Why Do Millions of Children Have to Die?

It is fitting that following my previous post on the growth in the global millionaire community, I decide to reflect on the moral travesty that is child mortality. I say moral because it is a problem that need not still exist to the degree that it does, and that only persists because our global economic system are not sufficiently guided by ethical principles.

Historically, around 43 percent of children died before the age of five; as fairly recently as the 19th century, every second or third child would perish, even in relatively developed Western countries. Although child mortality has declined rapidly over recent decades — down to 4.3 percent globally, compared to 8 percent in 2000 and 18 percent in 1960 — it is still far higher than it should be.

Nowadays, anywhere from 6 to 9 million children die before their fifth birthday, and nearly half of them die within a month of their birth. (This does not include millions more that die before adulthood.) About 42 countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, account for 90 percent of these deaths. Two-thirds of these children die from causes that are easily preventable, namely diarrhea, pneumonia, malnutrition, and malaria. Continue reading

Advertisements

Time to End the Five-Day Work Week?

Most developed-world denizens take the five-day work week as a given. The very idea of questioning it would be as inconceivable as it is fanciful. (Indeed, in our work-obsessed culture, it would likely brand you a lazy bum by coworkers and superiors alike.)

But as Philip Sopher over at The Atlantic points out, even the seven-day length of the week is an arbitrary invention, let alone the far more recent notion that we should have five days to work and only two to rest.  Continue reading

Twenty Charts of Things to Be Grateful For

For the myriad of problems we face as a species, we have made incredible strides over the last two centuries, especially since the mid-twentieth century, shortly after the world nearly destroyed itself in the second global conflict in less than thirty years.

Contrary to what we see on the news, there are ample data proving how far we have come in the hundreds of thousands of years in which we’ve existed (and in which the vast majority of the estimated 106 billion people who have ever lived on Earth suffered untold misery, fear, ignorance, and hardship).

Here are twenty charts, courtesy of OurWorldInData.org, that should make us grateful for living in this remarkably progressive, free, peaceful, and prosperous period of human existence.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Global poverty, maternal and child mortality, global hunger, battle deaths, and child labor are just some of the negative socioeconomic problems that have declined swiftly and significantly.

Meanwhile, literacy, formal education, women’s rights, economic growth, and life expectancy have increased exponentially. The developing world — where the vast majority of humans live — has seen the fastest and greatest gains.

To be sure, these gains by no means diminish the very real problems we must still resolve; far too many people remain poor, hungry, diseased, oppressed, and exploited. Yet, remarkably, it is far fewer people — both proportionally and in absolute numbers — than ever before in our history.

While we no doubt still have a ways to go, let us be thankful for our species’ boundless capacity to keep preserving despite our faults and challenges. Imagine how much more progress we will see in our (ever increasing) lifetimes if we just stay the course.

How Global Inequality Undermines Global Democracy

Yet another massive leak of offshore banking documents has revealed the remarkable extent of the world’s “parallel economy”, in which a large and growing proportion of global wealth is secretly stashed away in a complex and opaque network of tax havens.

In addition to the obvious diversion of literally trillions of dollars of capital that could be better spent alleviating the needless suffering of billions (with plenty left over to spare), this development is arguably a threat to democratic governance the world over, as Matt Phillips at Vice argues. Continue reading

The Countries With the Highest Well-Being

It is safe to say that most people want greater well-being in their lives, but as with concepts like happiness or success, it is often loaded and subjective — albeit up to a point. Wealth is certainly a big factor, if not the biggest, but so are — generally speaking — civil rights, a healthy environment, personal safety, and social support.

Predicating well-being on these and other inputs, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) conducted the “Sustainable Economic Development Assessment” (SEDA), which measures which countries in the world provide the most well-being to their inhabitants. The results were based on over 50,000 data points spanning three broad metrics and ten “dimensions of well-being”: economics (which includes income, economic stability, and employment); investment (health, education, and infrastructure) and sustainability (socioeconomic inequality, civil society, governance, and environment). Continue reading

Iran Tests Most Generous Basic Income Plan Yet

Iran hardly comes to mind when it comes to testing bold new ideas (never mind its various scientific and technological achievements in the face of sanctions and a reactionary theocracy). But since 2011, it has been testing and monitoring one of the most generous basic income schemes in the world, joining the likes of Canada, Finland, and the Netherlands (among others) in exploring the merits of an idea that has been gaining traction amid concerns about mass unemployment from advancing automation.

The program, which is ongoing, was launched during the tenure of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, himself hardly a progressive (to put it mildly). But it was ideal timing, as it followed cuts to subsidies for bread and fuel, which disproportionately impacted the poor. Participants received a monthly cash transfer equivalent to 29 percent of the country’s median household income — which would amount to over $16,300 a month in the U.S.! This is far more generous than the $1,000 or so monthly stipend that is typical in most basic income schemes. Even advocates of the idea might think it is far too much to sustain a productive population.

Yet, as BusinessInsider reported, not only did researchers find that most recipients remained employed, but many of them worked more hours.

Despite reports in local press that the poor were forgoing their jobs to spend the extra money, the investigators found no such evidence.

