> these countries it's that they are improving and improving rapidly.
The entire argument is that this is actually not happening. The figures are just doctored instead. Not sure how you can just state the exact opposite to the articles argument without presenting any evidence that the author misses.
Yes GDP is not the best metric but it does show a trend. That wealthier countries are developing slower that poorer countries.
It's not happening everywhere but most countries that don't have political problems are doing well.
There can be an argument that the rich west is guilty of causing some of those problems. For example Iraq is due to American interface. You could argue most of Africa is still suffering from the power structure left by the British.
But these are the results of past so s not the current system.
By dripping with intersectionalism I mean the author is dropping intersectional buzz words everywhere without making the case for why they apply. This is normally a sign that someone is simply applying an ideology to view a problem rather than any genuine analysis.
The act of calling someone intersectional doesn't exactly make you look ideologically unbiased either.
The author misses the point entirely. It's not that wages are good in these countries it's that they are improving and improving rapidly.
It's not racist, unless you take the modern definition that any racial disparity is racist. Racism requires discrimination. Disparities do not always mean there is discrimination.
History has dealt these countries a bad hand. But things are getting better and they are getting better fast.