Poverty

[Alan H]

Although this has been mentioned elsewhere before, I though it worthwhile starting a new thread for this new report:

Oxfam seeks 'new deal' on inequality from world leaders

Oxfam highlights that the World Economic Forum's own Global Risk Report identifies inequality as one of the top global risks of 2013

The 100 richest people in the world earned enough last year to end extreme poverty suffered by the poorest on the planet four times over, Oxfam has said.

Ahead of next week's World Economic Forum in Switzerland, the charity urged world leaders to tackle inequality.

Extreme wealth was "economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive", the report said.

The global economic system required reform so that it worked "in the interests of the whole of humanity".

A four-day summit involving political and economic leaders runs in Davos from next Wednesday.

In its report entitled The Cost Of Inequality: How Wealth And Income Extremes Hurt Us All, the UK charity said that efforts to tackle poverty were being hindered by an "explosion in extreme wealth".

The richest one per cent of the world's population had increased its income by 60% in the last 20 years, Oxfam said.

It reported that while the world's 100 richest people enjoyed a net income of $240bn (£150bn) last year, people in "extreme poverty" lived on less than $1.25 (78p) a day.

"We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many - too often the reverse is true," said Oxfam chief executive Barbara Stocking.

"Concentration of resources in the hands of the top 1% depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else - particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder."

The charity called for a "global new deal to reverse decades of increasing inequality".

Its suggestions for leaders due at the Davos summit include:

Closure of tax havens around the world
A reversal of "the trend towards more regressive forms of taxation"
A global minimum corporation tax rate
Increased investment in free public services and safety nets for people out of work or ill
"As a first step world leaders should formally commit themselves to reducing inequality to the levels seen in 1990," Ms Stocking said.

"From tax havens to weak employment laws, the richest benefit from a global economic system which is rigged in their favour.

"It is time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite."

So, a measly 25% of the extreme wealth of just 100 people on this planet could end the extreme poverty of millions, if not billions.

It's time to end the huffing and puffing and the sucking in of breath through teeth like some cowboy builder: will someone just fix this? And no, it is not acceptable to wait for however many more decades for some broken system to sort it out; and fail.

[Alan H]

And just in this country...

Benefits and child credits squeeze pushes 200,000 children into poverty

Government admits statistic that Labour says shows children are victims of Tory 'games' and 'economic failure'

Patrick Wintour, political editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 January 2013 16.24 GMT

The government says it is 'investing in tackling the root causes of child poverty through making work pay'. Photograph: Olivia Harris/REUTERS
The squeeze on tax credits and benefits will push 200,000 more children into poverty, the government has admitted for the first time. This suggests that in total a million extra children will be in poverty as a result of government welfare measures.

The extra 200,000 children in poverty is a result of the government's decision to lift most in-work and out-of-work benefits by only 1% a year over the next three years, instead of increasing them in line with inflation.

Ministers had been reluctant to state what the impact would be on child poverty, an official government measure of relative poverty that looks at the number of households with incomes at 60% or less than the national average household income.

But in an answer to a parliamentary question, the work and pensions minister, Esther McVey, estimated that "the uprating measures in 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 will result in around an extra 200,000 children being deemed by this measure to be in relative income poverty compared to uprating benefits by CPI [consumer price index]".

Ministers are trying to push through the benefits squeeze with just one day of debate for the committee stage and third reading of the welfare benefits uprating bill in the Commons on Monday.

Labour said the figures showed children were victims of Tory "political games". Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, said: "The true character of this Conservative-led government has now been exposed. While they give the richest 2% of earners a £3bn tax cut, 200,000 children will be pushed into poverty and millions of working families made worse off.

"Ministers have spent weeks refusing to admit what the impact of their policies would be on child poverty and now we know why. Children are paying the price for David Cameron and George Osborne's economic failure and the political games they have decided to play."

Liam Byrne, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "The chancellor's pathetic little games have real consequences for millions of families struggling to make ends meet.

