In the past few weeks, the news was filled with tragedy, ranging from a massive flood in parts of Alberta, the bombing of the Boston Marathon, a train wreck of a freight train carrying oil through a small Quebec village and the death of more than a dozen fire fighters fighting a fire in Arizona. With the news coverage, the public is presented with both heroes and villains, while both government and members of the community come together to provide whatever support the "innocent" victims of these tragedies need and deserve. Some of these tragedies are natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, while others are sparked by human error like the derailment of an oil freight train in Lac Megantic, Quebec. In any case, people are all around, while governments promise and deliver financial relief to individuals and families finding themselves in the thick of whatever happened. Thousands of families returned to their homes in Calgary, Alberta, to find they had to demolish their homes or they lost everything they had, while there is community support to bring these families back to at least a stable position once again. There is nothing wrong with lending a helping hand in these circumstances, or governments stepping in to provide aid when necessary, and for these circumstances, the public does not view this as a charitable act, but as a form of natural justice.
I wish Canadians and our respective governments would take the same approach to eliminating poverty in our country, which is otherwise blessed with wealth, resources and an abundance of talent. In the above scenarios depicted, most members of the public view these tragedies as being nobody's fault, or perhaps, being someone's fault, but not necessarily to the point of finger pointing or placing blame. Certainly, those who are directly suffering the effects of these tragedies are not being blamed for their circumstances and people all around want to ensure they are returned to a position of dignity. At the same time, our citizens and government still don't get the dignity part of this equation when it comes to eliminating poverty. We still want to blame the person who is poor for their circumstances, like they somehow brought it on themselves. It is as if these people woke up one day deciding they were going to get sick and unable to work, or they were going to find themselves at the other end of a layoff when the company they worked at for thirty years slams its door shut on them, or they decide to marry somebody who is later found to be an abusive alcoholic and in order to get out of the situation, they must turn to welfare.
First, before we try to understand our hegemonic concepts of what creates poverty and what solves it, we need to discuss issues of dominant theory and privilege. People have varying levels of privilege in our society, even though many people with privilege within the dominant culture are not always aware of how privileged they really are. I wrote in this column in the past about how people who have both their driver's licenses and access to their own reliable transportation tend to take this for granted, especially in a region like our own. They plan their days around their automobile, what routes they will take to their job or to their daily activities, and if they need to do anything else afterwards. Drivers usually have a pretty good idea how long it is going to take them to get to different places and usually know to allow more time in bad weather, or if they are going somewhere at a time there are likely thousands of others like them using the same roads they will be on, such as taking a trip to Toronto starting out at 8:00 a.m. here and holding out false hope they will get there by 9:30 a.m. That is why many commuters going there start their drive about 7:00 a.m., as they will more likely get there on time. The thought of leaving one's job and picking up their son after hockey, and then purchasing a few groceries on the way home is a minor detail for most people. However, take that car away, and the driver quickly finds out that their trip to work may or may not be accommodated by a bus, so a $30 taxi ride might be necessary each way. They would not likely be able to pick up their son from hockey or make a stop over for groceries on the way back, unless they want to pay additional taxi fare. They plan the groceries for a day they do not have to go anywhere else. As a consequence, the former driver realizes they have little time for their family, little time for themselves and much of their time is spent planning how to get places and when to go there. That is just one example of how privilege is instilled in people; how people in a position of privilege don't often realize how advantaged they are until that advantage is somehow taken away from them.
In our community, most people seem to believe in charity and goodwill towards others. People believe in these things because they naturally feel a need to "give back" to the community. We are socialized to believe that we all come from some type of privilege and how important it is to "help the less fortunate". There is nothing wrong with that. I do not object to the motive; I object to the method. The method of "giving back" to the so-called "less fortunate" is riddled with hegemonic ideas that are created by this same privilege and in many ways, serves to protect the privilege that people feel they have, as opposed to bringing the so-called "less fortunate" into a position of equal privilege themselves. We give to food banks because we feel we need to feed the hungry, but rarely do we hear from the hungry about what they need. We volunteer at nursing homes to keep an elder companionship, but rarely do we ask if there is a better environment this person could be in. We support the development of "affordable" and "subsidized" housing because we believe that nobody should have to sacrifice their basic necessities for the high price of shelter, but we don't ask what residents of social housing really aspire to become. We continue to donate to "charity" because we believe they are a "good cause" and in many cases, they are, but more and more, we are discovering that not all charities are equally effective at achieving their goals. While there seems to be a growing awareness of members of the donating public about how monies are being spent in a charity, as well as how much is being used to advance the reason for that charity's existence, we have not yet come around to ask the real questions that need to be asked. These questions surround the issue of what the charity is actually doing and if they are actually achieving anything for those they purport to serve.
I know these kinds of questions. My husband lost his mother last year to a rare form of cancer. For many months prior to her death and seemingly eternally after her death, he ranted on about how "billions" of dollars are being donated and/or granted to cancer research and cancer organizations, but there never seems to be a cure. We continue to see people die from the disease. One begins to become cynical, wondering if there really was a cure out there, how many of these people that currently work for these organizations or partake in this research and so forth would lose their jobs. It creates an industry of its own. "Cancer Can Be Beaten" is a mantra that was played over and over in my day, while today, we continue to have the same amount of cancer, but the Cancer Society appears to be replacing its mantra with other phrases, while millions more of us continue to die of the disease. The same applies to diabetes, a disease I suffer from and relentlessly curse because of bad genetics, poor health and disadvantage in my day, but to no surprise, there is also a significant diabetes industry out there. Many organizations "benefit" per se with the alleged tsunami of diabetes hitting our communities. There are organizations to educate people with diabetes, dieticians to set up meal plans for people with diabetes, doctors to prescribe and treat people with diabetes, clinics to test and assess the progress of diabetic treatment in individuals (e.g. A1C tests), charities to raise funds to provide support and find a "cure" for diabetes, as well as bemoan the world over with apocalyptic thinking how ten percent of our population will soon be afflicted. There is talk of a cure, improved medications, improved forms of insulin management, and greater knowledge, but no cure again for this disease!
This brings me back to the concept of both industry and privilege and how it deals with the concept of eliminating poverty. People who are not poor are the ones that are currently setting up and benefiting from programs and services that are supposed to "help" the poor. There are services of all kinds delivered to poor people, from food banks, soup kitchens, budgeting classes, housing agencies, counselling services, drop in centres, homeless shelters, street workers, etc., but no program in sight to help the poor become NOT poor anymore. For most poor people, what is needed is more money. Instead of spending "billions" of dollars, as my husband describes, on more "services" to make poverty more comfortable for the poor, perhaps these "billions" can instead be given to the poor people themselves and let THEM decide how to spend it. This is not only a scary thought for those who work in and are in particular, paid to provide "services" to, the poor -- it is seen as politically untenable. Yet when a city experiences a major flood, a small village in Quebec is struck with an exploding freight train, or the country of Haiti is struck with a god-awful earthquake, there is NO LIMIT to the amount of money and resources people think should be spent to get these people out of their straitened circumstances. After all, they are there by no fault of their own. I wish we would think the same way about the poor here in Canada.
As I said, nobody woke up one day to decide they were going to have a horrible accident at work that would leave them disabled and unemployed. Nobody woke up to plan their spouse on leaving them, trading them in for a new model. Nobody woke up to decide to become ill enough to make finding and keeping a job difficult, if not impossible. Nobody when asked what they want to be when they grow up, chooses "welfare" to be the career they want to have. These things happen. Programs like Worker's Compensation, Social Assistance, Old Age Security, Unemployment Insurance and Medicare, were created for a reason. Unfortunately, too many people are buying into the idea that only if people relied more on their neighbours, their families, their communities, to support them through rough patches, and then there would be no need for welfare, worker's compensation, minimum wages, and so on. Well, think again. We were in this position before, and if it worked so well, why is this not still the case? Perhaps, there was a time when capitalism began to show its cracks and we learned of its imperfections, which are leaving many people behind, either intentionally or unintentionally. As our recessions become deeper and longer, the only solution big business has to offer is to cut back further on these "entitlement" programs, so that people will have less "incentive" to use them and just get a job. Oh, if it was only that easy. I always ask those that make these assumptions if they know where they are hiring the thousands of people that seem to have chosen day after day recently to be unemployed and dependent on the pittance they get from welfare or unemployment insurance.
Niagara Region was recently determined by the Adzuna Group to be the worst place in Canada to find a job if you are unemployed, whereby there are allegedly 100 job seekers for every job vacancy. In the current way of thinking, the other 99 people simply chose to remain on social assistance because that lifestyle is so easy. The answer they give us to cut these programs even further. I have yet to see how this helps. Perhaps, if we withheld any aid to those people in Lac Megantic or to those flooded out in Calgary, perhaps these people will just learn to save their money for rainy days for now on and not live so close to the damn train tracks, right? The pre-historic thinking that surrounds the elimination of poverty needs to be eliminated as well. We need to fight poverty as hard as we fight to bring people involved in the above referred tragedies back to their normal lives to the best of our abilities.
We have to stop thinking about food banks and shelters and so forth as being the answer, but instead try to understand how continuing and perpetuating these sorts of programs keeps poverty intact and helps no one. Feeding somebody today is fine, but the same person will be hungry again tomorrow. What are we going to do about this? Are we going to continue to erode the dignity and prosperity of an increasing portion of our population by dividing our communities into donors/heroes and recipients of charity/helpless beings? Or are we going to recognize that the dominant culture that we live in is as much at fault as the economy at keeping this segment of the population down. Or is it that we fear that if we empower those we serve with the same privileges and rights to participate in the community that you and I have taken for granted will somehow take something away from you? Food banks didn't grow out of nature; they were invented in 1981 in the city of Edmonton. Since that time, this concept has grown and become institutionalized, whereby way too damn many of us have become smug and feel we are doing our part by donating to food banks, even partaking in food drives, thinking we are doing anything for those in need, when in fact, we still have not yet asked those in need what they really want to do with their lives, have we?
There is an important element of dignity at play here, which is something that we all need to keep in mind. We also like to believe that to continue to do what we do will continue to distance the poor and their problems from our own lives, to keep us in the privileged positions that we might someday be aware that we are in, but even this does nothing of the sort. We need to take steps to the elimination of poverty, put the responsibility for this situation at the feet of those that can do something about it and despite their pleadings to the contrary, can damn well afford it too. That is, business needs to start creating jobs that pay well and investing in our communities. Governments needs to stop paying businesses not to hire and not to invest, while tax breaks after unconditional tax breaks keep getting handed to them year over year, while it is so clear that there is a growing gap in wealth, the middle class is bleeding and that damned Emperor is walking down Bay Street buck naked! Let's start asking the questions of ourselves and demand answers. Let's stop assuming that hunger is "being dealt with" and that a massive restructuring of our society and our thinking is in order, in order for not only for us to maintain our position, but to keep the rest of us from falling further into despair and desperation at the hands of the one percent minority that none of us want to have control us.
Your thoughts?
Showing posts with label charity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label charity. Show all posts
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Saturday, December 25, 2010
BE GOOD TO YOUR NEIGHBOUR ON CHRISTMAS AND BASH 'EM ON THE HEAD THE OTHER 364 DAYS OF THE YEAR
I don't know about you, but while I like Christmas, I have little tolerance for the hypocrisy of the charitable sector and the upper middle class and some wealthy families in our country. Many of these people are quite active in "adopt a-family" campaigns, "give a child a Christmas: and "Christmas hamper" programs that they forget that the other 364 days of the year, these same people bash the same people who they just sponsored for these Christmas charities as "leeches", "lazy", "failures", etc. While I don't think ill is begotten by these campaigns, but little thought is given to the targets of them, how they feel about being adopted, pitied, awash with charity and fake neighbourly love, while at the same time, other days of the year, punished for their very position and circumstances.
This does not include all people of upper middle class or wealthy sectors, but a good amount of them. This also applies to "back to school". Newspapers are awash with media poornography dealing with how "wonderful" some company or organization has been to raise so many dollars from all of their "fortunate" (therefore, respectable and heroic) members to donate to all those "poor, pathetic, down-on-their luck failures" in our society. While they would never identify such persons as failures, an alarming number of people that give to charities consider those that receive from the same to be failures. Surveys have been done of staff in the charitable sector, and it was found they are just as likely to hold prejudicial views of those that approach them for help that members of the general public do.
For example, it is believed by these people that people are poor because they do not manage their money well, that they were wrongfully discharged from psychiatric or penal institutions, that they have no skills or lack a high school education. This is becoming less and less the norm; in fact, the norm of those that turn to charities are people who are really no different than members of the general public. Poor bashing originates from the necessity to create "otherness" in the population of the poor and homeless. People that donate to charities think they still have their jobs because they possess a work ethic and "work hard". Research originating from Jones and Harris blames the "fundamental attribution error" for this way of thinking, where if something horrible happens to somebody, that that person is somehow to blame for their circumstances and if something good happens, that person somehow did something to deserve it. This attribution error has self-serving properties, as it assuages those of us that are not falling on hard times that it will not happen to us, as we lack the internal qualities we attribute to those that these things happen to (e.g. lazy, mentally ill, a criminal). I shown readers in an earlier blog that laziness does not only reside in some of the jobless, but many wealthy and working people too. Wealth today is less likely to be earned as it might have been decades in the past.
In the recent Toronto municipal election, people elected Rob Ford because he appeared to be "an ordinary guy". People like Rob Ford and his brother, Doug Ford, both ran and won in the past municipal election. Both grew up as and remain to this day to be multi-millionaires. They own a company that was handed down to them by parents and likely grandparents that started it and made it successful. One only need see that if either Ford has enough time to be full-time councilor and Mayor, respectively, they are obviously not "working hard" in their business that they seem to be so responsible for. Being a member of a corporate board of directors or an owner of a large company is really not that much work. You just pay other people to run it for you and stop by once in awhile to make sure they are doing a good job. It is likely other people, perhaps, other members of the Ford family or perhaps, even hired management is doing the real work in this company. While I am not saying the Fords are doing anything wrong or their gains were ill-gotten, they cannot realistically portray themselves to be "ordinary guys". In my view, a single parent that works three part-time minimum wage jobs to keep her family's head above water works much harder than any CEO and nobody will convince me otherwise.
They, like most other wealthy people, won what is known as the Ovarian lottery. The "ovarian lottery" was named by Warren Buffet, one of the world's richest men, one of the few who will actually speak out about the nonsense of further tax cuts for the wealthy. Most wealth, high incomes and high level opportunities are inherited in some way - either by money given to them by living parents to complete their education, a business successorship, an inheritances after the parents or other close relatives die or similar circumstances. More about Buffet's analogy is written in Linda McQuaig and Meil Brooks' book entitled "The Trouble with Billionaires".
Before those of you reading this think this is a "left wing" commentary (which I don't understand as I don't relate well with the so-called left either), this book and its analysis was rated very positively by the managing editor of the National Post, typically a small-c conservative publication. There are others that are not as famous that also speak out about the wrong-headedness of further tax cuts for wealthy people. Tax cuts for corporations has never been proven to increase the salaries and benefit levels of those working for these companies, nor have they proven to distribute wealth or even opportunity equitably among the whole population. The founder of Wal-Mart, for example, was also one of the world's richest men, but we know people working at Wal-Mart earn very close to minimum wage. The same applies to the Weston family who still owns the largest stake in Loblaw's grocery stores and most workers in these stores are minimum wage and part-time.
Moreover, in their latest book, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, authors of The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everybody, comparisons among so called "rich" nations are made and various factors, such as infant mortality, incarceration rates, prevalence of certain kinds of health conditions (such as diabetes, heart disease), high school graduation rate, etc. were compared on the basis of a single independent variable: the gap of wealth and income within the nation's population. Wilkinson is an economic and a medical epidemiologist that is a full professor in London, England. His co-author, Kate Pickett, is also a professor of epidemiology and is a Career Scientist with the National Institutes of Health Research.
