Just because conditions are substantially better for certain people doesn't mean they're acceptable.
I mean, take a country that hasn't been "globalized" yet, and people still live in small fishing villages, basically living at subsistence levels but not overcrowded and basically self-sufficient.
Then industry comes in, and cities coalesce, and people go to the city for its economic promises. They work in these horrible construction jobs, and send money home.
Then they're offered a job in a $1/day sweatshop, and they jump at it, because it's better than what they were doing.
Aren't they still much, much worse off than before they moved to the city in the first place?
I don't know, maybe I have an idealized view of the pre-globalized world. But it seems like we're treating the move from one horrible situation to another slightly-less-horrible situation as a big win, when it's still way behind how people lived pre-globalization.
I mean, take a country that hasn't been "globalized" yet, and people still live in small fishing villages, basically living at subsistence levels but not overcrowded and basically self-sufficient.
Then industry comes in, and cities coalesce, and people go to the city for its economic promises. They work in these horrible construction jobs, and send money home.
Then they're offered a job in a $1/day sweatshop, and they jump at it, because it's better than what they were doing.
Aren't they still much, much worse off than before they moved to the city in the first place?
I don't know, maybe I have an idealized view of the pre-globalized world. But it seems like we're treating the move from one horrible situation to another slightly-less-horrible situation as a big win, when it's still way behind how people lived pre-globalization.