"Ten years of Tory party detoxification has been destroyed because the chancellor needed a new-year dividing line and Britain's poorest children are paying the price. The nasty party is well and truly back."

The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) also criticised the changes but a Department of Work and Pensions spokesperson said: "Even with plans to limit increases to benefits, people will still see their benefits go up year on year – there is no freeze in support. And universal credit will make 3m households better off."

Ministers have argued that it is misleading to look at the impact of the benefits uprating move in isolation. They have separately said they no longer regard the relative child poverty statistics, introduced by Labour, as a useful or valid measure. "Looking at relative income in isolation is not a helpful measure to track progress towards our target of eradicating child poverty," the parliamentary answer said.

Ministers have for some time been arguing that the relative income measure is unhelpful as it focuses on too narrow a definition of poverty. The government has introduced a range of additional measures.

Labour points out that David Cameron, when in opposition, repeatedly argued that relative poverty was important and that the Conservative party would measure and act on it.

The government has previously admitted that some families with children might be £728 a year better off out of work as a result of losing their working tax credits following new rules which came into force in April 2012.

Cameron, in his Scarman lecture in 2006, said: "I believe that poverty is an economic waste and a moral disgrace. In the past, we used to think of poverty only in absolute terms – meaning straightforward material deprivation. That's not enough. We need to think of poverty in relative terms, the fact that some people lack those things which others in society take for granted. So I want this message to go out loud and clear: the Conservative party recognises, will measure and will act on relative poverty."

CPAG said that the 200,000 increase set out in the written answer should be added to the 800,000 increase in children in relative income poverty by 2020 that the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) found in its analysis of the coalition's welfare cuts.

The group said: "This now makes it a total of a million children that the coalition's policies are expected to push into relative income poverty by 2020."

The IFS analysis included the impact of a fall in poverty due to the introduction of universal credit.

CPAG claimed the government had revised down the number of children that would be taken out of poverty due to the universal credit from 350,000 to 150,000.

[Sel]

Alan....right on. Sounds as though you have been reading the same literature that has grabbed my attention.

I have been yammering on to anyone whom I could corner about this issue for quite awhile now. Anytime I see my husband's brother we lock horns over the topic. He sees no reason why the wealthy and the powerful corporations should have any responsibility to humanity. To him, it's "take what you can and forget the others." The only ethical consideration he is willing to consider is whether or not a company or individual is following the letter of the law. Moral considerations are out of the question.

One of my favourite targets is WalMart, its predatory practices, its refusal to pay a living wage and the negative affect it has on the social support system of communities into which it moves.

Of course, this is only touching on the unequal distribution of wealth in developed nations and does not begin to open discussion on solving the extreme poverty in the third world.

Extreme inequalities as are evident in countries like the USA are endangering our democracies. It is time for action.

There. I feel much better after that rant.

[Alan H]

He sees no reason why the wealthy and the powerful corporations should have any responsibility to humanity. To him, it's "take what you can and forget the others." The only ethical consideration he is willing to consider is whether or not a company or individual is following the letter of the law. Moral considerations are out of the question.

We've been here before and got nowhere, but this is the nub of the problem: we can't rely on people being altruistic; we need to have laws and systems in place to protect those unable to protect themselves. People who have nothing more to give cannot resolve the problems they are faced with; it needs others to do so. Some of us try to help with charity, but that cannot fix the underlying issues that perpetuate the situation.

[Dave B]

Trouble is aren't some of those shovelling bucket loads of filthy lucre into their bank accounts also those who draft and make the legislation? They, the richer politicians, should be the first to pay up a tithe on their earnings. But do/will they?

[Alan H]

Trouble is aren't some of those shovelling bucket loads of filthy lucre into their bank accounts also those who draft and make the legislation? They, the richer politicians, should be the first to pay up a tithe on their earnings. But do/will they?

Damn! There had to be a catch. Those who have the money, control the money.

[Dave B]

Come the revolution . . .

[lewist]

Come the revolution . . .