In Harper's Canada, the only real career path of the future will be as a police officer, a correctional services worker, a probation and parole officer, security consultant and other "criminal justice" type careers. Harper's current agenda of being "tough on crime" is going to prove itself to be not only a dismal failure, but a financially irresponsible one as well. Our crime rate has actually dropped over the past couple of decades, as an aging population is less likely to breed a new (and growing) generation of violent criminals. Further, research cited in Wilkinson and Pickett has shown that non-violent offenders entering the penal system are further away from being rehabilitated and are more likely to commit further and more violent crimes in the future. In this age of "zero tolerance", economic distress is increased among those caught up in it who can ill afford to adequately defend themselves. Even the Provincial Offences Act of Ontario has taken on a very heavy handed approach to many of its offences, making more of them "strict liability" (which means there is less flexibility in defending oneself as well as range of penalties available regardless of the defendant's circumstances). The goal here is to send more and more people to jail, more and more people to destitution and more and more people into circumstances where they can come out much more distressed and recalcitrant.
I don't care what proponents of tougher crime laws want. They have a false sense of security with tougher crime laws in place. They tell us, "if people just think before they commit the crime, then they won't get punished". That is easy to believe from a middle class, supportive familial context, where opportunities, money and resources are not a problem. Those of lesser circumstances are not necessarily more violent, but they can get caught up in things that will now can result in a penal sentence. This list includes failure to pay child support, failure to appear in court (e.g. sometimes it is hard to notify somebody of their court date when the defendant does not have a fixed address), driving under suspension, alcohol and drug related offenses, prostitution-related offenses and some property related offenses. Yes, these things can result in jail terms. They say there's no debtor's prison in Canada, but there are more than a few ways where unreconciled debts and fines can eventually put one in jail.
Persons with mental health issues can sometimes join a diversion program where they can participate in a treatment program instead of going through the penal system, and for this group of people, this has proven to be effective. However, most of the people who are caught in these cycles are not always involved in the mental health system, have few supports outside of the same people that got them in trouble in the first place, and very little money. A broader crime prevention and neighbourhood rehabilitation strategy would be much more effective than a "get tough" approach on crime. Open, supportive and non-traditional supports to persons living in disadvantaged situations can prevent people from going that direction in the first place, or get them to change their behaviour.
I am not opposed to tough sentences for child molesters, murderers, organized crime, etc. In fact, I would also like to see a "tough on crime" movement for corporate crimes, such as tax evasion by company executives, pilfering of pensions funds from employee trusts, embezzlement, contractor fraud, etc. by so-called "white collar criminals". These sorts of "white collar types" are least likely to go to jail in Canada, even though they destroy many lives and are often unrepentant for what they did and usually repeat their crimes many times before they finally get shut down. If they do go to jail, it is usually for short terms and usually in favourable conditions (e.g. minimum security, early release for "good behaviour").
It is so ironic that those that support continued and increased inequality in our society seem to believe that "welfare fraud" is a huge problem, while corporate fraud is not. It is in fact the other way around, especially given the government's own statistics, as cited by others. This information came up during the inquest into the death of Kimberley Rogers, who was convicted of "welfare fraud" for having the audacity to use OSAP to get her college diploma while trying to get by on a very reduced welfare cheque. Rogers ended up getting house arrest and being barred from receiving welfare as her penalty ... as a result, she fell very far behind in her rent and was basically a prisoner in a very overheated apartment lacking air conditioning during that hot summer. She died, while she was also pregnant with her first child. Welfare fraud was studied and was found to constitute less than 1% of all monies paid out to recipients. Income tax evasion or fraud is known to be much more common and involve greater amounts of money, but only rarely gets prosecuted. The reason for this is that those that subvert our income tax laws often have the resources of highly skilled accountants and tax lawyers and can afford to front a strong defense, if charged.
At the same time, the same people that endorse policies that lead to a more unequal society tend to give to charities that do nothing to advance the interests of the poor. I have yet to find a single person who was brought out of poverty as a result of seeking help from a food bank, a homeless shelter or any similar charity. After they get their nourishment this month, they will only be hungry again and in need of help the next month, all the while those giving and perpetuating these charities continue to benefit from charitable tax deductions and other ways to hide their wealth. To me, a business would do a hell of a lot more for the poor by hiring people off the welfare rolls, qualified to do the work of course and paying them decent wages. For those they cannot hire, they can sponsor scholarships and trust funds to allow low income people to get a post-secondary education and/or to develop their own assets.
Organizations like Social and Enterprise Development Innovations provide an alternative to perpetuating poverty among the poor and treating them so much like outsiders like we do now. There are programs they develop to assist low income people into developing their own businesses, setting up individual development accounts and furthering their education. The Metcalf Foundation of Toronto also sponsors research and programs that assist in change development as well, much of it through awareness of how current welfare programs serve to keep people in poverty. Social class mobility in Canada has substantially declined since the late 1980's, given the tightening of social program eligiblity and the softening of the labour market. To argue that everybody has equal opportunity may be true, but for many, that opportunity is very, very difficult to access when society continues to put barriers in place to those that need this access the most.
Your thoughts?
This does not include all people of upper middle class or wealthy sectors, but a good amount of them. This also applies to "back to school". Newspapers are awash with media poornography dealing with how "wonderful" some company or organization has been to raise so many dollars from all of their "fortunate" (therefore, respectable and heroic) members to donate to all those "poor, pathetic, down-on-their luck failures" in our society. While they would never identify such persons as failures, an alarming number of people that give to charities consider those that receive from the same to be failures. Surveys have been done of staff in the charitable sector, and it was found they are just as likely to hold prejudicial views of those that approach them for help that members of the general public do.
For example, it is believed by these people that people are poor because they do not manage their money well, that they were wrongfully discharged from psychiatric or penal institutions, that they have no skills or lack a high school education. This is becoming less and less the norm; in fact, the norm of those that turn to charities are people who are really no different than members of the general public. Poor bashing originates from the necessity to create "otherness" in the population of the poor and homeless. People that donate to charities think they still have their jobs because they possess a work ethic and "work hard". Research originating from Jones and Harris blames the "fundamental attribution error" for this way of thinking, where if something horrible happens to somebody, that that person is somehow to blame for their circumstances and if something good happens, that person somehow did something to deserve it. This attribution error has self-serving properties, as it assuages those of us that are not falling on hard times that it will not happen to us, as we lack the internal qualities we attribute to those that these things happen to (e.g. lazy, mentally ill, a criminal). I shown readers in an earlier blog that laziness does not only reside in some of the jobless, but many wealthy and working people too. Wealth today is less likely to be earned as it might have been decades in the past.
In the recent Toronto municipal election, people elected Rob Ford because he appeared to be "an ordinary guy". People like Rob Ford and his brother, Doug Ford, both ran and won in the past municipal election. Both grew up as and remain to this day to be multi-millionaires. They own a company that was handed down to them by parents and likely grandparents that started it and made it successful. One only need see that if either Ford has enough time to be full-time councilor and Mayor, respectively, they are obviously not "working hard" in their business that they seem to be so responsible for. Being a member of a corporate board of directors or an owner of a large company is really not that much work. You just pay other people to run it for you and stop by once in awhile to make sure they are doing a good job. It is likely other people, perhaps, other members of the Ford family or perhaps, even hired management is doing the real work in this company. While I am not saying the Fords are doing anything wrong or their gains were ill-gotten, they cannot realistically portray themselves to be "ordinary guys". In my view, a single parent that works three part-time minimum wage jobs to keep her family's head above water works much harder than any CEO and nobody will convince me otherwise.
They, like most other wealthy people, won what is known as the Ovarian lottery. The "ovarian lottery" was named by Warren Buffet, one of the world's richest men, one of the few who will actually speak out about the nonsense of further tax cuts for the wealthy. Most wealth, high incomes and high level opportunities are inherited in some way - either by money given to them by living parents to complete their education, a business successorship, an inheritances after the parents or other close relatives die or similar circumstances. More about Buffet's analogy is written in Linda McQuaig and Meil Brooks' book entitled "The Trouble with Billionaires".
Before those of you reading this think this is a "left wing" commentary (which I don't understand as I don't relate well with the so-called left either), this book and its analysis was rated very positively by the managing editor of the National Post, typically a small-c conservative publication. There are others that are not as famous that also speak out about the wrong-headedness of further tax cuts for wealthy people. Tax cuts for corporations has never been proven to increase the salaries and benefit levels of those working for these companies, nor have they proven to distribute wealth or even opportunity equitably among the whole population. The founder of Wal-Mart, for example, was also one of the world's richest men, but we know people working at Wal-Mart earn very close to minimum wage. The same applies to the Weston family who still owns the largest stake in Loblaw's grocery stores and most workers in these stores are minimum wage and part-time.
Moreover, in their latest book, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, authors of The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everybody, comparisons among so called "rich" nations are made and various factors, such as infant mortality, incarceration rates, prevalence of certain kinds of health conditions (such as diabetes, heart disease), high school graduation rate, etc. were compared on the basis of a single independent variable: the gap of wealth and income within the nation's population. Wilkinson is an economic and a medical epidemiologist that is a full professor in London, England. His co-author, Kate Pickett, is also a professor of epidemiology and is a Career Scientist with the National Institutes of Health Research.
In Harper's Canada, the only real career path of the future will be as a police officer, a correctional services worker, a probation and parole officer, security consultant and other "criminal justice" type careers. Harper's current agenda of being "tough on crime" is going to prove itself to be not only a dismal failure, but a financially irresponsible one as well. Our crime rate has actually dropped over the past couple of decades, as an aging population is less likely to breed a new (and growing) generation of violent criminals. Further, research cited in Wilkinson and Pickett has shown that non-violent offenders entering the penal system are further away from being rehabilitated and are more likely to commit further and more violent crimes in the future. In this age of "zero tolerance", economic distress is increased among those caught up in it who can ill afford to adequately defend themselves. Even the Provincial Offences Act of Ontario has taken on a very heavy handed approach to many of its offences, making more of them "strict liability" (which means there is less flexibility in defending oneself as well as range of penalties available regardless of the defendant's circumstances). The goal here is to send more and more people to jail, more and more people to destitution and more and more people into circumstances where they can come out much more distressed and recalcitrant.
I don't care what proponents of tougher crime laws want. They have a false sense of security with tougher crime laws in place. They tell us, "if people just think before they commit the crime, then they won't get punished". That is easy to believe from a middle class, supportive familial context, where opportunities, money and resources are not a problem. Those of lesser circumstances are not necessarily more violent, but they can get caught up in things that will now can result in a penal sentence. This list includes failure to pay child support, failure to appear in court (e.g. sometimes it is hard to notify somebody of their court date when the defendant does not have a fixed address), driving under suspension, alcohol and drug related offenses, prostitution-related offenses and some property related offenses. Yes, these things can result in jail terms. They say there's no debtor's prison in Canada, but there are more than a few ways where unreconciled debts and fines can eventually put one in jail.
Persons with mental health issues can sometimes join a diversion program where they can participate in a treatment program instead of going through the penal system, and for this group of people, this has proven to be effective. However, most of the people who are caught in these cycles are not always involved in the mental health system, have few supports outside of the same people that got them in trouble in the first place, and very little money. A broader crime prevention and neighbourhood rehabilitation strategy would be much more effective than a "get tough" approach on crime. Open, supportive and non-traditional supports to persons living in disadvantaged situations can prevent people from going that direction in the first place, or get them to change their behaviour.
I am not opposed to tough sentences for child molesters, murderers, organized crime, etc. In fact, I would also like to see a "tough on crime" movement for corporate crimes, such as tax evasion by company executives, pilfering of pensions funds from employee trusts, embezzlement, contractor fraud, etc. by so-called "white collar criminals". These sorts of "white collar types" are least likely to go to jail in Canada, even though they destroy many lives and are often unrepentant for what they did and usually repeat their crimes many times before they finally get shut down. If they do go to jail, it is usually for short terms and usually in favourable conditions (e.g. minimum security, early release for "good behaviour").
It is so ironic that those that support continued and increased inequality in our society seem to believe that "welfare fraud" is a huge problem, while corporate fraud is not. It is in fact the other way around, especially given the government's own statistics, as cited by others. This information came up during the inquest into the death of Kimberley Rogers, who was convicted of "welfare fraud" for having the audacity to use OSAP to get her college diploma while trying to get by on a very reduced welfare cheque. Rogers ended up getting house arrest and being barred from receiving welfare as her penalty ... as a result, she fell very far behind in her rent and was basically a prisoner in a very overheated apartment lacking air conditioning during that hot summer. She died, while she was also pregnant with her first child. Welfare fraud was studied and was found to constitute less than 1% of all monies paid out to recipients. Income tax evasion or fraud is known to be much more common and involve greater amounts of money, but only rarely gets prosecuted. The reason for this is that those that subvert our income tax laws often have the resources of highly skilled accountants and tax lawyers and can afford to front a strong defense, if charged.
At the same time, the same people that endorse policies that lead to a more unequal society tend to give to charities that do nothing to advance the interests of the poor. I have yet to find a single person who was brought out of poverty as a result of seeking help from a food bank, a homeless shelter or any similar charity. After they get their nourishment this month, they will only be hungry again and in need of help the next month, all the while those giving and perpetuating these charities continue to benefit from charitable tax deductions and other ways to hide their wealth. To me, a business would do a hell of a lot more for the poor by hiring people off the welfare rolls, qualified to do the work of course and paying them decent wages. For those they cannot hire, they can sponsor scholarships and trust funds to allow low income people to get a post-secondary education and/or to develop their own assets.
Organizations like Social and Enterprise Development Innovations provide an alternative to perpetuating poverty among the poor and treating them so much like outsiders like we do now. There are programs they develop to assist low income people into developing their own businesses, setting up individual development accounts and furthering their education. The Metcalf Foundation of Toronto also sponsors research and programs that assist in change development as well, much of it through awareness of how current welfare programs serve to keep people in poverty. Social class mobility in Canada has substantially declined since the late 1980's, given the tightening of social program eligiblity and the softening of the labour market. To argue that everybody has equal opportunity may be true, but for many, that opportunity is very, very difficult to access when society continues to put barriers in place to those that need this access the most.
Your thoughts?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
A PEDAGOGY OF PRIVILEGE
Some of the people who read my blogs try to allege assumptions about my political views, or my background, or what I am doing or not doing to "help others help themselves", put in a kinder context. Die hard conservatives, or at least people who have convinced themselves that they must support this ideology or be considered a "fringe group", accuse me of being a left-winger. I don't consider myself a left-winger, as many of my friends on the left accuse me of being a conservative of sorts. In the history of blogs here, I have opposed unions, opposed public housing, queried about the accountability of so many government hand-outs, opposed the bailouts of big business, opposed the HST, as well as questioned many facets about the social work and poverty-based industries.
On the other hand, accepting a hard-right ideology to me is no different than accepting a hard-left ideology. I've met and spoke to people who label themselves conservative that cannot engage in an intellectual debate about the topics they claim to oppose my opinions on. One in particular tried to claim climate change was a hoax, but could not claim knowledge or familiarity of a single peer-reviewed study that states this as fact. The person instead insisted that the one individual who brought the issue up was responsible for doing the "homework", not him. To me, this just indicated that this individual actually knows quite little about this topic, but his chosen ideology dictates to him what position he takes.
In turn, they personalize every statement their opponents make, and make assumptions about where they are coming from, as opposed to responding with like arguments that support their own position. I am in the legal profession, and in order to work in this field, I better know how to raise both fact and law to back any argument I make or expect to lose. In other words, to many of these right wing ideologues, anybody that does not agree with them are "socialists" or in the US, "liberals". Those on the left broadly label those on the right as being "greedy". I consider myself a radical centrist, because I believe that politics is the art of compromise, and that public policy should be based on expert review and evaluation, as opposed to political persuasion. Unfortunately, most people base their votes and opinions on stereotypes and when it feels good to put others lesser than themselves down, in order to make themselves feel better.
However, apart from those on the two extremes, there are heuristic reasons why some people tend to make assumptions about others, or blame others for their own misfortunes. In my experience, the very wealthy and even self-made wealthy tend to be more liberal and broad-minded in their vision as a whole, than many in the upper middle class and/or unionized working classes. Individuals who are very wealthy can self-exclude themselves from elements of society they find distasteful or bothersome, and in their own small way, many of them try to make things better for those in difficult circumstances. Foundations bear many of their names, as well as several I know that own companies take specific people under their wing to develop them as persons, increase their skills and eventually hire them. People with this kind of wealth have choices, and for the most part, they realize that.
