,134 lives. It was the deadliest building collapse in modern history.

Making matters worse, there's little evidence to suggest, as the economist Joan Robinson once said, "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all."

In other words, having a sweatshop isn't necessarily better than nothing. A July 2018 study of Ethiopian industrial workers, for example, found that applicants were eager to take fresh new jobs with Chinese, Indian and European factories but few stayed on for long. In a New York Times op-ed summarizing their results, the co-authors concluded:


People who worked in agriculture or market selling earned about as much money as they could have at the factory, often with fewer hours and better conditions...Serious injuries and disabilities were nearly double among those who took the factory jobs, rising to 7 percent from about 4 percent. This risk rose with every month they stayed. The people we interviewed told us about exposure to chemical fumes and repetitive stress injuries."


The idea that people should thank us for the privilege of being exploited is not only contemptible, it doesn't even stand up to scrutiny. The labor historian Erik Loomis has argued that neoliberal globalism and the sweatshops it makes possible have allowed the types of harsh conditions John Updike wrote about in The Jungle to be recreated by U.S. corporations in developing nations. Specifically, he compares the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911, which killed 146 garment workers in New York and became one of the deadliest industrial disasters in U.S. history, to the Rana Plaza collapse. But whereas Triangle, Loomis says, led to a number of important reforms, this isn't happening in Bangladesh.


“The difference is that most of us can't even find Bangladesh on a map, not to mention know enough about it to express the type of outrage our ancestors did after Triangle. This separation of production from consumption is an intentional move by corporations precisely to avoid being held responsible by consumers for their actions. And it is very effective."


This feels especially unjust given the generosity of its people. Having just won their independence from Pakistan in 1971, theirs is a young nation, and one of the poorest on earth, yet they give more to charity than much wealthier nations such as Japan, Russia or China, and they shelter more refugees than anywhere else — Kutupalong, the world's largest refugee camp, contains over 1 million Rohingya.

But progress has been made, though there's still much left to be done. The 2012 Dhaka fire led safety groups to agree on new fire safety standards, and weeks after the Rana Plaza collapse, companies and trade unions formed the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh — including H&M, Zara, American Eagle Outfitters and Uniqlo. North American companies followed suit with the now-defunct Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety. But as of 2017, 95% of buildings in Dhaka still do not have a fire exit, yet much needed support for the Accord is slipping.

"Despite the fact that the Accord has reached a 89% remediation rate for the around 1,600 factories that it covers, it is now at risk of being curtailed or expelled from Bangladesh," Christie Miedema, campaign coordinator for the Clean Clothes Campaign, told Forbes, "The government of Bangladesh has repeatedly stressed that it is high time that national inspection agencies take over the Accord's monitoring work, but recent fires have once more shown that those agencies are not yet up to that task."

Also, last December, garments workers finally negotiated a raise to the minimum wage, but the new minimum wage is just $0.42 an hour, and it only applies to the lowest earners, leaving middle-income wages no better. This touched off protests in January, and one man died in the clash.

Since last week's fire, the government has also formed a task force to locate illegal chemical storehouses, finally addressing an old source of outrage. As one reader commented in the wake of the blaze, "How many bodies will burn before the authorities remove the chemical warehouses from old Dhaka?"

This cuts to the heart of the matter. Bangladesh isn't in trouble because it's poor. It's in trouble because people are wealthy enough to take advantage of that poverty, whether multinationals, government officials or merchants illegally storing supplies to meet corporate demand. “This isn’t about poverty, it’s about greed,” said Nizamuddin Ahmed, an architect in Dhaka. “The people storing these chemicals in residential buildings are rich — they have cars, nice homes, children studying abroad.”

But even this is meager progress compared to what's left ahead. No permission to store chemicals in the area has been given for the last seven to eight years, said Shamsul Alam, chief inspector of the Department of Explosives. But in the basement of one of the burned buildings, officials found hundreds of chemical drums, luckily untouched by the fire.

Emphasis mine.

So even if we assume your numbers are true, this affords them rent in a city with no fire service, no fire hydrants, no safety regulations, faulty wiring, and hazardous chemicals all over the place. By the way, someone would have to work over 100 hours a week in order to get 200$ US.

And the bolded part is the real kicker. A person could make just as money working on a farm or selling things in a market, but without the danger of being raped or injured or dying in a building collapse.

