Globalization is something. The laptop where I am typing this is Chinese (Lenovo), and the antivirus software I use to protect it is Russian (Kaspersky). The world wide web I am using was invented by a Briton (Tim Berners-Lee) and first tested in Swiss-based lab operated by a consortium of 22 mostly-European countries (CERN). My browser of choice, Chrome, was developed by a firm co-founded by a Russian Jew (Google). The messaging system I use most was invented by Swedes, Danes, and Estonians (Skype). The gas station I use most is a British-Dutch conglomerate (Royal Dutch Shell). Continue reading
All these Americans talking about foreigners taking their jobs, and they still won’t walk the walk about filling those jobs, according to Bloomberg:
American farmers have been complaining of labor shortages for several years now. Given a multi-year decline in illegal immigration, and a similarly sustained pickup in the U.S. job market, the complaints are unlikely to stop without an overhaul of immigration rules for farm workers.
Efforts to create a more straightforward agricultural-workers visa that would enable foreign workers to stay longer in the U.S. and change jobs within the industry have so far failed in Congress. If this doesn’t change, American businesses, communities and consumers will be the losers.
Perhaps half of U.S. farm laborers are undocumented immigrants. As fewer such workers enter the U.S., the characteristics of the agricultural workforce are changing. Today’s farm laborers, while still predominantly born in Mexico, are more likely to be settled, rather than migrating, and more likely to be married than single. They are also aging. At the start of this century, about one-third of crop workers were over the age of 35. Now, more than half are. And crop picking is hard on older bodies.
One oft-debated cure for this labor shortage remains as implausible as it has been all along: Native U.S. workers won’t be returning to the farm.
Some weeks ago, I read a piece in The Economist that has stayed with me. It was about the efforts of Sierra Leone, among the world’s poorest countries, to combat “neglected tropical diseases” (NTD), a family of 17 diverse communicable diseases that afflict over 1.5 billion in tropical and subtropical areas worldwide.
It featured one victim named Hannah Taylor, who woke up one day with a fever, followed by her legs swelling up to four times their normal size. The physical damage was irreversible, and the subsequent appearance and putrid smell led to her being ostracized by her community. She was a victim of lymphatic filariasis (a.k.a. elephantiasis), a mosquito-borne infection that could have been treated safely with a pill costing no more than fifty cents before it progressed.
But instead, the microscopic worms infested her body, debilitating her. For years she thought she had been a victim of evil witchcraft and was deeply depressed.
Eventually, Taylor put on a brave face and campaigned to raise awareness about the disease, its causes, and why victims shouldn’t be stigmatized. She passed away some weeks prior to the publishing of the article; she was quoted as expressing happiness that her children would not suffer the way she would, thanks to Sierra Leone’s remarkable progress in fighting the disease.
Progress or not, it is incredible to think that billions of lives are negatively impacted by something as mundane to most of us as a mosquito bite. It is even more incredible that a mere fifty cents – spare change we’d throw in a tip jar without a thought – is all that stands between someone and a debilitating disease. It is utterly senseless that in a world with so much wealth and resources sloshing around that we have not been able to address this vast disparity in health outcomes and quality of life.
The Pakistani city of Sialkot may not be a household name, but it is the source of the Adidas footballs that are being used in the World Cup (as they had been in the last one).
In fact, Pakistan’s twelfth-largest city — with less than 700,000 residents — is the world’s largest producer of footballs, manufacturing of 40-60 million footballs annually, about 60% of global production. Sialkot is also the world’s biggest maker of surgical tools. Even Germany’s iconic lenderhosen are best crafted by the leather-workers of the city. Unlike many other manufacturing hubs, most of this work is done by family-owned small and medium sized enterprises, often clustering together to pool their resources. Continue reading
In a world with vast disparities between rich and poor, tens of billions of dollars worth of aid is exchanged between nations. Citing 2014 data from the OECD, an international organization comprised mostly of wealthy countries, The Economist provides an interactive map showing which governments are donating to the most countries and how much they give to each recipient.