However, those in the middle and upper-middle classes, have a differential view of how little their personal choices took them to where they are, versus circumstances. Very wealthy people also tend to be well-educated, and growing up, are almost constantly reminded about how "lucky" they are. The kinds of problems that develop in wealthy families tend to come out differently and impact people involved in a different way than the same types of problems for those in middle and upper-middle income families. For the most part, wealth is shared, either through inheritance, through family ties and through cultural connections, such as association with others in the same country clubs, associations, university alumni, etc. The sense of belonging among the wealthier parts of the country does not rely on what one's neighbours think, or what charities they support ... The problems arise in wealthy families are when love is bought with money, and the support does not go with it ...
However, in the middle class and upper middle classes, there is a lot of control, albeit usually as a benevolent dictatorship over the lives of their offspring. Those in the middle and upper middle classes want to emulate the wealthy because they want to be there someday themselves, even though their chances of making it there aren't large. In families, there is programming on the basis of gender, friendships, morality and values, and cultural leanings. While this "benevolent dictatorship" is in effect, offspring in these families also benefit from a large amount of support: cultural, social, emotional and financial. There is a lot said about older kids nowadays not leaving home until they are well into their twenties, and sometimes early thirties ... the offspring witnesses what their parents have been able to take from the world and benefit from, while they themselves fear not being able to do this for themselves. Yet at the same time, there are more parents than there were in the past that have funded or helped fund their child's post-secondary education, helped them purchase their first house, or even paid for a honeymoon when they get married ...
I know this through my own observations of ten and a half years floating through the post-secondary education system. During my time, there were students relying largely on OSAP, but over time, these numbers have dropped, as parents were more able to provide this support. New financial instruments made it possible for middle income parents to provide this type of support. Further, parents of older children often have more than one vehicle in the yard, and encourage their children to learn to drive shortly after they are legally able to. Vehicle ownership and use is as much of a cultural inheritance, as is one's cultural assumptions of what a parent owes their children with respect to post-secondary education. There is a perception among the middle and upper-middle income families that vehicle ownership, purchasing a home, and graduating from university, is a way to "make it".
However, with these new cultural norms, develops a new form of cultural privilege. If you grew up in a family like this, it is difficult for you to picture what it is like for somebody that did not. Some families have the means, but refuse to assist their children into adulthood; others simply cannot afford it and those offspring often have to resort to the public system to obtain what they need, and from past experience, I know this to be a crap shoot. Unfortunately, there are more people who are privileged in a middle to upper middle class type of way, than those who are not, which has led to this biased heuristic.
For example, a child from a low income or working class family knows that they are different from the time they enter the school system. The school system is set up to replicate the values and mores of those that appear to comprise the majority of parents in their catchment area. Those that run for the school board, and those that serve in high level staff positions at the school board also have the same cultural background and privilege as most parents. Those parents of minority situations, poverty, disability and other "differences" are only active or heard from when it comes to special needs children, because that is where the run of the mill educational system neglects people in the most overt way.
It is not that teachers and principals haven't heard of poverty, as you can probably ask any of them and they will relate stories to you about the girl that wore summer shoes to school in the winter or the boy that never had a good winter coat. They don't see these cases as being in the majority of their classes, but these people are noticed. Unfortunately, most teachers and principals alike tend to buy into the same ideology that if someone "works hard", they should be able to escape poverty. Maybe, because their parents worked hard and paid for their education, and they were then able to take advantage of their family's backing and purchase a home, keep family in the loop, and enjoy these types of relationships that not everybody has. To many of them, they think they can do good for the impoverished students by buying a pair of boots for the girl or a coat for the boy, and pretending this will make the school experience for these children better. Unfortunately, more often than not, it doesn't improve things ... the new coat or the new boots might be appreciated (or not), but the family these children come from are not given one added opportunity, one route of escape from poverty or one smidgen of hope.
While the middle or upper middle class teacher does not view it this way (that an act of charity can actually hurt the self-esteem of a child or family), they do not understand what happens in the cultural context that the child lives in. Let me give you an example: e. g. this was a situation I personally witnessed. I visited the home of a new employee I hired at a business I managed about fifteen years ago. Her son who was about eight or nine years old at the time, came home from school with a new pair of boots and a gift voucher for a nearby grocery store. He told his mother that his teacher gave these items to him, after they noticed he wasn't wearing any boots that particularly difficult winter. The boy appeared angry and embarrassed, and the mother who was also my new employee, took the boy to another room to talk privately to him (and not in front of me). I learned later that she and her husband have been struggling to pay bills on Ontario Works for a year or so, and did not even want to tell me about that.
I explained to her that she will not need to worry about that anymore because her job will definitely take them off welfare for good, and that I hired her for her skills and abilities, not for some picky criteria that many employers today use. The long and short end of this was that she made the best employee I ever hired, in any of the places I ever managed or operated. For those naysayers that say that those who work hard will avoid poverty, this woman was an example of somebody that worked hard almost everyday of her life, raising two special needs children, and trying to work around their needs, while making only enough to supplement, not get her family off assistance. She later told me that she felt honored to be working in the organization that I hired her for, and that she found it hard to believe that I actually accommodated her with respect to her health conditions she had at the time, as well as issues concerning one of her young children.
This is something I felt I had to do as an employer, not for her or for anybody in particular, but in order to keep that office running, and have good people working there. I had an obligation as an employer to do this. I was never one to go out to buy a pair of boots for a kid, or give them my daughter's old winter coat, as an act of charity. I was always more interested in what I can do to address the issue to begin with, and do it with dignity. But then again, I was not somebody that was raised in a stable, two-parent, loving household either ... While I am sure both of my parents loved me in their own way, their own mistakes, personal lives and other issues, took precedence over their concern over my welfare as a child. On my own since my teens, I realize what a value a stable household gives to individuals and ensures almost a poverty-proof life for that child, esp when emotional, social, cultural and financial support are all combined.
I was always somebody who would make sure that anybody working for me would include their costs, mileage, parking and other expenses, so they knew they were supported in the work they were doing for my office. I did this for others, despite others never doing this for me. In another office I managed, I sought funding specifically addressing the skills of two individuals in the office I knew were the lowest paid, so I can increase their hours and total pay, without as much as asking for increase in my own salary. These things all took place in the 1990's, during a time of so-called retrenchment in social programming. It is sad, however, when the administration was taken over by somebody else, with a completely different philosophy as to what constituted qualifications, work ethics and results. This individual was really no different than many of the employers I find around here, believing there are no human variables, just a right to exclusionary practices.
Many people find it hard to believe over thirty percent of Niagara residents do not have a driver's license, or lost it for whatever reason. I bump into these people all the time, those who were unable to get around to get their licenses, those who lost them due to a medical problem, or were never able to get it. Virtually none of them are working for much, if at all. Those that have grown up with the kind of supports I describe above, actually believe that the men that don't drive must have got there for a reason, e.g. drug abuse, not paying child support. For the women, it is assumed they have a husband or some other sugar daddy that makes the big bucks, so all they are looking for is minimum wage work. These same people, after saying something like that, are embarrassed after I tell them why I don't drive ... not feeling bad for what they said, but being caught with their words. I am sure I might have educated a few of them over time, but this does not push people out of their comfort zone.
There are middle class folks worrying about losing their jobs, marriages falling apart and people getting into serious accident and illnesses, making them worry about their future all the time. There are folks that conduct a lot of research for example to reassure this sector of the middle class to convince them that they will never become homeless, because they want to make it look like those that DO become homeless are mentally ill, substance abusers or ex-inmates of psychiatric facilities - make these people in worse circumstances appear to be authors of their misfortune in some way, or at least so much "out there" that the same thing will not happen to them. Well, if one has never been involved with any of those things, they're safe, right? At least, that is what the political agenda of this type of research is about ... when in fact, none of these people are safe. I am a witness of this, watching a man who worked for a factory for twenty-eight years end up on the street, another man lose his home after a messy marriage break-up and he lived in his car, and so on ... these stories are not that uncommon, and none of them have mental illness or alcoholism to push them there.
These same middle class folks get reassured that if they "work hard", they will make it. At the same time, other privileged folks, perhaps secure (for now) in their jobs, tell the public under an assumed name of course, how people on welfare don't want to work, and how there are plenty of Tim Horton's jobs available, and everything. If I took this one woman that I referred to earlier that I hired in a fairly well-paid position to a Tim Horton's, she would never be hired - she had two university degrees, a special needs child, and a propensity for migraine headaches, which would throw any normal employer off base ... but she delivered fine for me, because unlike others she apparently worked for, I accommodated her. And even if Timmy's weren't so picky, there will have to be at least 800,000 new openings in places like this in order to get everybody off welfare ... but one can dream, right?
The same people who argue these points claim themselves as charitable and how they would help a deserving person, which is nice to hear, but neither he, nor I, nor even 100,000 people like he or I will be able to help everybody who needs help on an individual self-selective basis like this. In fact, the most needy will be left out, which is why the state took these functions over. Remember the story of Dorothea Dix, who fought to take the ill, the poor, the dying from run-down poor houses into state-run facilities, where they would receive the care and help they needed. And when these institutions became overcrowded and inhumane, people like Claire Hinks, and others fought for their right to live in the community.
Today I am doing something like this. I am continuing to fight for people's right to not only live in the community, among us, but to contribute what they can ... and be given respect and opportunities to do the same. I don't have a background of privilege, whether that be cultural, social, financial or familial ... but I do in fact believe in people, and because people of privilege exist ... I don't feel I need to assist them, as they have this support already. Why do they need me to push and advocate on their behalf, when they already have the resources they need? I am there to provide this to those that truly need the help, ask for it, and provide this assistance in a dignified manner ... so these folks will for once, or once again, feel that they belong - something that no charity, now matter how well intended, can ever do for them.
Your thoughts?
On the other hand, accepting a hard-right ideology to me is no different than accepting a hard-left ideology. I've met and spoke to people who label themselves conservative that cannot engage in an intellectual debate about the topics they claim to oppose my opinions on. One in particular tried to claim climate change was a hoax, but could not claim knowledge or familiarity of a single peer-reviewed study that states this as fact. The person instead insisted that the one individual who brought the issue up was responsible for doing the "homework", not him. To me, this just indicated that this individual actually knows quite little about this topic, but his chosen ideology dictates to him what position he takes.
In turn, they personalize every statement their opponents make, and make assumptions about where they are coming from, as opposed to responding with like arguments that support their own position. I am in the legal profession, and in order to work in this field, I better know how to raise both fact and law to back any argument I make or expect to lose. In other words, to many of these right wing ideologues, anybody that does not agree with them are "socialists" or in the US, "liberals". Those on the left broadly label those on the right as being "greedy". I consider myself a radical centrist, because I believe that politics is the art of compromise, and that public policy should be based on expert review and evaluation, as opposed to political persuasion. Unfortunately, most people base their votes and opinions on stereotypes and when it feels good to put others lesser than themselves down, in order to make themselves feel better.
However, apart from those on the two extremes, there are heuristic reasons why some people tend to make assumptions about others, or blame others for their own misfortunes. In my experience, the very wealthy and even self-made wealthy tend to be more liberal and broad-minded in their vision as a whole, than many in the upper middle class and/or unionized working classes. Individuals who are very wealthy can self-exclude themselves from elements of society they find distasteful or bothersome, and in their own small way, many of them try to make things better for those in difficult circumstances. Foundations bear many of their names, as well as several I know that own companies take specific people under their wing to develop them as persons, increase their skills and eventually hire them. People with this kind of wealth have choices, and for the most part, they realize that.
However, those in the middle and upper-middle classes, have a differential view of how little their personal choices took them to where they are, versus circumstances. Very wealthy people also tend to be well-educated, and growing up, are almost constantly reminded about how "lucky" they are. The kinds of problems that develop in wealthy families tend to come out differently and impact people involved in a different way than the same types of problems for those in middle and upper-middle income families. For the most part, wealth is shared, either through inheritance, through family ties and through cultural connections, such as association with others in the same country clubs, associations, university alumni, etc. The sense of belonging among the wealthier parts of the country does not rely on what one's neighbours think, or what charities they support ... The problems arise in wealthy families are when love is bought with money, and the support does not go with it ...
However, in the middle class and upper middle classes, there is a lot of control, albeit usually as a benevolent dictatorship over the lives of their offspring. Those in the middle and upper middle classes want to emulate the wealthy because they want to be there someday themselves, even though their chances of making it there aren't large. In families, there is programming on the basis of gender, friendships, morality and values, and cultural leanings. While this "benevolent dictatorship" is in effect, offspring in these families also benefit from a large amount of support: cultural, social, emotional and financial. There is a lot said about older kids nowadays not leaving home until they are well into their twenties, and sometimes early thirties ... the offspring witnesses what their parents have been able to take from the world and benefit from, while they themselves fear not being able to do this for themselves. Yet at the same time, there are more parents than there were in the past that have funded or helped fund their child's post-secondary education, helped them purchase their first house, or even paid for a honeymoon when they get married ...
I know this through my own observations of ten and a half years floating through the post-secondary education system. During my time, there were students relying largely on OSAP, but over time, these numbers have dropped, as parents were more able to provide this support. New financial instruments made it possible for middle income parents to provide this type of support. Further, parents of older children often have more than one vehicle in the yard, and encourage their children to learn to drive shortly after they are legally able to. Vehicle ownership and use is as much of a cultural inheritance, as is one's cultural assumptions of what a parent owes their children with respect to post-secondary education. There is a perception among the middle and upper-middle income families that vehicle ownership, purchasing a home, and graduating from university, is a way to "make it".
However, with these new cultural norms, develops a new form of cultural privilege. If you grew up in a family like this, it is difficult for you to picture what it is like for somebody that did not. Some families have the means, but refuse to assist their children into adulthood; others simply cannot afford it and those offspring often have to resort to the public system to obtain what they need, and from past experience, I know this to be a crap shoot. Unfortunately, there are more people who are privileged in a middle to upper middle class type of way, than those who are not, which has led to this biased heuristic.
For example, a child from a low income or working class family knows that they are different from the time they enter the school system. The school system is set up to replicate the values and mores of those that appear to comprise the majority of parents in their catchment area. Those that run for the school board, and those that serve in high level staff positions at the school board also have the same cultural background and privilege as most parents. Those parents of minority situations, poverty, disability and other "differences" are only active or heard from when it comes to special needs children, because that is where the run of the mill educational system neglects people in the most overt way.
It is not that teachers and principals haven't heard of poverty, as you can probably ask any of them and they will relate stories to you about the girl that wore summer shoes to school in the winter or the boy that never had a good winter coat. They don't see these cases as being in the majority of their classes, but these people are noticed. Unfortunately, most teachers and principals alike tend to buy into the same ideology that if someone "works hard", they should be able to escape poverty. Maybe, because their parents worked hard and paid for their education, and they were then able to take advantage of their family's backing and purchase a home, keep family in the loop, and enjoy these types of relationships that not everybody has. To many of them, they think they can do good for the impoverished students by buying a pair of boots for the girl or a coat for the boy, and pretending this will make the school experience for these children better. Unfortunately, more often than not, it doesn't improve things ... the new coat or the new boots might be appreciated (or not), but the family these children come from are not given one added opportunity, one route of escape from poverty or one smidgen of hope.
While the middle or upper middle class teacher does not view it this way (that an act of charity can actually hurt the self-esteem of a child or family), they do not understand what happens in the cultural context that the child lives in. Let me give you an example: e. g. this was a situation I personally witnessed. I visited the home of a new employee I hired at a business I managed about fifteen years ago. Her son who was about eight or nine years old at the time, came home from school with a new pair of boots and a gift voucher for a nearby grocery store. He told his mother that his teacher gave these items to him, after they noticed he wasn't wearing any boots that particularly difficult winter. The boy appeared angry and embarrassed, and the mother who was also my new employee, took the boy to another room to talk privately to him (and not in front of me). I learned later that she and her husband have been struggling to pay bills on Ontario Works for a year or so, and did not even want to tell me about that.