I agree with @JohnRawls the middle class in the West is the biggest loser in this scenario.

Well, I have noticed that some members of the right are finally abandoning their support of neoliberal policy, and this is due to the fact that neoliberal policies are also now making white people poor.

But third world Marxists have been opposed to neoliberalism for decades because it impoverishes our communities.

[late]

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Working in a dismal sweatshop in a desperately poor country will be a step up.

But it's not that simple.

For one thing, some preventable disaster will kill a bunch of workers. In the normal course of events, the government regulates safety.

Companies will threaten to leave if the government thinks about safety, and workers continue dying needlessly. The public outcry doesn't happen because it's in another country.

We ought to regulate minimum standards on what we import, but so far we don't.

Companies like Walmart give billions to the owners, and pennies to the workers. Even in America, Walmart workers are often also on welfare.

This is a recipe for disaster.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2ESM8F8RO1OA&keywords=stiglitz+price+of+inequality&qid=1577208423&sprefix=stiglitz%2Caps%2C343&sr=8-1

[Drlee]

Are the left wrong at saying that this is explotation? Not really. Because at its core it is explotation of both the people in the West and those countries. The people work in those sweatshops and factories simply because there is no alternative. On top of there being no end in sight.

There is more in this than meets the eye. I am not afraid of the dog down the street, I am afraid of the dog next door. Bread and Circuses. Cheap clothing and inexpensive big screens.

This is the part that the Trumpets are oblivious to. They do not realize that their wages and purchasing power are being carefully controlled NOT to grow so that the unequal distribution of wealth may remain. Once extreme of wealth was uncoupled from permanent government (landed aristocracy) it was inevitable that a system be devised and maintained so that the people who feed this wealth are kept just happy enough. At some level that is exactly what socialism is all about. If religion is the opiate of the masses then modern socialism is the opiate of the poor. It is, at its core, a carefully contrived system of keeping the people just happy enough and just powerful enough that they do not see that power as illusory. And this is the part that the more liberal democrats do not see.

The western true middle classes? They are just as they have always been. They are comfortable enough to pursue political leisure time activities like gnawing on abortion, immigration, same-sex marriage and the environment. These are not issues that the truly poor have time to worry about.

[JohnRawls]

There is more in this than meets the eye. I am not afraid of the dog down the street, I am afraid of the dog next door. Bread and Circuses. Cheap clothing and inexpensive big screens.

This is the part that the Trumpets are oblivious to. They do not realize that their wages and purchasing power are being carefully controlled NOT to grow so that the unequal distribution of wealth may remain. Once extreme of wealth was uncoupled from permanent government (landed aristocracy) it was inevitable that a system be devised and maintained so that the people who feed this wealth are kept just happy enough. At some level that is exactly what socialism is all about. If religion is the opiate of the masses then modern socialism is the opiate of the poor. It is, at its core, a carefully contrived system of keeping the people just happy enough and just powerful enough that they do not see that power as illusory. And this is the part that the more liberal democrats do not see.

The western true middle classes? They are just as they have always been. They are comfortable enough to pursue political leisure time activities like gnawing on abortion, immigration, same-sex marriage and the environment. These are not issues that the truly poor have time to worry about.

Indeed that is the case and the part of the disconnect that I was talking about.

My opinion is that the system, as a whole, is failing in this regard. I don't particularly have anything against the system that does this because improving the lives of people should be one of the goals of politics, right? As you said yourself, there is a limit somewhere that provides the illusion of power. I wouldn't call it an illusion but lets say "A point when an individual is satisfied not to complain about his life". The degradation of the middle class is causing more and more people to go below that line. This is especially evident in smaller cities and villages. So people start to focus on things that they usually didn't care about: Immigration, low wages, globalisation etc which they see as the culprits.

The problem with this is its hard for them to determine what is the cause of their suffering. Its pretty easy to pin the blame in immigrants under such conditions. ("They took your jobs" narrative) Its much easier to understand that compared to unfavourable working conditions on the global labour market compared to the labour force from India, China, Africa make you unemployable due to the loss in the profit margins of a corporation. I guess this is the place where to politicians say "Just tell us what you want and we will deliver" but it is not possible because the people that are suffering can't fully explain why they are suffering. So when it is explained to the politicians then they feel baffled and think that the people who are suffering are wrong?