Among the 41 donor countries that provided data in 2014 to the OECD, Japan leads as the broadest provider of support, sending development aid to 141 countries and territories. The U.S. is second, with 132 beneficiaries, though it donated the most overall (given that it is the richest country by a wide margin). Continue reading
The wave of populism sweeping across the world — particularly, but not exclusively, in the West — is largely product of widespread discontent among the masses. But the causes of anxiety and cynicism vary from country to country, with each society facing its own unique challenges or trajectories.
A recent poll of 25 countries conducted by Ipsos MORI, a leading market research group based in the U.K., uncovered the main issue that worries each nation and whether they think things are going on the right track. Here are the results, courtesy of The Economist: Continue reading
It probably goes without saying that we Americans have a lot more going for us nowadays than our ancestors did several centuries ago: public health and sanitation, plentiful food and water (for the most part), democracy and free press (of a sort). But this article from Business Insider points out one big area in which we resoundingly (and perhaps surprisingly) lose out: vacation time. Continue reading
Most of developed world take vaccines for granted. Indeed, there is a growing number of people in wealthy countries, often the most privileged, who outright fear and dislike vaccines. Yet the data are overwhelming: vaccines have not only been pivotal to virtually extinguishing all sorts of previously common diseases (measles, polio, pertussis, etc.), but they have continued to reap dividends for the millions of human who live in the developing world, where public health otherwise remains weak.
As reported in IFLS:
Vaccines are well regarded as one of the most cost-effective health care actions that a country can pursue, and since 2001 the United Nations has been running a program in 73 low and middle-income countries to prevent 10 diseases. It is now expected that when the project is completed in 2020, it will have resulted in averting around 20 million deaths, while at the same time saving a staggering $820 billion.
“Our examination of the broader economic and social value of vaccines illustrates the substantial gains associated with vaccination,” explained Sachiko Ozawa, who led the research, in a statement. “Unlike previous estimates that only examine the averted costs of treatment, our estimates of the broader economic and social value of vaccines reflect the intrinsic value that people place on living longer and healthier lives.”
And these economic benefits, it turns out, are huge. The researchers have calculated that when the vaccination program comes to an end in 2020, it will have saved around $350 billion when it comes to health, but overall this balloons to an astonishing $820 billion across the 73 low and middle-income countries in which Gavi is operating.
This is not only through reduced health care costs as diseases are prevented before they become an issue, but also due to those who are vaccinated being healthier and so working for longer and thus increasing productivity in these nations over their entire lifetimes.
Social and economic benefits aside, the most important results are the human ones: the prevention of over 500 million illnesses, 20 million child deaths, and 9 million cases of long-term disabilities. So much pain and suffering and loss will be unknown — and unfortunately unappreciated — because of such a cheap and relatively easy intervention.
The term “soft power” was first coined by American political scientist Joseph Nye to describe a country’s ability to exercise influence abroad without the “hard power” of military force, sanctions, and the like. It is an idea I had encountered often during my undergrad studies of political science and international relations, but its inherent fuzziness made it difficult to assess and measure; you can count tanks, troops, missiles, etc., but how do you determine something as categorically intangible as “soft power”?
To address the paucity of data on the subject, in 2015 London-based PR firm Portland teamed up with the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy to create an index of soft power: The Soft Power 30, the most recent update of which was released last month. Countries are ranked based on a combination of two sets of data: polls measuring how the countries are perceived abroad, and quantifiable variables such as the number of diplomatic missions abroad, the size of foreign-aid budgets, the number of intergovernmental organizations they are members of, and so on. Continue reading
I previously discussed the Finland’s basic income experiment, which was one of several being conducted across the world. After a little over a year, the Finnish trial — which involved 2,000 unemployed citizens receiving a flat monthly payment of $685 — has come to an abrupt close following the government’s lack of interest. As the BBC reported:
Finland’s two-year pilot scheme started in January 2017, making it the first European country to test an unconditional basic income. The 2,000 participants – all unemployed – were chosen randomly.
But it will not be extended after this year, as the government is now examining other schemes for reforming the Finnish social security system.
“I’m a little disappointed that the government decided not to expand it,” said Prof Kangas, a researcher at the Social Insurance Institution (Kela), a Finnish government agency.
Speaking to the BBC from Turku, he said the government had turned down Kela’s request for €40-70m extra to fund basic income for a group of employed Finns, instead of limiting the experiment to 2,000 unemployed people.