I explained to her that she will not need to worry about that anymore because her job will definitely take them off welfare for good, and that I hired her for her skills and abilities, not for some picky criteria that many employers today use. The long and short end of this was that she made the best employee I ever hired, in any of the places I ever managed or operated. For those naysayers that say that those who work hard will avoid poverty, this woman was an example of somebody that worked hard almost everyday of her life, raising two special needs children, and trying to work around their needs, while making only enough to supplement, not get her family off assistance. She later told me that she felt honored to be working in the organization that I hired her for, and that she found it hard to believe that I actually accommodated her with respect to her health conditions she had at the time, as well as issues concerning one of her young children.
This is something I felt I had to do as an employer, not for her or for anybody in particular, but in order to keep that office running, and have good people working there. I had an obligation as an employer to do this. I was never one to go out to buy a pair of boots for a kid, or give them my daughter's old winter coat, as an act of charity. I was always more interested in what I can do to address the issue to begin with, and do it with dignity. But then again, I was not somebody that was raised in a stable, two-parent, loving household either ... While I am sure both of my parents loved me in their own way, their own mistakes, personal lives and other issues, took precedence over their concern over my welfare as a child. On my own since my teens, I realize what a value a stable household gives to individuals and ensures almost a poverty-proof life for that child, esp when emotional, social, cultural and financial support are all combined.
I was always somebody who would make sure that anybody working for me would include their costs, mileage, parking and other expenses, so they knew they were supported in the work they were doing for my office. I did this for others, despite others never doing this for me. In another office I managed, I sought funding specifically addressing the skills of two individuals in the office I knew were the lowest paid, so I can increase their hours and total pay, without as much as asking for increase in my own salary. These things all took place in the 1990's, during a time of so-called retrenchment in social programming. It is sad, however, when the administration was taken over by somebody else, with a completely different philosophy as to what constituted qualifications, work ethics and results. This individual was really no different than many of the employers I find around here, believing there are no human variables, just a right to exclusionary practices.
Many people find it hard to believe over thirty percent of Niagara residents do not have a driver's license, or lost it for whatever reason. I bump into these people all the time, those who were unable to get around to get their licenses, those who lost them due to a medical problem, or were never able to get it. Virtually none of them are working for much, if at all. Those that have grown up with the kind of supports I describe above, actually believe that the men that don't drive must have got there for a reason, e.g. drug abuse, not paying child support. For the women, it is assumed they have a husband or some other sugar daddy that makes the big bucks, so all they are looking for is minimum wage work. These same people, after saying something like that, are embarrassed after I tell them why I don't drive ... not feeling bad for what they said, but being caught with their words. I am sure I might have educated a few of them over time, but this does not push people out of their comfort zone.
There are middle class folks worrying about losing their jobs, marriages falling apart and people getting into serious accident and illnesses, making them worry about their future all the time. There are folks that conduct a lot of research for example to reassure this sector of the middle class to convince them that they will never become homeless, because they want to make it look like those that DO become homeless are mentally ill, substance abusers or ex-inmates of psychiatric facilities - make these people in worse circumstances appear to be authors of their misfortune in some way, or at least so much "out there" that the same thing will not happen to them. Well, if one has never been involved with any of those things, they're safe, right? At least, that is what the political agenda of this type of research is about ... when in fact, none of these people are safe. I am a witness of this, watching a man who worked for a factory for twenty-eight years end up on the street, another man lose his home after a messy marriage break-up and he lived in his car, and so on ... these stories are not that uncommon, and none of them have mental illness or alcoholism to push them there.
These same middle class folks get reassured that if they "work hard", they will make it. At the same time, other privileged folks, perhaps secure (for now) in their jobs, tell the public under an assumed name of course, how people on welfare don't want to work, and how there are plenty of Tim Horton's jobs available, and everything. If I took this one woman that I referred to earlier that I hired in a fairly well-paid position to a Tim Horton's, she would never be hired - she had two university degrees, a special needs child, and a propensity for migraine headaches, which would throw any normal employer off base ... but she delivered fine for me, because unlike others she apparently worked for, I accommodated her. And even if Timmy's weren't so picky, there will have to be at least 800,000 new openings in places like this in order to get everybody off welfare ... but one can dream, right?
The same people who argue these points claim themselves as charitable and how they would help a deserving person, which is nice to hear, but neither he, nor I, nor even 100,000 people like he or I will be able to help everybody who needs help on an individual self-selective basis like this. In fact, the most needy will be left out, which is why the state took these functions over. Remember the story of Dorothea Dix, who fought to take the ill, the poor, the dying from run-down poor houses into state-run facilities, where they would receive the care and help they needed. And when these institutions became overcrowded and inhumane, people like Claire Hinks, and others fought for their right to live in the community.
Today I am doing something like this. I am continuing to fight for people's right to not only live in the community, among us, but to contribute what they can ... and be given respect and opportunities to do the same. I don't have a background of privilege, whether that be cultural, social, financial or familial ... but I do in fact believe in people, and because people of privilege exist ... I don't feel I need to assist them, as they have this support already. Why do they need me to push and advocate on their behalf, when they already have the resources they need? I am there to provide this to those that truly need the help, ask for it, and provide this assistance in a dignified manner ... so these folks will for once, or once again, feel that they belong - something that no charity, now matter how well intended, can ever do for them.
Your thoughts?
Thursday, December 25, 2008
AND MAY YOUR CHRISTMAS BE A CHARMED ONE ...
Christmas was always one of my favourite times of the year. It is not so much the giving and receiving of presents, but the presence of others that saves me from myself. After all, Christmas is one of the few times of the year I can truly take time off, as others are more involved in other aspects of their lives and are less concerned with legal hassles, except for the few odd emergencies I worked through in previous years.
While I love Christmas and always look forward in anticipation with the lights, the music and the whole idea of starting off fresh in a new year, it is also a time of year when my cynicism reaches fever pitch. The Salvation Army commercials come on about this time of the year, flashing their statistics on your TV screen, asking you to give, give, give. Food banks are forever predicting a "crisis" of sorts if some white knight or white knights do not come to the rescue with hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the homeless shelters promise to feed the hungry a turkey dinner.
This is a "feel good" time of the year for people who are comfortable. Giving money to a food bank, or a financial donation to a shelter seems to be the thing to do to ease oneself of the guilt of never having to have been a recipient of such a service. For those among us that give very large donations, most do not mind the press coverage - especially a company, as it shows "good corporate citizenship" (even though the same company receiving the heaps of good press may actually be one that pays low wages and treats their workers badly -- but how do we know?). Despite the "good citizenship" deeds that tend to be performed at this time of the year, we hardly give a thought about how the people at the receiving end feel about being at the receiving end. Has anybody ever asked them?
The charitable sector has become ingrained into our political culture to the point whereby we do not really think of those that receive our help, as any more than people who are needy, dependent and in some way, damaged goods. While this is certainly not a conscious assumption, nor is it present in every case of giving ... as I do know personal friends who have formed more reciprocal relationships with the people they set out to help. Unfortunately, this is an exception, not the rule.
When I speak to people who have gone to food banks or other charitable services on a regular basis (as opposed to going only for that one year when times were tough), I learn most of these folks have a very low self-esteem. Some do not believe they are "deserving" of a better life, such as a life where they would have enough resources to reasonably make choices. While they are thankful for the help, they do not see themselves as empowered human beings that are viewed by others as individuals with capabilities, talents and resources of their own. A portion of this group try to steer themselves away from charitable services, thinking they would "rather starve" than accept this help from anyone.
When prospective donors hear about this subset of people who refuse help, they are viewed as "mentally ill" or simply possessing "pride". However, when donors to these services are asked about the people they are "helping", once again - this population is viewed as somewhat helpless, dispossessed and unwanted, although they do acknowledge that some people are getting help as a result of "falling on hard times through no fault of their own". The complicated pseudo-relationship and inherent schema that is developed between the donor and the recipient is rarely considered in how recipients come to view themselves, or their own futures - when in my view, it has EVERYTHING to do with this attitude.
This is not about the people that provide services in this field, the thousands of volunteers that toil daily to sort through donations, others that appeal to the media for more donations and other persons, usually paid personnel that provide direct service to the recipients. It is more about the schema produced and not challenged by these same thousand points of light and the media that backs them about the necessary dichotomy between the helpers and the recipients, roles that are not portrayed as interchanged or interdependent. This role is further entrenched by the screening processes used by such charities to ensure each recipient is "deserving" of help.
Similar to any targeted welfare scheme, prospective recipients are encouraged to disengage themselves as actors and potential participants in their futures, but to focus on everything that is wrong with their lives ... in fact, as with many welfare schemes, one has to prove they have depersonalized themselves and spoiled their identity to the point that the helper is satisfied they have done all they can to reduce themselves to nothing. At the same time, nothing is offered up to address the situation that brought the recipient through their doors in the first place. Many trained in the service delivery model identify with the "spoiled identity" or "damaged goods" version of their entrails, as opposed to questioning why there appears to be a greater number of people each year in similar given circumstances.
While even the social work model professes to work against systemic barriers in favour of progressive social change, this is not what happens when people check their identities at the door to get the so-called "help" they need. The helper is there to "correct" supposed personal deficits of the disadvantaged, as opposed to helping them break barriers to join the "advantaged" part of society. For many social workers and others in related helping professions, they cannot even imagine their clients qualifying to do their jobs, for example.
While most helpers do not necessarily "blame the victim", they do nevertheless, view the victim as somewhat defective. The homeless man is "mentally ill". The single parent with two children in tow is always in abusive relationships. The single man who lost his apartment needs to learn how to balance his budget. The chronically unemployed are there because they are illiterate, lack high school and likely, do not have any skills. When other statistics are presented that show that recipients as a group look more similar to the group of "helpers" than they are dissimilar, helpers resist this interpretation.
I have focused some of my time over the years to talk to people who do not visit food banks, go to homeless shelters or seek other types of counseling assistance - even though their life circumstances and their needs may be identical to those that do use such services. While my observations may be anecdotal in nature, the same themes have emerged over time through different voices. What I have learned from these folks is instrumental and should be not only acknowledged by those that deliver services, but incorporated in their overall philosophy and structure of how they approach anybody coming through their door.
1. People want to be viewed as capable and willing to do for
themselves. A hand out in any way, shape or form makes
the person feel they are viewed as dependent and incapable
of doing for themselves, that somebody with "capability"
must do these things for them.
2. People want a hand up, not a hand out. Traditional charities
are very bad at recognizing that people want out of the
"welfare trap" more than they may believe they need
immediate help. People refusing services know they will not
get a job, get out of poverty or get into decent (and
independent) housing through the charitable service. In
other words, their programs do not work.
3. Even if the service is successful in getting the recipient
"housing", for example, the roof over their head becomes
a social service and not just a necessary product for living
in the community. Homeless people are assumed to be
incapable of living on their own and keeping their housing.
People with mental health issues are assumed to have
issues, outside the fact they are poor and nobody will hire
them, which led to them becoming homeless. Everybody
is deemed to want and need "subsidized" housing, despite
the fact the rules for this program tend to cripple initiative
and force people to remain in poverty.
People that do not want these services may need help to
secure an apartment, but after that, they do not want to
be fodder and continue to be a "cause" for ongoing income
for the charity. (The fact of this matter is those that can
live independently are often falsely assumed to not need
ANY help at all).
4. People want help to reach their full potential, not to
cripple it. Most of those refusing help do not want to
work in low-wage, insecure and low-skilled employment.
They want assistance in developing their career potential,
even though doing this may require funds for retraining,
partial employer subsidies and innovative partnerships
in one's respective community. Charities get paid to
"place" people, not get them out of poverty.
5. People want to work with their helpers as partners in
making systemic change. They want their helpers to
challenge employers that appear to not want persons
with disabilities working for them, or only want them if
the person is happy at working for half-wages. They
want to work with the helpers at making changes so that
the services of charities become less and less necessary.
6. Many of those refusing help feel that their presence as
"clients" of these agencies only "proves" demand and
thus, continues to generate ongoing funding for these
charities, regardless if their personal situation improves.
7. With regards to being given food, clothing, housing, etc.
- people feel they are not allowed to make choices. Why
is nobody giving those in need the necessary RESOURCES
to make these choices on their own, as opposed to making
these choices for them?
The very presence of these charities and the encouragement through the media, community influences and other forces, encourages those that want to "do good" to continue to donate and to otherwise continue to "prove" the legitimacy of these charities, as well as to continue to ignore and disregard the need for true systemic changes that would negate the need for the same.
We go ahead and have our Christmas with our families, go to work the next day or day after, and give to some charitable donation because society expects us to pick up the slack from the government. We do not think about the fact that continuing to support the status quo is taking away choices from those that can otherwise handle them with the resources given directly to them, instead of through an expensive and controlling bureaucracy. We do not think that we may be contributing to the continuation of the problem, not necessarily because we want to, but by donating to the charities, there is still no way any donor can reasonably review the success of any such charity in actually changing things for the people they serve.
Except next year at this very same time, even more people will be knocking on the doors of these same charities, many more in even more desperate circumstances. By continuing this cycle, we have to ask ourselves why we are not asking the correct questions and demanding to know why the more people give, the greater number of people end up in need ...
Think about what you are going to do in 2009, whether what you do will actually make a difference (systemic change) or just continue the same old, same old. If you ask me what I want to do, it is the former -- hands down!
Your thoughts?
While I love Christmas and always look forward in anticipation with the lights, the music and the whole idea of starting off fresh in a new year, it is also a time of year when my cynicism reaches fever pitch. The Salvation Army commercials come on about this time of the year, flashing their statistics on your TV screen, asking you to give, give, give. Food banks are forever predicting a "crisis" of sorts if some white knight or white knights do not come to the rescue with hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the homeless shelters promise to feed the hungry a turkey dinner.
This is a "feel good" time of the year for people who are comfortable. Giving money to a food bank, or a financial donation to a shelter seems to be the thing to do to ease oneself of the guilt of never having to have been a recipient of such a service. For those among us that give very large donations, most do not mind the press coverage - especially a company, as it shows "good corporate citizenship" (even though the same company receiving the heaps of good press may actually be one that pays low wages and treats their workers badly -- but how do we know?). Despite the "good citizenship" deeds that tend to be performed at this time of the year, we hardly give a thought about how the people at the receiving end feel about being at the receiving end. Has anybody ever asked them?
The charitable sector has become ingrained into our political culture to the point whereby we do not really think of those that receive our help, as any more than people who are needy, dependent and in some way, damaged goods. While this is certainly not a conscious assumption, nor is it present in every case of giving ... as I do know personal friends who have formed more reciprocal relationships with the people they set out to help. Unfortunately, this is an exception, not the rule.
When I speak to people who have gone to food banks or other charitable services on a regular basis (as opposed to going only for that one year when times were tough), I learn most of these folks have a very low self-esteem. Some do not believe they are "deserving" of a better life, such as a life where they would have enough resources to reasonably make choices. While they are thankful for the help, they do not see themselves as empowered human beings that are viewed by others as individuals with capabilities, talents and resources of their own. A portion of this group try to steer themselves away from charitable services, thinking they would "rather starve" than accept this help from anyone.
When prospective donors hear about this subset of people who refuse help, they are viewed as "mentally ill" or simply possessing "pride". However, when donors to these services are asked about the people they are "helping", once again - this population is viewed as somewhat helpless, dispossessed and unwanted, although they do acknowledge that some people are getting help as a result of "falling on hard times through no fault of their own". The complicated pseudo-relationship and inherent schema that is developed between the donor and the recipient is rarely considered in how recipients come to view themselves, or their own futures - when in my view, it has EVERYTHING to do with this attitude.
This is not about the people that provide services in this field, the thousands of volunteers that toil daily to sort through donations, others that appeal to the media for more donations and other persons, usually paid personnel that provide direct service to the recipients. It is more about the schema produced and not challenged by these same thousand points of light and the media that backs them about the necessary dichotomy between the helpers and the recipients, roles that are not portrayed as interchanged or interdependent. This role is further entrenched by the screening processes used by such charities to ensure each recipient is "deserving" of help.