“Our results do not indicate a negative labor supply effect for either hours worked or the probability of participation in market work, either for all workers or those in the bottom 40% of the income distribution,” they wrote.

They did find people in their twenties tended to work a bit less. But “this is not surprising since the attachment of Iranian youth to the labor market is weak,” they wrote, and many young people may have used the money to enroll in higher education they otherwise couldn’t afford.

In other cases, the extra money appeared to increase how much time people spent working. Service workers, such as housekeepers, teachers, and deliverymen, upped their weekly hours by roughly 36 minutes, “perhaps because some used transfers to expand their business.”

In other words, people were empowered to invest the money they received in ways that created greater values for themselves and, by extension, their loved ones and community. This comports with the results of the basic income experiments conducted in Canada and Namibia, as well as Brazil’s Bolsa Familia program, which is one of the few examples of a full-fledged cash-transfer scheme (although not quite a basic income, since it is conditional on children attending school and being vaccinated).

Unfortunately, Iran’s experiment also proved another common feature of the basic income idea: widespread negative attention and cynicism, in this case by both politicians and the general public. Across different societies and cultures, the idea of handing people money with no string attached strikes a visceral chord.

But given where automation and economic innovation are heading, it seems inevitable that mass unemployment — and the massive wealth imbalance that would follow — will need to be corrected. Not only would a guaranteed income provide for people’s basic needs, but as these pilot programs are thus far proving, they would empower individuals with the resources they need to unlock their own potential, whether it is freeing up time for socially valuable work (caregiving, volunteering, etc.) or investing in their own creative or commercial ventures.

What are your thoughts?

 

My Thoughts on Bucking the Paris Agreement

For what it is worth, it seems to me that most opposition to the Paris Agreement is predicated on mere ignorance to its contents and a visceral, categorical rejection of anything multilateral or international in nature, regardless of the details and benefits. (And given the considerable support for it by a broad range of stakeholders – from national security figures to big corporations, including major energy companies – the usual argument that such policies are inherently anti-business, or favor only idealistic environmentalists, simply do not wash.) It is anti-globalism for anti-globalism’s sake.

If folks actually read the Agreement – which most people had never heard of or had forgotten about until recently – they would find that it is explicitly nonbinding and hands-off with regards to how nations can go about mitigating climate change. In fact, it stipulates “nationally determined contributions” whereby every nation individually sets their own goals and how to reach them, whether through the free market, government programs, etc. Unlike its predecessors, the Paris Agreement furthermore places emphasis on “bottom up” solutions that favor working with private sector and civil society groups, something that opponents ostensibly favor. Ironically, these provisions were included in part to win over skeptics like the U.S. who criticized the binding nature of prior agreements such as the Kyoto Protocols.

Continue reading

How Households Worldwide Spend Money

Citing data from Eurostat, a research arm of European Union, The Economist has an interesting chart showing how households in some of the world’s largest economies differ in their spending habits.

20150912_woc650_1

As The Economist points out, the results say as much about the socioeconomic status of these countries as they do their culture and values:

Russians splash 8% of their money on booze and cigarettes—far more than most rich countries—while fun-loving Australians spend a tenth of theirs on recreation, and bookish South Koreans splurge more than most on education. Some of the differences are accounted for by economics. Richer places like America and Australia, where household expenditure is around $30,000 per person, will tend to spend a smaller share of their costs on food than Mexico and Russia, where average spending is around $6,000. And politics plays a part too. Predominantly private health care in America eats up over a fifth of each household’s budget, whereas the European Union, where public health care is common, only spends 4% on it. In Russia, government-subsidised housing and heating make living cheaper, and this means money is left over for the finer things in life.

For a partial breakdown of how individual E.U. member states fare, here is a similar chart (note the research was pre-Brexit):

20150919_woc651_1

Again, the results speak to both socioeconomic disparities and cultural preferences:

In Malta, an island nation of 450,000 south of Italy, almost 20% of household expenditure goes on restaurants or hotels. In Lithuania that figure is 2.9%. Relative to much of the EU, Lithuania is a poor country with a per capita household expenditure of €7,500 ($8,500), half the EU average. Thus its people spend a larger share of their budget on food and clothing than any other EU country. Somewhat predictably the Dutch splurge most on recreation, while Greeks spend the least (a trait that pre-dates the financial crisis)—the money they save could perhaps be spent on more sensible endeavours like transport, or paying-off debt.

You can see the full dataset with all E.U. countries here.

What are your thoughts?

How the World Will Look in 2050

According to the latest estimates by the United Nations, within the next three decades, the world’s population will increase from 7.3 billion to 9.7 billion. By the end of the century, it will rise by another 2 billion, although at a slower rate than in the previous two centuries.

The following infographic from The Economist provides a vivid depiction of how this growth is highly uneven, with Africa and Asia accounting for most of it.

20150808_woc916_1

Note how the U.S. will be the only developed country among the twelve most populous by 2050, whereas today more than half of the largest countries by population are in the developed world. Africa alone accounts for more than half of this growth, with its population projected to double to 2.5 billion. Nigeria, the continent’s most populous nation and largest economy, will overtake the U.S. with over 400 million inhabitants, despite being roughly twice the size of California. Continue reading