[Ter]

Are you seriously arguing that the conditions of sweatshop workers in Bangladesh is something to which developing countries should aspire?

No. But in countries like Bangladesh, the garment industry not only lifts millions out of poverty, it has also significantly changed the position of women in society. They have become wage earners and get resdpect and (some) freedom.
When I first came to Bangladesh a couple of decades ago, the only women one could see in the streets were either beggars or prostitutes. Now women move around pretty freely.

In other words, having a sweatshop isn't necessarily better than nothing.

I beg to differ.
Landless farmers, rickshaw pullers and domestic servants are much worse off than garment workers.
It is easy to copy/paste stuff and see how miserable and dangerous life still is for the majority of the people in Bangladesh but that picture is not balanced nor is it complete.
I am sure that Westerners do not realise that 0.25 USD gets you a warm meal from the majority of restaurants in BD. That places the 100-200 dollar monthly wage in another perspective altogether.

By the way, the article you quoted mentioned the huge improvements implemented since the Rana Plaza disaster. Journalists will go to dark overcrowded sweatshops to prove a point whilst the majority of garment factories are new, clean, ventilated, and so on. Buyers insist on rigorous compliance inspections and contrary to China, there is no corruption in the compliance procedures. I know, I was involved.

My original post stands. Globalisation improved the life of the rich in both industrialised and poor nations and the poor in the poor nations whilst the middle class in the West is on the losing side.

[Pants-of-dog]

No. But in countries like Bangladesh, the garment industry not only lifts millions out of poverty, it has also significantly changed the position of women in society. They have become wage earners and get resdpect and (some) freedom.
When I first came to Bangladesh a couple of decades ago, the only women one could see in the streets were either beggars or prostitutes. Now women move around pretty freely.

This contradicts the study and the article. I will believe those before I believe your unsupported claim and your biased observations.

I beg to differ.
Landless farmers, rickshaw pullers and domestic servants are much worse off than garment workers.

Not according to the evidence.

I guess you could just ignore your evidence and repeat your unsupported claims.

It is easy to copy/paste stuff and see how miserable and dangerous life still is for the majority of the people in Bangladesh but that picture is not balanced nor is it complete.
I am sure that Westerners do not realise that 0.25 USD gets you a warm meal from the majority of restaurants in BD. That places the 100-200 dollar monthly wage in another perspective altogether.

According to the article and some simple math, you would have to work over 100 hours a week to make 200USD.

If working appalling hours in unsafe conditions is needed in order to get that, then there would be no time to buy this restaurant meal.

By the way, the article you quoted mentioned the huge improvements implemented since the Rana Plaza disaster. Journalists will go to dark overcrowded sweatshops to prove a point whilst the majority of garment factories are new, clean, ventilated, and so on. Buyers insist on rigorous compliance inspections and contrary to China, there is no corruption in the compliance procedures. I know, I was involved.

My original post stands. Globalisation improved the life of the rich in both industrialised and poor nations and the poor in the poor nations whilst the middle class in the West is on the losing side.

This is boring.

If you actually worked in that field, then you would be able to provide evidence.

Do so.

[Ter]

According to the article and some simple math, you would have to work over 100 hours a week to make 200USD.

You keep on repeating that whilst in my first post I clearly said 100 to 200 USD.
And then you forget that the minimum wage is not the same as the average wage.
And you forgot about overtime. And in many cases the spouse is also working.
But I never thought you would agree with anything I say.

What you are implicitly saying is that Bangladesh would be better off without the export garment industry.
That is a ludicrous hypothesis. Millions of garment workers and their dependants would not agree with you.

The only reason such an industry is successful here is because the wages are lower than anywhere else.
And now we see that the garment industries in Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, Ethiopia, and Kenya are taking an increasing part of that industry away from Bangladesh because they offer better conditions, less tax, and a weaker local currency. Before it came to Bangladesh, most of that industry was in Indonesia for the sweaters, in China for the knitware, and so on. It moves around, attracted by the conditions that guarantee a larger profit.