Is that what it will take? I was brought up in the sure knowledge that the Conservative Party was Satan's representative in this country and nothing I have seen in all my adult years has persuaded me otherwise. They are of course a fringe party in Scotland but they get a lot of attention because of the situation south of the border.

I do not see honesty in what is happening; the behaviour of some politicians is appalling, from the downright dishonest to the opportunist.

I almost voted for Danny Alexander but didn't for reasons I won't go into here. In view of what his party did, thank goodness I didn't give him my vote.

I sit in my warm, rather nice middle class life and wonder what we should do but I'm stuck for an answer.

I know people who will suffer under this government's policies. What can an individual do?

[Dave B]

What can an individual do?

What individuals have done over many millennia, Lewis: join together with other individuals to form some sort of "party" to overthrow the nasty one in power - only to fall foul of the privileges, power and ploutos,* along with egotism, evilness and economics.

In other words (almost**) all humans are fallible to human failings, no matter what their original motivations. And that includes popes.


*Greek for "wealth" - I needed the alliteration!

** I am sure a few individuals find a poor and lonely death still hanging onto their ideals.

[lewist]

What can an individual do?

What individuals have done over many millennia, Lewis: join together with other individuals to form some sort of "party" to overthrow the nasty one in power...

Yes, Dave. On the other hand, in this country we have a unique opportunity for radical change.

[Dave B]

What can an individual do?

What individuals have done over many millennia, Lewis: join together with other individuals to form some sort of "party" to overthrow the nasty one in power...

Yes, Dave. On the other hand, in this country we have a unique opportunity for radical change.

Hmm, but even independence is not going to put a stop to power/privilege/wealth seeking individuals getting elected on false promises methinks. Yup, you ill get rid of the evil Tories but probably, over the next century or so, grow you own variety. Whether right or left makes no difference, corruption is corruption.

And the underprivileged and poor will almost certainly still be with you.

[lewist]

And the underprivileged and poor will almost certainly still be with you.

Somewhere in the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy there's a question along the lines of 'Given the experience of the last ten thousand years, what can a wise man hope for humanity?'

Answer:

Spoiler:

nothing

Sums it up really, doesn't it? To quote the same work, 'I'll just go and shoot myself'.

However, in the words of our friend Nick's only performing song, 'mustn't grumble'.

[Alan C.]

What can an individual do?

I have been making interest free loans to folk in developing countries for around 3 years, mainly to women involved in some kind of food production.
My initial investment was £100, peanuts to a lot of people, the loan is always payed back then I just lend it to someone else, it's a very small contribution but at least I feel I'm doing something.
Sign up here.

[Dave B]

Sums it up really, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, yes.

Still, I suppose this should not stop us trying by donations of time, effort or money from at least alleviating the problem in some way.

As ever here my biggest concern is that tens or hundreds of thousands of lives may saved, to have children who survive, in parts of the world that simply do not have the natural resources to support them. That is a growing problem that will become the world's major problem - even including terrorism, though violence, "official" and "unofficial," may grow because of it. Weather changes may or may not help here.

The large scale re-population of coastal areas may be one of the solutions but will probably require large scale desalination plants as well. These can actually be quite green in areas where there is a fair amount of renewable energy.

[Alan H]

Yes, Dave. On the other hand, in this country we have a unique opportunity for radical change.

Hmm, but even independence is not going to put a stop to power/privilege/wealth seeking individuals getting elected on false promises methinks. Yup, you ill get rid of the evil Tories but probably, over the next century or so, grow you own variety. Whether right or left makes no difference, corruption is corruption.

And the underprivileged and poor will almost certainly still be with you.

Agreed.

Scottish independence may make a difference to a few at the bottom end, but it is tinkering around the edges; those that have power and money will still have power and money and still want to grab more power and money - some completely regardless of where it comes from and who suffers unnecessarily.