Similar to any targeted welfare scheme, prospective recipients are encouraged to disengage themselves as actors and potential participants in their futures, but to focus on everything that is wrong with their lives ... in fact, as with many welfare schemes, one has to prove they have depersonalized themselves and spoiled their identity to the point that the helper is satisfied they have done all they can to reduce themselves to nothing. At the same time, nothing is offered up to address the situation that brought the recipient through their doors in the first place. Many trained in the service delivery model identify with the "spoiled identity" or "damaged goods" version of their entrails, as opposed to questioning why there appears to be a greater number of people each year in similar given circumstances.
While even the social work model professes to work against systemic barriers in favour of progressive social change, this is not what happens when people check their identities at the door to get the so-called "help" they need. The helper is there to "correct" supposed personal deficits of the disadvantaged, as opposed to helping them break barriers to join the "advantaged" part of society. For many social workers and others in related helping professions, they cannot even imagine their clients qualifying to do their jobs, for example.
While most helpers do not necessarily "blame the victim", they do nevertheless, view the victim as somewhat defective. The homeless man is "mentally ill". The single parent with two children in tow is always in abusive relationships. The single man who lost his apartment needs to learn how to balance his budget. The chronically unemployed are there because they are illiterate, lack high school and likely, do not have any skills. When other statistics are presented that show that recipients as a group look more similar to the group of "helpers" than they are dissimilar, helpers resist this interpretation.
I have focused some of my time over the years to talk to people who do not visit food banks, go to homeless shelters or seek other types of counseling assistance - even though their life circumstances and their needs may be identical to those that do use such services. While my observations may be anecdotal in nature, the same themes have emerged over time through different voices. What I have learned from these folks is instrumental and should be not only acknowledged by those that deliver services, but incorporated in their overall philosophy and structure of how they approach anybody coming through their door.
1. People want to be viewed as capable and willing to do for
themselves. A hand out in any way, shape or form makes
the person feel they are viewed as dependent and incapable
of doing for themselves, that somebody with "capability"
must do these things for them.
2. People want a hand up, not a hand out. Traditional charities
are very bad at recognizing that people want out of the
"welfare trap" more than they may believe they need
immediate help. People refusing services know they will not
get a job, get out of poverty or get into decent (and
independent) housing through the charitable service. In
other words, their programs do not work.
3. Even if the service is successful in getting the recipient
"housing", for example, the roof over their head becomes
a social service and not just a necessary product for living
in the community. Homeless people are assumed to be
incapable of living on their own and keeping their housing.
People with mental health issues are assumed to have
issues, outside the fact they are poor and nobody will hire
them, which led to them becoming homeless. Everybody
is deemed to want and need "subsidized" housing, despite
the fact the rules for this program tend to cripple initiative
and force people to remain in poverty.
People that do not want these services may need help to
secure an apartment, but after that, they do not want to
be fodder and continue to be a "cause" for ongoing income
for the charity. (The fact of this matter is those that can
live independently are often falsely assumed to not need
ANY help at all).
4. People want help to reach their full potential, not to
cripple it. Most of those refusing help do not want to
work in low-wage, insecure and low-skilled employment.
They want assistance in developing their career potential,
even though doing this may require funds for retraining,
partial employer subsidies and innovative partnerships
in one's respective community. Charities get paid to
"place" people, not get them out of poverty.
5. People want to work with their helpers as partners in
making systemic change. They want their helpers to
challenge employers that appear to not want persons
with disabilities working for them, or only want them if
the person is happy at working for half-wages. They
want to work with the helpers at making changes so that
the services of charities become less and less necessary.
6. Many of those refusing help feel that their presence as
"clients" of these agencies only "proves" demand and
thus, continues to generate ongoing funding for these
charities, regardless if their personal situation improves.
7. With regards to being given food, clothing, housing, etc.
- people feel they are not allowed to make choices. Why
is nobody giving those in need the necessary RESOURCES
to make these choices on their own, as opposed to making
these choices for them?
The very presence of these charities and the encouragement through the media, community influences and other forces, encourages those that want to "do good" to continue to donate and to otherwise continue to "prove" the legitimacy of these charities, as well as to continue to ignore and disregard the need for true systemic changes that would negate the need for the same.
We go ahead and have our Christmas with our families, go to work the next day or day after, and give to some charitable donation because society expects us to pick up the slack from the government. We do not think about the fact that continuing to support the status quo is taking away choices from those that can otherwise handle them with the resources given directly to them, instead of through an expensive and controlling bureaucracy. We do not think that we may be contributing to the continuation of the problem, not necessarily because we want to, but by donating to the charities, there is still no way any donor can reasonably review the success of any such charity in actually changing things for the people they serve.
Except next year at this very same time, even more people will be knocking on the doors of these same charities, many more in even more desperate circumstances. By continuing this cycle, we have to ask ourselves why we are not asking the correct questions and demanding to know why the more people give, the greater number of people end up in need ...
Think about what you are going to do in 2009, whether what you do will actually make a difference (systemic change) or just continue the same old, same old. If you ask me what I want to do, it is the former -- hands down!
Your thoughts?
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
CLASS AND POPULAR CULTURE
As expressed repetitively here, the two last taboos in our society are classism and ableism. Classism really comes to light when policy discussions around poverty take place. On mainstream chatlines, we hear about how 90% of those collecting "disability pensions" are not really disabled, how "welfare fraud" is so rampant and how people on social assistance shouldn't be allowed to smoke, own pets or have an occasional beer. Successive governments since the 1980's made it okay to pick on the poor. Well, shouldn't they all just "get a job"?
In addition to hearing these comments, low-income people do not see themselves in popular culture. Low-income people are not the heroes or heroines in the movies, nor are they the positive protagonists in popular novels. If poor people are portrayed, they are depicted as dirty, unhygienic and leaches at best; criminals at worst. The hit television series Trailer Park Boys, though portraying its main characters in many ways as lovable and sometimes deserving of our sympathies, they are also portrayed as small time criminals and irresponsible. "Ricky" is seen as a high school drop-out, a petty thief, a marijuana user and irresponsible, living full time in an old beat up vehicle. "Bubbles", bearing Coke-bottle glasses, lives in a make-shift shack built out of plywood among dozens of cats. "Julian" is portrayed as the smarter one, who has a real home in Sunnyvale Trailer Park, but nevertheless, gets involved in Ricky's schemes and he too, is a small time criminal.
Years ago, a comedy series called Good Times portrayed a black family living in the ghetto. MAD Magazine had no trouble producing a spoof of the series by poking fun at the poverty of this family. One example given was when the kids asked their mother what was for breakfast, she responded "a box of Corn Flakes". The kids then pointed out to her that there were no corn flakes in the box, then she repeated, "That's what I said, the box of corn flakes!" Poor families in movies were always portrayed as families with too many children, most of which were never properly dressed or fed, usually clinging to a stay-at-home mother that collects a big welfare cheque. These stereotypes have borne well over time and have translated into social policy with limits on how many children a family can receive welfare for, almost implying that the first thing a woman does when she qualifies is to go have more kids.
What about the news media? While there appears to be a lot more discussion on poverty in certain print media, such as the Toronto Star, low-income people are still portrayed as somebody to be pitied, usually under-educated, poor English, or if homeless, riddled with addictions. Those that give to charities, especially 'band aid' organizations like food banks, are portrayed as heroes and given positive press coverage, while those that must rely on food banks are either portrayed pitifully or somehow incapable of competing in our "fair society". However, in these same newpapers, even in the same editions where stories about poverty are published, three full sections of the paper depict luxury cars, while another depicts travel to faraway places and around the end of February, numerous articles about investments are published. If low-income readers are still reading the paper, they certainly do not find themselves in it.
This is only part of the onslaught that low-income families face on a regular basis from the mass media. Low-income families are said to spend more time watching television than middle and upper income families, because outside activities are out of reach for many of them. However, the television only serves as yet another reminder that they do not belong. Actors portray roles in sit-coms, movies and documentaries that perpetuate the myth that everybody's "middle class". Actors always seem to have fancy late model vehicles, or live in spacious homes. During the 1970's, the Brady Bunch, while trying to introduce the concept of a blended family, only served to 'normalize' middle class privilege. Despite this "intact" family having six children to support, Mike Brady (the father) was a sole earner and was able to afford a spacious family home, regular family vacations and keep "Alice", their maid, on the household's payroll. Later versions like The Cosbys, Married with Children, Family Ties, and even Friends (though this is about young urban professionals) and Sex and the City adhere to a middle to upper-middle class standard as the 'norm'. Even with Sex and the City making itself a movie hit on the big screen, popular fashion and jewellery associated with the characters in the show are now becoming a "fad". Yeah, must be nice.
Though many people do not watch television commercials that are supposed to give us a break from this steady diet from this salacious consumerism and class-biased assumptions, commercials apparently do sell to many people ... how often do you watch late night shows only to be bombarded with zoom, zoom, zoom (Mazda commercials), encouraging you to "discover Ireland" or to invest with Fidelity. Low-income people don't care about these commercials and don't have the resources to purchase these products, yet they are bombarded all the time with the culture-think that "everybody else" can buy these things. Regardless of how true that is, low-income people continue to not see themselves in these commercials. The poor are isolated, have no voice.
Once in awhile, however, a commercial for a public service or charitable organization comes online whereas we see children running around bone thin with fat stomachs and tons of flies around them, as we are persuaded to give a monthly donation to a "child like ____________". These 'sponsor a child' advertisements thwart the middle class perception of what poverty is about in their own backyard. Poverty in developing countries, while certainly an international disgrace, that is certainly a planned misadventure on the part of irresponsible governments and greedy world organizations that act as "lenders", cannot overshadow the poverty that is amongst us. We cannot become a country of hypocrites, although this is what we seem to want to be. We can't cry to the press about how we got to give more and more money and resources to "children in Africa", while our neighbours continue to go without and suffer irreparably as a result of constant financial pressures and food insecurity. We can't as businesses give huge charitable donations to food banks, while we pay our employees low wages, which only set them up to go to the food banks the boss just wrote a big cheque to.
We have to stop keeping our own poverty as an invisible vice of our society. Instead of going to demonstrations and throwing water bombs at politicians, it might be an avenue for some creative organizations to develop cultural initiatives that include people living in poverty, to give them a voice. Musicians can write songs that include what life is like for low-income people. Tracy Chapman, Bruce Springsteen, Eddie Grant, among others, already have ... make culture accessible to people on low-incomes, make it include them and who they are. Commercials may wish to include low-income people using a relatively inexpensive cleaning product, saving a LOT of money at a sale at Wal-Mart or using a no-charge banking service. Bank of America ran a few ads a few years ago that included people with disabilities and how the bank has made its services accessible. These persons were not portrayed as "pathetic" persons, but as ordinary people living ordinary lives who at some point needed to visit a bank. Inclusive design in cultural initiatives is going to be a tough go, but it is not impossible.
Movies showing a low-income protagonist living an ordinary life, somebody who is not illiterate, not a criminal and not a "mental patient" would also be nice to watch. The movie doesn't have to be about poverty issues, but it can show that the protagonist is informed, self-aware and capable of being something more. They do not need to run off with a handsome prince in the end, but a message can be shown that low-income people have some capacity and can be fully participating citizens. Perhaps, the protagonist does not have a car, but it shows her walk her children to school and watch them in their school plays. Perhaps, the protagonist does not live in a spacious house, but has a small, but clean apartment. The message is not only in the struggle, but in the possibilities. Perhaps, a story about a single parent on welfare struggling for custody of her disabled child against all odds, but in the end, love wins out. The movie I am Sam kind of mixed both the poverty and the disability issues quite well, leaving the protagonist somebody that anybody can love.
The movie 8 Mile also portrayed a character raised on the 'other side of the tracks' in Detroit, Michigan. He was white, lived with his mother who was hooked up with an alcoholic man who apparently abused her. His growing intolerance of the situation at home grew as his ambition developed into becoming a white rap artist that won the hearts and souls of Detroit's black community. This movie, starring Eminem himself, portrays the part of "rabbit", whose life played along pretty much like his did. Amazingly at the end, those watching saw how talented this man actually became. The most poignant part came at the end after he won a hip-hop contest against a group of blacks, his friend who encouraged him to join asked him to come back and play, as doesn't he want to see everybody look up to him? "Rabbit" turned around and told him, "I have to go to work. I'm probably going to do it my own way". Nevertheless, Eminem became quite wealthy with hit records, his own line of clothing and many appearances. While I am not a big hip-hop fan, I listened and learned that this man does have considerable talent.
Popular culture needs to show more of these types of movies, not only portraying the rags to riches story of Eminem, the fabled Matthew Mathers from the ghettos of Detroit, but low-income people just living out their lives, earning the little victories. The movie Nobody's Child, based on the life story of Marie Balter was such a story ... her life as a youngster, severely "mentally ill" and institutionalized as schizophrenic and highly phobic, ends the movie by speaking at a meeting held by the very institution she was in. She started her speech by telling everybody there, many of the same doctors and nurses who were there when she was hospitalized, that, "When I left this place, many of you shook your head and said to me that I'll be back. Well, today I am back" (she was appointed to an executive position at this same facility many years later).
Using popular culture as a way to "educate" the public is an effective tool. I once met a man when I went to college who used to meet up with my husband and I, who were then attending different courses at the same college, for lunch. He often joked around about how problems can be solved, make a movie about it ... to some extent, this is a very strong part of what I believe in regarding the way popular culture can be developed as a tool of sorts, in addition to all the other work we do. When we see people with mental health issues that do not end taking a saw and hacking people to death, or a Middle-Eastern man that does not board planes and hijack them, we begin to learn that people with differences are more like us than different from us. This is especially true if we have a chance to "meet" their families, their children and follow them through their day ... but, unfortunately, popular culture still promotes many stereotypes that do not help our work.
Part of the exclusion people in low-income communities feel is because they do not see themselves portrayed in popular culture in a positive way. As a human community, we tend to relate to many of the characters we see on TV or those that sing about their sorrows on the radio. We all want to be liked. We all want to have friends. We all want to belong. Portrayal of poverty under its stereotypes or not at all makes it feel like one doesn't belong; promoting products and services during evening hours on television that only upper middle class can afford makes the low-income feel they don't belong; and certainly, writing about poverty by giving admiration and adulation to those that give thousands of dollars to the charities that should be put out of necessity (as opposed to becoming a growth industry) makes those that rely on those charities feel like a burden, and many also tend to view themselves in the same ways that mainstream Internet chat groups do: that they are not working hard enough, that they are not giving enough to their children, that they are not a good parent, that they are not a good provider, etc. Let's start lifting the burden and empowering them to help themselves and to portray themselves as yet another colourful part of our multicultural social fabric.
By normalizing their experiences, people will feel less bad about what they are going through, as well as develop a sense of hope for the future. By further portraying realistic figures into popular culture, perhaps less people will be so eager to bash the poor and understand that deep inside, we are all the same.
In addition to hearing these comments, low-income people do not see themselves in popular culture. Low-income people are not the heroes or heroines in the movies, nor are they the positive protagonists in popular novels. If poor people are portrayed, they are depicted as dirty, unhygienic and leaches at best; criminals at worst. The hit television series Trailer Park Boys, though portraying its main characters in many ways as lovable and sometimes deserving of our sympathies, they are also portrayed as small time criminals and irresponsible. "Ricky" is seen as a high school drop-out, a petty thief, a marijuana user and irresponsible, living full time in an old beat up vehicle. "Bubbles", bearing Coke-bottle glasses, lives in a make-shift shack built out of plywood among dozens of cats. "Julian" is portrayed as the smarter one, who has a real home in Sunnyvale Trailer Park, but nevertheless, gets involved in Ricky's schemes and he too, is a small time criminal.
Years ago, a comedy series called Good Times portrayed a black family living in the ghetto. MAD Magazine had no trouble producing a spoof of the series by poking fun at the poverty of this family. One example given was when the kids asked their mother what was for breakfast, she responded "a box of Corn Flakes". The kids then pointed out to her that there were no corn flakes in the box, then she repeated, "That's what I said, the box of corn flakes!" Poor families in movies were always portrayed as families with too many children, most of which were never properly dressed or fed, usually clinging to a stay-at-home mother that collects a big welfare cheque. These stereotypes have borne well over time and have translated into social policy with limits on how many children a family can receive welfare for, almost implying that the first thing a woman does when she qualifies is to go have more kids.
