Originally Posted by jayeff

It would be a heck of a lot more accurate to say that it is better to be rich and stop at that. Being at the bottom of your particular economic ladder isn't a whole lot of fun wherever you are.



Work standards begin as what is acceptable locally and then are driven by customers (and bosses where applicable). Of course there is a correlation between increasing income and exposure to non-local influences, but it is misleading to claim that increasing income is itself the engine of change.



There goes the majority of economic theory along with a whole lot of realities.

Mr Average will produce the work of which he is capable according to the standards and ethics which are the norm for his location. If he is trained, supervised, or loses business because he isn't good enough to compete, he will do better. It makes no difference whether he lives in New York or New Delhi.

Next, why would anyone from Europe or the US work with someone from a different culture (since regardless of whose way is best, their ways will certainly be different) and suffer the inconveniences of different time zones, if low prices were not on offer? Price competition is hardly unknown here, so why shouldn't a Third-World worker, who can live very well on prices which would equate to poverty here, use that to his advantage?

Third World equals low wages equals appeal to businesses in richer countries. Money moves from rich countries to poor, the local economy improves, prices rise, consumerism spreads, the economy improves further, etc. There is a parallel decline in the economies of the countries which sourced these improvements. You might want to be careful what you wish for.