[Sel]

I hosted a Humanist wine and cheese get together last evening. One of the main topics of conversation was about ways Humanists might have influence on change - change from what has become the undue influence of the right wing and the wealthy - change that would allow for caring for and assisting the weakest members of society - change that would enforce a fairer distribution of wealth.

One guest answered a suggestion that we need to become more politically involved with the comment: "How can Humanists allow themselves to be politicians when all politics is amoral.

Comments?

Spell check won't work and I am a dreadful proof reader. Hope there are not too many errors.

[pantodragon]

I have been avoiding watching the news now for several years because it is so depressing, but I decided to have a read of this piece anyway --- and it’s just as depressing as ever!

I cannot say I have any faith whatsoever in the government, which ever colour, having the will or courage to take any real action to sort out this problem. As has been pointed out, there is a bit of a contradiction: those who are in a position to do anything about the problem are those in power, but then they would have to work against what they perceive as their own best interests.

In times past charismatic leaders, I can think of Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi etc have been effective in engineering change. Would a charismatic leader be the answer, I wonder? Can we afford to wait for one to emerge?

The other engineer of change, I suppose, has been revolution. Can’t say I’d be much in favour of that!

I entirely sympathize with the urge to try and do something by giving to charities, but at the same time I cannot help feeling that anything that is done through the setting up of a business is just playing into the hands of the wealthy again.

One could, perhaps, come at things from the opposite direction: if one refuses to try and help out by giving to charities on the basis that one is, in fact, simply shoring up the system and thus ensuring its continuance, then perhaps something might be precipitated --- it might, however, be something of the nature of violent uprising, and that would not be something I would welcome.

I’ve just been watching a film called ‘The Help’. It is about the deep south of the USA in the days when there was still segregation. Most of the coloured women work as domestic helps for the white women. A young white woman who wants to become a writer realizes that there is a story to be told in the experiences of the black women. She manages to get several of them to agree to be interviewed and to tell their stories --- a dangerous, potentially lethal, thing for them to do at that time. But the stories they have to tell are shocking, a real eye-opener. They reveal the cruelty of their white employers, and not just to the black women, but to their own children who are mostly handed over to the black domestic helpers to look after and raise. It’s all very well ‘thinkers’ talking about poverty and children in poor families being disadvantaged etc, but I feel sure that if people were to talk about the real experience of being poor, and how one has to live and how one is treated etc, then there might be some useful eye-opening. I do realize that it is not entirely unexplored territory as far as writing is concerned, but maybe there is room for more --- especially when so many people can get published on the internet. I wonder if a flood of stories about the experience of poverty in the developed world would have some effect.

One other thing occurs to me. Perhaps a kind of social revolution would be effective. I have been comfortably off and I have also been poor. One of the difficulties I faced when poor was being able to socialize. I mean, on those occasions when everyone went round to the pub for a drink after some event or other, I could not go because I could not afford to buy a round of drinks. It was difficult for me to accept hospitality, I mean to go to parties or dinner parties or the like because I could not afford to return the hospitality. I could go on and on about all the ways poverty works to exclude one from normal society. The point being that those with money and those without do not usually mix. It is not a lot different from the situation of the coloured people in the Deep South of the USA in the middle of last century --- the poor are definitely segregated from those with money, even from those with only a moderate income.

I do not think these social barriers are healthy. Where people seem to be ‘different’ there is mistrust and suspicion. I feel sure a lot could be done to break down these social barriers. I feel sure we could work to build communities where rich and poor meet and mix socially.

Well, there’s my pennyworth on the subject. I think maybe I’ll just go and hide from the news again!

[Nick]

Although this has been mentioned elsewhere before, I though it worthwhile starting a new thread for this new report:

Oxfam seeks 'new deal' on inequality from world leaders

Speaking as one who has done much to raise money for Oxfam, I find their economic analysis totally disheartening.

Oxfam highlights that the World Economic Forum's own Global Risk Report identifies inequality as one of the top global risks of 2013

The 100 richest people in the world earned enough last year to end extreme poverty suffered by the poorest on the planet four times over, Oxfam has said.

