Because that would destroy any economy that exists there? What would be incentive to start a business when some rich multinational can pay 5x more than you?
> Why don't we spend a significant part of our riches on improving education across the world?
Because there are better wats to spend 'riches'?
> Why do we apparently feel that people who happen to be born somewhere else are inherently less valuable than us?
You answered yourself, because they were born somewhere else. They don't share our core values, language, culture. It doesn't mean that we should consider them beneath us. But they're different and that's a fact.
> We would all become richer from it together in the long run. But somehow even just thinking about something like this mostly just makes others laugh or at best uncomfortably chuckle at such a silly idealist.
Because those are laughable at best.
The idea is noble and tempting, but the specifics of implementation (id est, who are "we", what is "a significant part" and how exactly should we spend it) are hard to decide.
For example, Elizabeth Warren wanted to throw out all our international trade agreements and renegotiate them to force the participants to comply with certain environmental and ethical standards. Some of those standards weren't even being met by the US
The idea has been given serious research, thought, and debate. It IS doable. The main issue is the will to seriously pursue it
Throwing money at foundations doesn't automagically solves the problem.
Sometimes it happens that if you donate clothes to some African communities, corruption will take over and your donation will not reach the hands of those in most need. The clothes will instead be sold into the illegal markets, profitting feudal lords.
There's not a lack of intention to help, rather it's the structure, the status quo of things that de-incentivizes such help.
I'm led to believe[1][2] outrageous profiteering starts well before such donated assets---which are sold in bales---ever reach the shores of Africa.
What privileged 1st world citizens naively perceive as altruism turns out to be nothing more than a facade for egregious textile dumping with middlemen in transit to squeeze out any remaining residual profit...and it's turtles all the way to the ad hoc environmental disasters this racket has created in already immensely impoverished countries.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-12/fast-fashion-turning-...
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...
Californians in particularly prefer having homeless people over giving them homes even despite the fact that the government isn't lacking in resources.
It isn’t a generally accepted ideal in the West.
And where it is accepted it might just be (if you read the fine print) some kind of equality like "equal opportunity to participate in the rat race".
At least that's what the books say.
There's more slaves today than ever before (some say even per capita). Pacific islanders are being enslaved for your fish, south american labor leaders are being assassinated for your bananas, and indigenous communities are being violently displaced for the minerals needed for your computers.
If what we currently have really isn't possible without the above happening, maybe we need to step back and ask if it's really right for us to have what we have