What about the news media? While there appears to be a lot more discussion on poverty in certain print media, such as the Toronto Star, low-income people are still portrayed as somebody to be pitied, usually under-educated, poor English, or if homeless, riddled with addictions. Those that give to charities, especially 'band aid' organizations like food banks, are portrayed as heroes and given positive press coverage, while those that must rely on food banks are either portrayed pitifully or somehow incapable of competing in our "fair society". However, in these same newpapers, even in the same editions where stories about poverty are published, three full sections of the paper depict luxury cars, while another depicts travel to faraway places and around the end of February, numerous articles about investments are published. If low-income readers are still reading the paper, they certainly do not find themselves in it.
This is only part of the onslaught that low-income families face on a regular basis from the mass media. Low-income families are said to spend more time watching television than middle and upper income families, because outside activities are out of reach for many of them. However, the television only serves as yet another reminder that they do not belong. Actors portray roles in sit-coms, movies and documentaries that perpetuate the myth that everybody's "middle class". Actors always seem to have fancy late model vehicles, or live in spacious homes. During the 1970's, the Brady Bunch, while trying to introduce the concept of a blended family, only served to 'normalize' middle class privilege. Despite this "intact" family having six children to support, Mike Brady (the father) was a sole earner and was able to afford a spacious family home, regular family vacations and keep "Alice", their maid, on the household's payroll. Later versions like The Cosbys, Married with Children, Family Ties, and even Friends (though this is about young urban professionals) and Sex and the City adhere to a middle to upper-middle class standard as the 'norm'. Even with Sex and the City making itself a movie hit on the big screen, popular fashion and jewellery associated with the characters in the show are now becoming a "fad". Yeah, must be nice.
Though many people do not watch television commercials that are supposed to give us a break from this steady diet from this salacious consumerism and class-biased assumptions, commercials apparently do sell to many people ... how often do you watch late night shows only to be bombarded with zoom, zoom, zoom (Mazda commercials), encouraging you to "discover Ireland" or to invest with Fidelity. Low-income people don't care about these commercials and don't have the resources to purchase these products, yet they are bombarded all the time with the culture-think that "everybody else" can buy these things. Regardless of how true that is, low-income people continue to not see themselves in these commercials. The poor are isolated, have no voice.
Once in awhile, however, a commercial for a public service or charitable organization comes online whereas we see children running around bone thin with fat stomachs and tons of flies around them, as we are persuaded to give a monthly donation to a "child like ____________". These 'sponsor a child' advertisements thwart the middle class perception of what poverty is about in their own backyard. Poverty in developing countries, while certainly an international disgrace, that is certainly a planned misadventure on the part of irresponsible governments and greedy world organizations that act as "lenders", cannot overshadow the poverty that is amongst us. We cannot become a country of hypocrites, although this is what we seem to want to be. We can't cry to the press about how we got to give more and more money and resources to "children in Africa", while our neighbours continue to go without and suffer irreparably as a result of constant financial pressures and food insecurity. We can't as businesses give huge charitable donations to food banks, while we pay our employees low wages, which only set them up to go to the food banks the boss just wrote a big cheque to.
We have to stop keeping our own poverty as an invisible vice of our society. Instead of going to demonstrations and throwing water bombs at politicians, it might be an avenue for some creative organizations to develop cultural initiatives that include people living in poverty, to give them a voice. Musicians can write songs that include what life is like for low-income people. Tracy Chapman, Bruce Springsteen, Eddie Grant, among others, already have ... make culture accessible to people on low-incomes, make it include them and who they are. Commercials may wish to include low-income people using a relatively inexpensive cleaning product, saving a LOT of money at a sale at Wal-Mart or using a no-charge banking service. Bank of America ran a few ads a few years ago that included people with disabilities and how the bank has made its services accessible. These persons were not portrayed as "pathetic" persons, but as ordinary people living ordinary lives who at some point needed to visit a bank. Inclusive design in cultural initiatives is going to be a tough go, but it is not impossible.
Movies showing a low-income protagonist living an ordinary life, somebody who is not illiterate, not a criminal and not a "mental patient" would also be nice to watch. The movie doesn't have to be about poverty issues, but it can show that the protagonist is informed, self-aware and capable of being something more. They do not need to run off with a handsome prince in the end, but a message can be shown that low-income people have some capacity and can be fully participating citizens. Perhaps, the protagonist does not have a car, but it shows her walk her children to school and watch them in their school plays. Perhaps, the protagonist does not live in a spacious house, but has a small, but clean apartment. The message is not only in the struggle, but in the possibilities. Perhaps, a story about a single parent on welfare struggling for custody of her disabled child against all odds, but in the end, love wins out. The movie I am Sam kind of mixed both the poverty and the disability issues quite well, leaving the protagonist somebody that anybody can love.
The movie 8 Mile also portrayed a character raised on the 'other side of the tracks' in Detroit, Michigan. He was white, lived with his mother who was hooked up with an alcoholic man who apparently abused her. His growing intolerance of the situation at home grew as his ambition developed into becoming a white rap artist that won the hearts and souls of Detroit's black community. This movie, starring Eminem himself, portrays the part of "rabbit", whose life played along pretty much like his did. Amazingly at the end, those watching saw how talented this man actually became. The most poignant part came at the end after he won a hip-hop contest against a group of blacks, his friend who encouraged him to join asked him to come back and play, as doesn't he want to see everybody look up to him? "Rabbit" turned around and told him, "I have to go to work. I'm probably going to do it my own way". Nevertheless, Eminem became quite wealthy with hit records, his own line of clothing and many appearances. While I am not a big hip-hop fan, I listened and learned that this man does have considerable talent.
Popular culture needs to show more of these types of movies, not only portraying the rags to riches story of Eminem, the fabled Matthew Mathers from the ghettos of Detroit, but low-income people just living out their lives, earning the little victories. The movie Nobody's Child, based on the life story of Marie Balter was such a story ... her life as a youngster, severely "mentally ill" and institutionalized as schizophrenic and highly phobic, ends the movie by speaking at a meeting held by the very institution she was in. She started her speech by telling everybody there, many of the same doctors and nurses who were there when she was hospitalized, that, "When I left this place, many of you shook your head and said to me that I'll be back. Well, today I am back" (she was appointed to an executive position at this same facility many years later).
Using popular culture as a way to "educate" the public is an effective tool. I once met a man when I went to college who used to meet up with my husband and I, who were then attending different courses at the same college, for lunch. He often joked around about how problems can be solved, make a movie about it ... to some extent, this is a very strong part of what I believe in regarding the way popular culture can be developed as a tool of sorts, in addition to all the other work we do. When we see people with mental health issues that do not end taking a saw and hacking people to death, or a Middle-Eastern man that does not board planes and hijack them, we begin to learn that people with differences are more like us than different from us. This is especially true if we have a chance to "meet" their families, their children and follow them through their day ... but, unfortunately, popular culture still promotes many stereotypes that do not help our work.
Part of the exclusion people in low-income communities feel is because they do not see themselves portrayed in popular culture in a positive way. As a human community, we tend to relate to many of the characters we see on TV or those that sing about their sorrows on the radio. We all want to be liked. We all want to have friends. We all want to belong. Portrayal of poverty under its stereotypes or not at all makes it feel like one doesn't belong; promoting products and services during evening hours on television that only upper middle class can afford makes the low-income feel they don't belong; and certainly, writing about poverty by giving admiration and adulation to those that give thousands of dollars to the charities that should be put out of necessity (as opposed to becoming a growth industry) makes those that rely on those charities feel like a burden, and many also tend to view themselves in the same ways that mainstream Internet chat groups do: that they are not working hard enough, that they are not giving enough to their children, that they are not a good parent, that they are not a good provider, etc. Let's start lifting the burden and empowering them to help themselves and to portray themselves as yet another colourful part of our multicultural social fabric.
By normalizing their experiences, people will feel less bad about what they are going through, as well as develop a sense of hope for the future. By further portraying realistic figures into popular culture, perhaps less people will be so eager to bash the poor and understand that deep inside, we are all the same.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
POVERTY IS BAD FOR BUSINESS!!!
Every once in awhile, the new Right through its various associations and accomplices chooses to attack government for the costs it generates. Their only solution it appears is to lower taxes, ease the burden on the upper classes to "encourage" investment. However, these same organizations are not present when it comes to how the government is going to cover the added costs of poverty that seems to almost always follow huge tax decreases for the well-heeled. The well-heeled just turn to a 'law and order' agenda and wonder why people are "going crazy" all of a sudden and how society is no longer safe. People even in small towns are interviewed and they tell the media how they used to keep their doors unlocked and can longer do so.
In my own community, while the rate of homicide and violent crimes seem to be decreasing, the rate for property-related and fraud-related crimes seems to be on the rise. We are constantly hearing about how debit machines are getting "rigged" to copy valuable information from people's magnetic strip on their cards and somehow high tech keypads pick up the P.I.N. numbers that are associated with the cards. The new fraudsters then go home to make copies of the unaware victims' debt cards and clean out their bank accounts. Home repair "contractors" go door to door to sign up unsuspecting customers who will give the "repair person" a down-payment who will then disappear with their money, never to return again to actually carry out the repairs. Telephone "fraudsters" will call and claim to represent a legitimate company or charity and ask for your credit card information to "upgrade" your existing cable, telephone or utility service that you currently subscribe to. Others with less cunning and less resources hang out on street corners to ask for spare change to take a bus or to buy a coffee. These incidents have risen geometrically over the past 20 years; however, our taxpayer federations continue to cry out how much we pay in taxes and how many people are "abusing" social services. They fail to see the connections I see with the rising rate of non-violent crimes involving property and fraud.
I talk to many of the business owners I know well in the downtown of my community. They feel bad about it, but they say if it were not for the drug dealers in the area, they'd probably be out of business. Legitimate consumers are decreasing in population, while those who are obtaining their profits through crime are increasing, it seems. We all complain that "somebody" needs to do something to "crack down" on fraud and so-called illegitimate claims for legitimate avenues, such as insurance cases, welfare benefits, worker's compensation, etc. At the same time, I am seeing a sharp increase in the number of legitimate claimants appearing at my office who have been unfairly robbed of their claims and are now losing their homes, businesses and families because of this. Where does this end? I know members of the general public have no clue what a legitimate claimant has to go through in order to claim what is legitimately theirs by law. Webpages, discussion groups and public forums are filled to the brim with people that think that "90% or more" of those claiming disability for example are perfectly able to work, but just don't want to. Others advocate that people with disabilities should be paid less because the writers are under the impression that disabled persons are less capable of contributing than a "regular person". Others complain of increased taxes going to "immigrants, welfare fraud and scammers", when in fact none of these people EVER personally experienced what they claim the "others" they speak of either experienced or claimed to be experiencing. The taxpayer's federations want more money to spend on foreign investments, foreign vacations and foreign products, because these particular individuals ALREADY have more than enough to spend on domestic products and services, so they just want to get greedy and get more.
A report called "Growing Gap" has been published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which shows that the top 10% of the income bracket (or those most likely to complain about so-called higher taxes) actually gained more than 16% in terms of real growth of net incomes over the past twenty years. Those in the so-called "middle classes", if there is such a thing anymore, have not gained much, except possibly a net gain of $53 per annum in real money (constant $2005 dollar) over the past twenty years. The lowest income brackets actually lost almost 20% of their real income over the past twenty years (and this is working low-income ... those forced to rely on government transfer programs are argued to have lost more than 30% over the past 20 years). This is not good enough apparently for those that want further taxes shaved off their annual tax bill ... they don't see any connection to how the suffering of the very poor can very well be connected to more taxes in the future for all of us (including the well-heeled that complain the loudest) and less property security.
All one has to do is sit in a bar or a doughnut shop or a drop-in centre to listen to what people are forced to do, the choices they are being forced to make -- one of course can always choose the honest path, but it turns out that if one does so, they will only fall further behind. If you want a clearer idea about how honesty destroys any chances of getting ahead, read "Why is it so tough to get ahead?" by John Stapleton and his associates at the Metcalf Foundation, which can be downloaded from here. People in subsidized housing are shot down the minute they declare earnings in excess of $100 a month; people on social assistance are shot down by 50% for any dollar they earn whatsoever; people whose annual income exceeds $20.000 a year even by a little bit, begin to lose access to subsidized housing and many other child-related benefits. Those that do not want to lose have to cheat to win, thus which is why we have laws to catch the so-called "scammers". Of course, Kimberly Rogers, of Sudbury, Ontario, who "cheated" welfare in order to get an education and get off the system eventually, was convicted of scamming welfare, because she was not permitted to collect welfare AND go to school. A whole inquest and dozens of recommendations later, nothing changed. Our taxpayers' coalitions and uneducated right continue to clamour on for more and deeper cuts, so they can afford two or even three SUVs and Florida vacations, while "other people" starve.
The reality of the matter is that we are ALL paying for poverty and allowing it to continue. The upper classes may not feel it as much, as most of their investments and concerns are not domestic. However, for everybody else, ranging from the barber, the baker and the candlestick-maker, they have all noticed the impact of increased and tolerated poverty in the past twenty years. Why?
The facts:
1. Poor people do not go to movies, rent videos, buy new clothing, buy jewellery, or eat out.
The more poor people there are, the less people there are in a community that is doing all of those things. This affects small business. Wealthy people who are now allowed to pay less taxes are not going to buy MORE domestic products, because they already have what they need. Why would a wealthy family, for example, go out and buy MORE groceries than they need just because they have more 'disposable' income? Those who are earning less, or getting less on their welfare incomes, are not spending as much, because the cost of their housing is crowding out any other income that would normally be used on groceries, clothing, transportation, eating out, etc.
2. Poor people have poorer health outcomes and are subject to higher health care costs.
One statistic that is particularly shocking is that poor people have four times as much chance of becoming diabetic than those of middle and upper income brackets, even when weight is factored in. Complications from diabetes, such as amputations, heart disease, blindness and high blood pressure are at least twice as likely in low-income diabetics than in diabetics from other social classes. This is even after access to medical plans and universal health care in Canada is accounted for. The poor are twice as likely to develop irreversible heart conditions as others. They are more than three times as likely to suffer from nosocomial (or hospital-based) infections than other people and are more likely to be put into nursing homes, where care is less than optimal. Some people have argued this is almost a deliberate strategy to save money, but most of these people do not die right away, but end up costing hundreds of thousands of more dollars to the system -- even the U.S.-based health care system -- than middle and upper class persons do.
3. Poor families are more likely to be a target of child protection services.
How many of you heard of a wealthy family having their children apprehended from them for reasons of supposed neglect? If this happens at all, it is rare. The wealthy have good lawyers and are also able to hide any neglect they might impose if they were prone to this. The statistics also show that 87% of families that have children's aid involved with them on an ongoing basis are low-income or working class families. The poor are more likely to have a child apprehended from them, usually on the basis of 'environmental conditions'. Perhaps, their teachers reported seeing them without a proper winter coat or regularly coming to school without lunches. Explored further, there are always skeletons that can be exposed in ANY family, but wealthy families do not attract this kind of attention. At a cost of $2,300 per month per child, we as taxpayers need to ask good questions about the accountability of the child protection system and whether or not it is being operated on the basis of social class and culture, as opposed to actual signs of abuse and neglect.
4. Poverty breeds crime.
Middle and upper income people believe that welfare is "prone" to abuse and that because of this, tighter controls need to be placed on recipients. Some even advocate food stamps and direct-pay for rental housing (which if studies of these policies were examined would learn that social class becomes caste-like and stratification between classes becomes impossible for most). What happens to people who have little in a society that seems to have plenty is that some of the poor will attempt to acquire what they feel they deserve through illegal or illicit means ,,, people turn to prostitution, drug dealing, small time theft rings, fraud, etc. to supplement their meagre incomes. Who are these people defrauding? You and me. You and I are the people that answer our phones to "charities" asking for our credit card numbers. You and I use "debit machines" where fraudsters are learning more and more sophisticated skills in skimming. You are I are working in the retail business that is becoming more and more subject to shoplifters and outright robberies. You and I are having to lock our doors, install security systems and take taxis home in order to protect ourselves from the 'seedy' side of our population.