Ahead of next week's World Economic Forum in Switzerland, the charity urged world leaders to tackle inequality.

Extreme wealth was "economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive", the report said.

Not nearly as much as corruption, lack of the rule of law, dictatorship and other such factors.

The global economic system required reform so that it worked "in the interests of the whole of humanity".

And leave the political system alone? Is the poverty of North Korea caused by the wealth of South Korea, or by its nasty, nasty dictatorship?

A four-day summit involving political and economic leaders runs in Davos from next Wednesday.

In its report entitled The Cost Of Inequality: How Wealth And Income Extremes Hurt Us All, the UK charity said that efforts to tackle poverty were being hindered by an "explosion in extreme wealth".

A large proportion of this is the result of globalisation. For example, David Beckhame would not be nearly so wealthy if it were not possible for millions of fans to follow him across the world. So what do we do? Stop people supporting Man U or whoever he plays for now?

The richest one per cent of the world's population had increased its income by 60% in the last 20 years, Oxfam said.

What is more important is the distribution of income amongst the poorest. They have shown astonishing growth in their income. Over the last 20 years, growth in emerging markets has galloped along at amazing rates, meaning that growth in their economy has grown by maybe 400%. We also see the dramatic increase in the "middle class" and an absolute decrease in the number in absolute poverty. And the main reason? Not foreign aid, but the demise of socialism and the spread of capitalism.


It reported that while the world's 100 richest people enjoyed a net income of $240bn (£150bn) last year, people in "extreme poverty" lived on less than $1.25 (78p) a day.

"We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many - too often the reverse is true," said Oxfam chief executive Barbara Stocking.

Except that that is totally untrue. There may be despots who grow rixh by making others poor, but tell me: have Slim, or Branson, or Gates grown super rich by making others poor?

"Concentration of resources in the hands of the top 1% depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else - particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder."

That rather depends on what those resources are doing, doesn't it? The Duke of Bridgewater used his wealth to iomprove the wealth of the poor, not by exploiting them, but by dramatically lowering the cost of coal.

The charity called for a "global new deal to reverse decades of increasing inequality".

Except that, since 1995, the reverse has been true.

Its suggestions for leaders due at the Davos summit include:

Closure of tax havens around the world

I see... neo-colonialism, eh?

A reversal of "the trend towards more regressive forms of taxation"

Actually, it's a progression towards an increase in revenue by better designed taxes. The greatest weakness in the taxation system is the fact that the tax collection system is so full of holes.

A global minimum corporation tax rate

Thus confusing the payment of tax with the incidence of tax.

Increased investment in free public services and safety nets for people out of work or ill

Extending public services may be a good thing, but it is not necessarily an "investment". Looking after the elderly, say, is hugely important and valuable, but does not yield an economic return as implied here.

"As a first step world leaders should formally commit themselves to reducing inequality to the levels seen in 1990," Ms Stocking said.

How about world leaders getting their snouts out of the economic system, which has directly caused the boom and bust in the US and the catastrophic disaster of the Euro.

"From tax havens to weak employment laws, the richest benefit from a global economic system which is rigged in their favour.

The stronger the employment laws, the higher the rate of unemployment.

"It is time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite."

It is time Oxfam got its facts right.

So, a measly 25% of the extreme wealth of just 100 people on this planet could end the extreme poverty of millions, if not billions

.No it couldn't. It would just destroy it through inflation.

It's time to end the huffing and puffing and the sucking in of breath through teeth like some cowboy builder: will someone just fix this? And no, it is not acceptable to wait for however many more decades for some broken system to sort it out; and fail.

All suggestions welcome....

[Nick]

If you are interested, this week's Economist has a special report on the aleviation of world poverty. In particular it compares the contribution of growth and equality in relieving poverty, and concludes that growth has been more important by a factor of 2:1.

Things may change in future, though, so there is still a long way to go. But it concludes that global poverty will be licked comparatively soon.

Very interesting reading.