(e-mail address removed) (krakle) wrote in
ermmm.. I would have to disagree. I don't think someone who makes
$2,000 a year able to live off from $3 an hour even has a computer
with internet access and a programming education background to do the
work. I would of thought common sense would of ruled that out...
You're being ethnocentric (the term has two related but not identical
meanings: the belief that one's own culture is superior, and the assumption
that the way things work in one's own culture is the way things work all
over the world; I'm using the term in the second sense). You're assuming
that anyone making $2000 a year anywhere in the world has the
characteristics that you'd associate with someone making $2000 a year in
the developed West. As Charlton pointed out, that simply isn't true; in
many parts of the world, $2000 buys a *great* deal more than it does in the
US.
If you still have trouble understanding this (that the value of a given
amount of money can vary from place to place), then consider how it can
vary from time to time in the same place. Would you consider an American
making $50K/year to be "rich"? I certainly would, if we were talking about
an American who lived 100 years ago. $50K in 1904 bought about what $1M
buys in 2004, and most people would regard a contemporary American making
$1M/year as "rich." And obversely, an American who was making $2000/year
in 1904 could be expected to have a similar background to an American
making $40K/year in 2004.