While criminals may have a later motive for drug purchases and addiction, they almost always started with a motive of poverty. They have to pay their rent. They have to eat. They have to earn an income. They have to pay child support. Around them are commercials for fancy home renovations, brand new computerized cars, fancy cell phones, computers and other gadgets that "the rest" of society can afford without having to turn to crime. We think nothing of replacing our car every two or three years, replacing a computer every four years and buying new clothes to attend the latest gala function or wedding of a family or friend. People living in poverty cannot do these things. Some of them suffer because they do not want to risk committing a crime; others become less shy about knocking off the nearest variety store to get what they want ... or get engaged in the drug trade. In seedy neighbourhoods, the drug trade is open and available and for young kids that get nothing at home, the opportunity to drive a nice car, wear expensive jewellery and dress in fashionable clothing is too great. What are we doing as a society other than worsening the situation by sending out non-verbal signals that people of low-incomes are somehow less deserving of a modern life?
Mental health is a major loser as well in all this throw for show societal expectations among us. People who live in subsidized housing and CANNOT get ahead because of housing rules are bound to break them. People who cannot get ahead due to stringent treatment of earnings on welfare are bound to break them. Think about it. If you were forced to pay 80% of your income on taxes today, only to pay a bit more as your income goes up ... will you be less likely to claim your extra income? The rate of tax evasion and "cheating" on income taxes outnumbers the number of people who cheat on welfare by 10 to 1, not because welfare recipients are more honest, but because the dogs are on them all the time! Unfortunately, for many -- NOT claiming their income while on welfare or in subsidized housing is probably the only way they will break the cycle of poverty. This certainly needs to be looked at by the government folks assigned to look into poverty, but even doing this is not going to get poor people to spend more or make them healthier.
This is a very complex situation that needs more of an examination than the cursory one that is given today. Unfortunately, it is the food banks, the charities and the homeless shelters, as well as certain public services that benefit from the presence of the poor ... and these organizations need to be dealt with, not put in charge of any anti-poverty strategy. There are staffers of food banks and homeless shelters making $80,000 and above - why would they want to truly see poverty ended? Wouldn't there be a better incentive by government for example to fund people on the basis of poverty-reduction, as opposed to continuation of the same old - same old? I am not saying many of these people do not have a conscience or are not concerned, but their very livelihoods and thus, their financial interests are geared toward the rapid increase of poverty today!
Poverty is bad for business because poor people do not spend. Poverty is bad for business because poor people cost more in terms of health care, corrections, social services and related expenses. Businesses do not benefit from having to pay more taxes to cover the costs of these things. Poverty is bad for business because there will soon be less and less places to safely locate one's business without having to put up with panhandlers and drug dealers outside your front door. Because we ALL know inherently this is true, I am calling on ALL OF YOU to push the government into developing a serious -- and not superficial or politically smooth sounding plan -- to not only reduce, but to eliminate poverty altogether! It should be considered the scourge of a modern society to even accept the presence of poverty amidst our so-called wealth!
Your thoughts?
In my own community, while the rate of homicide and violent crimes seem to be decreasing, the rate for property-related and fraud-related crimes seems to be on the rise. We are constantly hearing about how debit machines are getting "rigged" to copy valuable information from people's magnetic strip on their cards and somehow high tech keypads pick up the P.I.N. numbers that are associated with the cards. The new fraudsters then go home to make copies of the unaware victims' debt cards and clean out their bank accounts. Home repair "contractors" go door to door to sign up unsuspecting customers who will give the "repair person" a down-payment who will then disappear with their money, never to return again to actually carry out the repairs. Telephone "fraudsters" will call and claim to represent a legitimate company or charity and ask for your credit card information to "upgrade" your existing cable, telephone or utility service that you currently subscribe to. Others with less cunning and less resources hang out on street corners to ask for spare change to take a bus or to buy a coffee. These incidents have risen geometrically over the past 20 years; however, our taxpayer federations continue to cry out how much we pay in taxes and how many people are "abusing" social services. They fail to see the connections I see with the rising rate of non-violent crimes involving property and fraud.
I talk to many of the business owners I know well in the downtown of my community. They feel bad about it, but they say if it were not for the drug dealers in the area, they'd probably be out of business. Legitimate consumers are decreasing in population, while those who are obtaining their profits through crime are increasing, it seems. We all complain that "somebody" needs to do something to "crack down" on fraud and so-called illegitimate claims for legitimate avenues, such as insurance cases, welfare benefits, worker's compensation, etc. At the same time, I am seeing a sharp increase in the number of legitimate claimants appearing at my office who have been unfairly robbed of their claims and are now losing their homes, businesses and families because of this. Where does this end? I know members of the general public have no clue what a legitimate claimant has to go through in order to claim what is legitimately theirs by law. Webpages, discussion groups and public forums are filled to the brim with people that think that "90% or more" of those claiming disability for example are perfectly able to work, but just don't want to. Others advocate that people with disabilities should be paid less because the writers are under the impression that disabled persons are less capable of contributing than a "regular person". Others complain of increased taxes going to "immigrants, welfare fraud and scammers", when in fact none of these people EVER personally experienced what they claim the "others" they speak of either experienced or claimed to be experiencing. The taxpayer's federations want more money to spend on foreign investments, foreign vacations and foreign products, because these particular individuals ALREADY have more than enough to spend on domestic products and services, so they just want to get greedy and get more.
A report called "Growing Gap" has been published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which shows that the top 10% of the income bracket (or those most likely to complain about so-called higher taxes) actually gained more than 16% in terms of real growth of net incomes over the past twenty years. Those in the so-called "middle classes", if there is such a thing anymore, have not gained much, except possibly a net gain of $53 per annum in real money (constant $2005 dollar) over the past twenty years. The lowest income brackets actually lost almost 20% of their real income over the past twenty years (and this is working low-income ... those forced to rely on government transfer programs are argued to have lost more than 30% over the past 20 years). This is not good enough apparently for those that want further taxes shaved off their annual tax bill ... they don't see any connection to how the suffering of the very poor can very well be connected to more taxes in the future for all of us (including the well-heeled that complain the loudest) and less property security.
All one has to do is sit in a bar or a doughnut shop or a drop-in centre to listen to what people are forced to do, the choices they are being forced to make -- one of course can always choose the honest path, but it turns out that if one does so, they will only fall further behind. If you want a clearer idea about how honesty destroys any chances of getting ahead, read "Why is it so tough to get ahead?" by John Stapleton and his associates at the Metcalf Foundation, which can be downloaded from here. People in subsidized housing are shot down the minute they declare earnings in excess of $100 a month; people on social assistance are shot down by 50% for any dollar they earn whatsoever; people whose annual income exceeds $20.000 a year even by a little bit, begin to lose access to subsidized housing and many other child-related benefits. Those that do not want to lose have to cheat to win, thus which is why we have laws to catch the so-called "scammers". Of course, Kimberly Rogers, of Sudbury, Ontario, who "cheated" welfare in order to get an education and get off the system eventually, was convicted of scamming welfare, because she was not permitted to collect welfare AND go to school. A whole inquest and dozens of recommendations later, nothing changed. Our taxpayers' coalitions and uneducated right continue to clamour on for more and deeper cuts, so they can afford two or even three SUVs and Florida vacations, while "other people" starve.
The reality of the matter is that we are ALL paying for poverty and allowing it to continue. The upper classes may not feel it as much, as most of their investments and concerns are not domestic. However, for everybody else, ranging from the barber, the baker and the candlestick-maker, they have all noticed the impact of increased and tolerated poverty in the past twenty years. Why?
The facts:
1. Poor people do not go to movies, rent videos, buy new clothing, buy jewellery, or eat out.
The more poor people there are, the less people there are in a community that is doing all of those things. This affects small business. Wealthy people who are now allowed to pay less taxes are not going to buy MORE domestic products, because they already have what they need. Why would a wealthy family, for example, go out and buy MORE groceries than they need just because they have more 'disposable' income? Those who are earning less, or getting less on their welfare incomes, are not spending as much, because the cost of their housing is crowding out any other income that would normally be used on groceries, clothing, transportation, eating out, etc.
2. Poor people have poorer health outcomes and are subject to higher health care costs.
One statistic that is particularly shocking is that poor people have four times as much chance of becoming diabetic than those of middle and upper income brackets, even when weight is factored in. Complications from diabetes, such as amputations, heart disease, blindness and high blood pressure are at least twice as likely in low-income diabetics than in diabetics from other social classes. This is even after access to medical plans and universal health care in Canada is accounted for. The poor are twice as likely to develop irreversible heart conditions as others. They are more than three times as likely to suffer from nosocomial (or hospital-based) infections than other people and are more likely to be put into nursing homes, where care is less than optimal. Some people have argued this is almost a deliberate strategy to save money, but most of these people do not die right away, but end up costing hundreds of thousands of more dollars to the system -- even the U.S.-based health care system -- than middle and upper class persons do.
3. Poor families are more likely to be a target of child protection services.
How many of you heard of a wealthy family having their children apprehended from them for reasons of supposed neglect? If this happens at all, it is rare. The wealthy have good lawyers and are also able to hide any neglect they might impose if they were prone to this. The statistics also show that 87% of families that have children's aid involved with them on an ongoing basis are low-income or working class families. The poor are more likely to have a child apprehended from them, usually on the basis of 'environmental conditions'. Perhaps, their teachers reported seeing them without a proper winter coat or regularly coming to school without lunches. Explored further, there are always skeletons that can be exposed in ANY family, but wealthy families do not attract this kind of attention. At a cost of $2,300 per month per child, we as taxpayers need to ask good questions about the accountability of the child protection system and whether or not it is being operated on the basis of social class and culture, as opposed to actual signs of abuse and neglect.
4. Poverty breeds crime.
Middle and upper income people believe that welfare is "prone" to abuse and that because of this, tighter controls need to be placed on recipients. Some even advocate food stamps and direct-pay for rental housing (which if studies of these policies were examined would learn that social class becomes caste-like and stratification between classes becomes impossible for most). What happens to people who have little in a society that seems to have plenty is that some of the poor will attempt to acquire what they feel they deserve through illegal or illicit means ,,, people turn to prostitution, drug dealing, small time theft rings, fraud, etc. to supplement their meagre incomes. Who are these people defrauding? You and me. You and I are the people that answer our phones to "charities" asking for our credit card numbers. You and I use "debit machines" where fraudsters are learning more and more sophisticated skills in skimming. You are I are working in the retail business that is becoming more and more subject to shoplifters and outright robberies. You and I are having to lock our doors, install security systems and take taxis home in order to protect ourselves from the 'seedy' side of our population.
While criminals may have a later motive for drug purchases and addiction, they almost always started with a motive of poverty. They have to pay their rent. They have to eat. They have to earn an income. They have to pay child support. Around them are commercials for fancy home renovations, brand new computerized cars, fancy cell phones, computers and other gadgets that "the rest" of society can afford without having to turn to crime. We think nothing of replacing our car every two or three years, replacing a computer every four years and buying new clothes to attend the latest gala function or wedding of a family or friend. People living in poverty cannot do these things. Some of them suffer because they do not want to risk committing a crime; others become less shy about knocking off the nearest variety store to get what they want ... or get engaged in the drug trade. In seedy neighbourhoods, the drug trade is open and available and for young kids that get nothing at home, the opportunity to drive a nice car, wear expensive jewellery and dress in fashionable clothing is too great. What are we doing as a society other than worsening the situation by sending out non-verbal signals that people of low-incomes are somehow less deserving of a modern life?
Mental health is a major loser as well in all this throw for show societal expectations among us. People who live in subsidized housing and CANNOT get ahead because of housing rules are bound to break them. People who cannot get ahead due to stringent treatment of earnings on welfare are bound to break them. Think about it. If you were forced to pay 80% of your income on taxes today, only to pay a bit more as your income goes up ... will you be less likely to claim your extra income? The rate of tax evasion and "cheating" on income taxes outnumbers the number of people who cheat on welfare by 10 to 1, not because welfare recipients are more honest, but because the dogs are on them all the time! Unfortunately, for many -- NOT claiming their income while on welfare or in subsidized housing is probably the only way they will break the cycle of poverty. This certainly needs to be looked at by the government folks assigned to look into poverty, but even doing this is not going to get poor people to spend more or make them healthier.
This is a very complex situation that needs more of an examination than the cursory one that is given today. Unfortunately, it is the food banks, the charities and the homeless shelters, as well as certain public services that benefit from the presence of the poor ... and these organizations need to be dealt with, not put in charge of any anti-poverty strategy. There are staffers of food banks and homeless shelters making $80,000 and above - why would they want to truly see poverty ended? Wouldn't there be a better incentive by government for example to fund people on the basis of poverty-reduction, as opposed to continuation of the same old - same old? I am not saying many of these people do not have a conscience or are not concerned, but their very livelihoods and thus, their financial interests are geared toward the rapid increase of poverty today!
Poverty is bad for business because poor people do not spend. Poverty is bad for business because poor people cost more in terms of health care, corrections, social services and related expenses. Businesses do not benefit from having to pay more taxes to cover the costs of these things. Poverty is bad for business because there will soon be less and less places to safely locate one's business without having to put up with panhandlers and drug dealers outside your front door. Because we ALL know inherently this is true, I am calling on ALL OF YOU to push the government into developing a serious -- and not superficial or politically smooth sounding plan -- to not only reduce, but to eliminate poverty altogether! It should be considered the scourge of a modern society to even accept the presence of poverty amidst our so-called wealth!
Your thoughts?
Sunday, December 30, 2007
THE ETHICS OF CHARITY
I don't give to many charities, except those that have demonstrated an empowerment philosophy or preserve the lives of innocent animals.
Unfortunately, in order to legally become a charity, empowerment of others cannot be the mainstay of your organization's objectives. Further, using your organization's voice as a tool for advocacy is also severely restricted, which only results in further covering up the real problems your organization may be trying to address. In particular, if you want to become a charity that assists low-income people, you can't predicate your mission on reducing and/or eradicating the root causes of poverty. You can only propose to provide band-aids. You can become a food bank, a second hand clothing distributor or one of those organizations where you can "sponsor" a child in a Third World country. Most of these charities have existed in this country for a very long time, yet the rate of poverty among people - including those who have jobs - has increased by leaps and bounds.
There are some people who actually believe that if we eliminate government support services to people living in poverty, they will no longer be poor because either the "market" will fix their situation or "families" or "charity" will step in. Let me repeat that point I made in the above paragraph. The number of charities geared to serving the poor have more than quintupled since 1980, yet our rate of people living in poverty has almost doubled since. The rate of poverty has particularly increased after cuts to social programs began. Contrary to what some people say who believe that social programs lead to poverty, their reduction has actually caused a spike in poverty and an increase in the number of homeless people over the past twenty-five years. After Mike Harris cut welfare rates by 21.6% in 1995, a large number of people "disappeared" from the social services statistics. When they were contacted (or an attempt was made), many had their phones disconnected or have been evicted from their housing. Yes, a few people found other housing, but it is offices like the legal clinics, advocacy paralegals like myself, and others, who have only seen the spike in the number of slumlords and unsafe, Third-World conditions many of these people were living in. As I stated before in these posts, more than half of my OW to ODSP clients are homeless or have had spells of homelessness while living on OW, prior to getting onto ODSP. Some others went into shared housing situations, only to find the shared arrangements were destructive: their "roommate" moves out suddenly leaving them holding the bag only to get evicted for non-payment; the person buys food and others in the household eat it; items are stolen from the person by "roommates" and sold to pawn shops and to others on the "street"; and so forth. If middle class dictates make you feel these kinds of conditions would not be good for you, why are they good enough for others?