[Politics_Observer]

A lot of people talk about sweat shops overseas, but there are sweat shops right here in the US. They just do a very good job of concealing themselves and making themselves not look like sweat shops. They have to be careful not to look like sweat shops, because if word gets out, then that is the reputation they will be saddled with and nobody will do business with them. I think sweat shops is part of the nature of capitalism without rules or allowing workers a voice in the work place. Capitalism is the only system that works, but I do feel that it is only unions that can combat sweat shop conditions and assure worker safety in the work place in our capitalist system. The company themselves, their primary concern is the bottom line and not employee safety or paying a reasonable living wage with benefits.

[Pants-of-dog]

You keep on repeating that whilst in my first post I clearly said 100 to 200 USD.

So they would have to work at least fifty hour weeks in order to get the low end of what you described.

And then you forget that the minimum wage is not the same as the average wage.

That is true. There is every reason to believe that the average wage could be lower.

And you forgot about overtime.

It is far more logical and realistic to assume that sweatshops in corrupt countries do not pay for things like overtime or clean water.

And in many cases the spouse is also working.

The evidence contradicts that claim.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Bangladesh

What you are implicitly saying is that Bangladesh would be better off without the export garment industry.
That is a ludicrous hypothesis.

What I am explicitly saying is that Bangladesh is not better off because of its sweatshop industry.

The only reason such an industry is successful here is because the wages are lower than anywhere else.
And now we see that the garment industries in Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, Ethiopia, and Kenya are taking an increasing part of that industry away from Bangladesh because they offer better conditions, less tax, and a weaker local currency. Before it came to Bangladesh, most of that industry was in Indonesia for the sweaters, in China for the knitware, and so on. It moves around, attracted by the conditions that guarantee a larger profit.

This is interesting.

Here you point out that neoliberals have made even this job precarious and that this type of industry does not create sustainable and long lasting jobs.

This is, in fact, how the middle class lost out because of neoliberalism: the jobs moved somewhere else. This is why you say that they are the biggest losers in this scenario.

But you are also pointing out that these jobs also leave developing countries. So, in that respect, the working class in developing countries are losing just as much as the middle class in the developed world.

[Ter]

That is true. There is every reason to believe that the average wage could be lower.

No.
Any garment worker with some experience earns more than the minimum wage.
Often double that.

It is far more logical and realistic to assume that sweatshops in corrupt countries do not pay for things like overtime or clean water.

Again, no.
The team that checks compliance rigorously checks that salaries and overtime are paid on time, and that includes a session with workers where management and supervisors are not present.
For your information, there are two types of compliance, technical and social. The companies that do the compliance checking are serious companies based in France and Switzerland.
Why are you mentioning clean water ? It would be stupid for the owner of a garment factory to supply contaminated water. Sick employees cannot work.

What I am explicitly saying is that Bangladesh is not better off because of its sweatshop industry.

No. Of course Bangladesh is better off due to the export-oriented garments industry.
It employs millions of people and is responsible for 85% of all exports.
And as I mentioned, it has improved the situation of women in society. As earners they get respect.

Here you point out that neoliberals have made even this job precarious and that this type of industry does not create sustainable and long lasting jobs.

It depends how you define long lasting. That industry is now about thirty years active in the country but there is no guarantee that it will continue forever. Typically, such an industry adapts to competition by switching to higher value items and more skilled labour with more sophisticated machines. China is now doing exactly that because their wages have gone up too much to compete with other countries in the Region. Many Chinese are now in Bangladesh as managers and owners of garment factories.

[BigSteve]

"The poverty rate grew in 30% of counties between 2016 and 2018, according to a Stateline analysis of U.S. Census Bureau county estimates released this month.

Most of the biggest increases were in areas both rural and Southern."

Since libs are so quick to credit Obama for the booming economy, surely they'll assign him blame for this, right?

No?

Hello?

[late]

Since libs are so quick to credit Obama for the booming economy, surely they'll assign him blame for this, right?

"So when Republicans attack Obamacare (they're still at it), cut programs for the poor (which they're still doing) and ignore a hundred other problems, guess who suffers."

https://www.oxfordlearning.com/how-to-improve-reading-comprehension/

[BigSteve]

"So when Republicans attack Obamacare (they're still at it), cut programs for the poor (which they're still doing) and ignore a hundred other problems, guess who suffers."

https://www.oxfordlearning.com/how-to-improve-reading-comprehension/

A complete failure to addressing the question.

Nice work...

[late]

A complete failure to addressing the question.

But not as much a failure as your attempt to distract us from the topic.

Work on your reading comprehension, please.