At Christmas time and Thanksgiving, there is often an explosion of media coverage about the need to give to food banks, women's shelters and so forth. People do tend to give more at these times. However, I am a bit of a skeptic in some ways, particularly when it comes to some of the businesses in the region that give large amounts to these charities at Christmas time. My questions to these businesses are obvious: (a) Do you employ low-income people and pay them decent wages that get them out of poverty? (b) Do you pay your existing workers decently enough so they will never have to rely on the services of charities to which you are donating?; and (c) Does your business have a social conscience, whereby you do not continue to push for more and more tax cuts, which you know will only translate into a reduction of services to low-income people? Don't believe that? Well, even when Mike Harris cut personal taxes by 30%, grants and pay-offs to big business did not stop; however, services in health care, education and social services significantly deteriorated. To me, if I were a business, my "charity" would begin at home first ... hire and pay my employees well, offer some benefits and a certain level of job security and where possible, growth within the company. To further exemplify this point, did you know that stores like Wal-Mart donate to a lot of charities, including poverty band-aid programs, while they continue to pay their own employees so little that they often have to use these very charities for basic survival? To me, this is not acceptable.
This ethic is charity by example. I would show respect for people by offering wages that a person can survive on, as after all - it is these very employees that are making ME money. Therefore, these employees deserve a decent pay package. Some businesses argue against minimum wage increases, saying that less jobs get created as a result of legislated pay hikes. There are plenty of arguments that have proven this wrong. If this was the case, wages would have remained at the same rate of pay as it did in the 1920's ... a few pennies a day, perhaps. As the cost of living increased, so did minimum wage. Some people would argue why should they hire relatively low-skilled workers for more money? It doesn't matter ... if the job needs to be done and you can't get chimpanzees to do these jobs for free, then you need to hire human beings. If a person doesn't work out, you can fire them. No big deal. Also, if you were literate in business as I am, you can get hold of numerous publicly traded company reports and learn that many of these companies that earn substantial profit are those that pay its workers minimum wages or close to them. Yes, some of these profits have to go to the executives and shareholders and there is nothing wrong with that (but I do question multi-million dollar pay packages), but a large portion of these profits go to GROWTH strategy. They keep wages low, shaving themselves more and more money, so they can put it towards more and more stores .... call centres are developing this strategy as well. Why else do you think they are sprouting like weeds in communities all over Canada, especially in economically depressed regions?
While the shrewd executives of these stores would argue that they are creating a lot more jobs by building more and more stores, there is a point at which this reaches saturation. That means, there will become a point where Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Tim Hortons and other similar franchises simply cannot serve more people ... and if more of the jobs in their serviced communities are on the lower paid end of things, less people will have large amounts of disposable income to spend at these kinds of places. Further, these franchises will have to fight harder and harder to find and retain workers, particularly if people can't afford to live on what these franchises pay. With an aging population, there are less workers available that are able and willing to work at these wages, particularly if they still have offspring living at home or are still paying off a mortgage. Statistics Canada has found that the average age that a child leaves home has increased substantially over the past twenty years. At one time, we were all ecstatic to leave the nest at the age of seventeen or eighteen, but today - it is quite possible for children to still live at home until they are in their late twenties. This places financial pressure on their often older parents, who cannot afford to earn only minimum wage at Wal-Mart or Starbucks and to compete with their children for the same jobs ... this is a reality created by governments that have a drive-down philosophy. While governments will speak out of one side of the mouth to say they are reducing its expenditures, the only areas that are actually cut are those that impact the most vulnerable people.
To me, there should be no reason for people living in Canada to be relying on food banks, homeless shelters, clothing assistance places and similar programs. If a charity were to be proposed, I would rather see it developed with the goal of eliminating poverty for every person that uses the charity. Recipients of charity do not benefit from the use of charity over the long term. However, those who operate and manage charities often make very good salaries. Because of this, there is no incentive on the part of charities to eliminate their purpose and reason for being. The more "need" there is, the more these charities will crop up. There can be hundreds of these charities in a large urban area, while absolutely none of their charges ever gets out of poverty. The charitable sector sadly admits this, though not directly. A reading of many of Toronto's United Way reports tells you the increased depth of poverty and the minimal impact charities actually have. When a charity tries to be more pro-active in its purposes, they get shut down by by Canada Revenue Agency for failing to promote "charitable objects". See the recent case of ICAN and a former case re the National Association of Minority Women. More on the charitable sector as a whole later ...
During their early development, food bank leaders did not want to become a permanent part of the landscape. They did not ask for government funding and hoped that the need for their programs will diminish over time. Graham Riches wrote an excellent history on the development and growth of food banks and the growth of food insecurity. However, as time went on, United Way and other community-based funding came available to these organizations, and they were able to grow and thus, have less incentive to shut down. This is not an evil conspiracy; this is a reality of the charitable sector. I was executive director at one time of a national charity and had no other goals than to assist the organization in its growth and breadth of services. It is only natural and that is what your Board of Directors wants you to do. However, we had a bit more leeway as a charity as our focus was on public education, as opposed to providing direct services. However, I have sat on boards of other charities, where there was almost a sense of competitiveness in terms of providing more and more services, while not necessarily studying the impact of such services on its recipients.
Because charities are not licensed or regulated outside of their fund raising methods, nobody knows if anything is getting better because any particular charity is at work. At this point in time, there is no rule against hiring somebody to run a charity that has a grade six education and is a convicted felon. While some charities require police checks for their staff and volunteers, these are usually only for those who are working directly with children or the elderly. There is also no rule about how much compensation the charity's executive staff get paid, not that there really should be, but when you consider my earlier posts about the number of well-educated people who are unemployed or under-employed, the education and skill level of the staff and administrators in all charities should be examined. I am aware of several charities operating in my region, which I will not name, who have high school drop-outs at the helm of these organizations, or who are directly involved in dealings with vulnerable persons. Many of them have not undergone police checks. In a private business, for example, I can *choose* to hire somebody who is a high school drop-out, or even a convicted felon, as it is my risk if this person makes a serious mistake in judgment. Only I lose money if this person does not work out. However, charities and publicly funded non-profit organizations are putting the public's money at risk whenever a hiring or spending decision is made, and to some extent - the well-being of vulnerable people served may also be compromised with poorly qualified workers.
If the same government that throws multiple units of billion dollar checks to hundreds of thousands of these organizations, decided to regulate people like me who deal directly with vulnerable people, why are these people working in the non-profit sector also not similarly regulated? I think in many ways, taxpayers would feel a little better about how their tax dollars are being spent if they knew that well-qualified, dedicated and motivated staff that adhere to a Code of Conduct are working in these organizations and that the services provided are regularly monitored to ensure that they are producing results. I have seen lots of publicly-funded poor results, and so have many other people, hence the frequent calls for tax cuts. In many western European countries, citizens pay way more taxes than we do in Canada, but rarely complain of their burden. Why? It's likely because they see results from the goods and services funded through their taxes.
Further, the definition of charity needs to be broadened to allow organizations that have as a primary purpose to empower their clients to lift themselves out of poverty, for example, as well as organizations that choose to advocate directly for or against government policies. For example, I should be able to register as a charity an organization that focuses on providing financial and mentoring assistance to persons with disabilities (or other low-income groups) to start and operate a small business, advocates for these same people to all levels of government on how social assistance rates MUST be raised and regulatory claw backs must be removed to aid such persons to reach their goals. OR an organization that invests its money on behalf of its "consumers" to purchase goods and services they may need to escape poverty, e.g. pay for a college course, obtain an up-to-date computer system, help somebody access a driver's license, or provide start-up funding for a small business. The reason I say this is there is a charity that I provided consulting advice and services to from time to time that WANTS to be an empowering agency, but ever since I assisted them in getting their charitable number - their advocacy efforts have waned. I asked them at one time about this and their concern was they did not want to cross the line on this, as they benefit substantially from their fund raising efforts in town here. The same concerns came from other charities I respect in town here.
As a result of this thwarted freedom of speech and in some cases, lack of specific direction towards actual results and empowerment of disadvantaged persons, this same group of people have no voice except their own. Given what gets written in the media about "homeless people" and "low-income" people, it would take a very brave person from this disadvantaged group to speak up and demand respect for themselves and their peers. They are forced to prove they are innocent of typical stereotypes, such as aggressive panhandling, so-called mental illness and/or addictions first (yet when CEOs and respected middle class people suffer from the same issues, they are not viewed as 'incompetent'), as well as have access to resources to empower themselves and get themselves to the next rung on the ever rising ladder out of poverty. I am talking about people who do not drive, therefore, they cannot get a job they can otherwise do. Or people who don't have ID, and can't get a bank account. Or can't get a home outside of a homeless shelter, which has not historically been effective in moving people into their own housing. Or getting their OWN income so they can purchase their OWN housing, their OWN food, their OWN clothing, etc. Charities are forced to continue to do for, as opposed to do "with" - leaving their charges forever dependent on them.
In my own informal studies of people who have used the various band-aid charities, as well as the limited academic research that has been done in the community psychology community, I have found that those who had to use these services more than once tend to have lower self-esteem, and continue to lack resources to empower themselves ... in other words, a charity may feed them for one day, but they are still hungry the next. More work has to be done towards making their services unnecessary. I don't think the charities can do this on their own because they will always lack enough money and volunteers to do what is truly necessary. Government policy must be changed to enable all of us - working or not - to live decently. Some of this can be corrected through a change in business ethics, whereby salaries truly reflect the area's cost of living and worth of an employee to that business, as well as increased income supplements to those that either cannot work or who have trouble securing work due to some type of disadvantage. Workplace barriers need to be identified and removed for those that may be otherwise employed. And finally, an economy CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be predicated upon bringing in more big box stores like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, etc. as the "answer" to the region's economic woes. Workers come from a variety of skills, education, career aspirations and economic requirements ... when programs are set up to assist folks with these issues, the individual's needs should be the foremost objective in achieving financial goals for them.
So, in conclusion, contrary to the neo-cons that seem to want less and less government spending, to Hell with the consequences, we should instead be demanding better results for our tax dollar and be asking for equal dignity being afforded to all persons in the community, regardless of their economic circumstances. People should not have to beg for their bare necessities of life or receive them from "sympathetic volunteers", whose services may not be a reliable and consistent effort, or delivered in a non-partisan way. Everybody has a right to feel they are contributing to the community, and not always be the recipient.
Unfortunately, in order to legally become a charity, empowerment of others cannot be the mainstay of your organization's objectives. Further, using your organization's voice as a tool for advocacy is also severely restricted, which only results in further covering up the real problems your organization may be trying to address. In particular, if you want to become a charity that assists low-income people, you can't predicate your mission on reducing and/or eradicating the root causes of poverty. You can only propose to provide band-aids. You can become a food bank, a second hand clothing distributor or one of those organizations where you can "sponsor" a child in a Third World country. Most of these charities have existed in this country for a very long time, yet the rate of poverty among people - including those who have jobs - has increased by leaps and bounds.
There are some people who actually believe that if we eliminate government support services to people living in poverty, they will no longer be poor because either the "market" will fix their situation or "families" or "charity" will step in. Let me repeat that point I made in the above paragraph. The number of charities geared to serving the poor have more than quintupled since 1980, yet our rate of people living in poverty has almost doubled since. The rate of poverty has particularly increased after cuts to social programs began. Contrary to what some people say who believe that social programs lead to poverty, their reduction has actually caused a spike in poverty and an increase in the number of homeless people over the past twenty-five years. After Mike Harris cut welfare rates by 21.6% in 1995, a large number of people "disappeared" from the social services statistics. When they were contacted (or an attempt was made), many had their phones disconnected or have been evicted from their housing. Yes, a few people found other housing, but it is offices like the legal clinics, advocacy paralegals like myself, and others, who have only seen the spike in the number of slumlords and unsafe, Third-World conditions many of these people were living in. As I stated before in these posts, more than half of my OW to ODSP clients are homeless or have had spells of homelessness while living on OW, prior to getting onto ODSP. Some others went into shared housing situations, only to find the shared arrangements were destructive: their "roommate" moves out suddenly leaving them holding the bag only to get evicted for non-payment; the person buys food and others in the household eat it; items are stolen from the person by "roommates" and sold to pawn shops and to others on the "street"; and so forth. If middle class dictates make you feel these kinds of conditions would not be good for you, why are they good enough for others?
At Christmas time and Thanksgiving, there is often an explosion of media coverage about the need to give to food banks, women's shelters and so forth. People do tend to give more at these times. However, I am a bit of a skeptic in some ways, particularly when it comes to some of the businesses in the region that give large amounts to these charities at Christmas time. My questions to these businesses are obvious: (a) Do you employ low-income people and pay them decent wages that get them out of poverty? (b) Do you pay your existing workers decently enough so they will never have to rely on the services of charities to which you are donating?; and (c) Does your business have a social conscience, whereby you do not continue to push for more and more tax cuts, which you know will only translate into a reduction of services to low-income people? Don't believe that? Well, even when Mike Harris cut personal taxes by 30%, grants and pay-offs to big business did not stop; however, services in health care, education and social services significantly deteriorated. To me, if I were a business, my "charity" would begin at home first ... hire and pay my employees well, offer some benefits and a certain level of job security and where possible, growth within the company. To further exemplify this point, did you know that stores like Wal-Mart donate to a lot of charities, including poverty band-aid programs, while they continue to pay their own employees so little that they often have to use these very charities for basic survival? To me, this is not acceptable.
This ethic is charity by example. I would show respect for people by offering wages that a person can survive on, as after all - it is these very employees that are making ME money. Therefore, these employees deserve a decent pay package. Some businesses argue against minimum wage increases, saying that less jobs get created as a result of legislated pay hikes. There are plenty of arguments that have proven this wrong. If this was the case, wages would have remained at the same rate of pay as it did in the 1920's ... a few pennies a day, perhaps. As the cost of living increased, so did minimum wage. Some people would argue why should they hire relatively low-skilled workers for more money? It doesn't matter ... if the job needs to be done and you can't get chimpanzees to do these jobs for free, then you need to hire human beings. If a person doesn't work out, you can fire them. No big deal. Also, if you were literate in business as I am, you can get hold of numerous publicly traded company reports and learn that many of these companies that earn substantial profit are those that pay its workers minimum wages or close to them. Yes, some of these profits have to go to the executives and shareholders and there is nothing wrong with that (but I do question multi-million dollar pay packages), but a large portion of these profits go to GROWTH strategy. They keep wages low, shaving themselves more and more money, so they can put it towards more and more stores .... call centres are developing this strategy as well. Why else do you think they are sprouting like weeds in communities all over Canada, especially in economically depressed regions?
While the shrewd executives of these stores would argue that they are creating a lot more jobs by building more and more stores, there is a point at which this reaches saturation. That means, there will become a point where Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Tim Hortons and other similar franchises simply cannot serve more people ... and if more of the jobs in their serviced communities are on the lower paid end of things, less people will have large amounts of disposable income to spend at these kinds of places. Further, these franchises will have to fight harder and harder to find and retain workers, particularly if people can't afford to live on what these franchises pay. With an aging population, there are less workers available that are able and willing to work at these wages, particularly if they still have offspring living at home or are still paying off a mortgage. Statistics Canada has found that the average age that a child leaves home has increased substantially over the past twenty years. At one time, we were all ecstatic to leave the nest at the age of seventeen or eighteen, but today - it is quite possible for children to still live at home until they are in their late twenties. This places financial pressure on their often older parents, who cannot afford to earn only minimum wage at Wal-Mart or Starbucks and to compete with their children for the same jobs ... this is a reality created by governments that have a drive-down philosophy. While governments will speak out of one side of the mouth to say they are reducing its expenditures, the only areas that are actually cut are those that impact the most vulnerable people.
To me, there should be no reason for people living in Canada to be relying on food banks, homeless shelters, clothing assistance places and similar programs. If a charity were to be proposed, I would rather see it developed with the goal of eliminating poverty for every person that uses the charity. Recipients of charity do not benefit from the use of charity over the long term. However, those who operate and manage charities often make very good salaries. Because of this, there is no incentive on the part of charities to eliminate their purpose and reason for being. The more "need" there is, the more these charities will crop up. There can be hundreds of these charities in a large urban area, while absolutely none of their charges ever gets out of poverty. The charitable sector sadly admits this, though not directly. A reading of many of Toronto's United Way reports tells you the increased depth of poverty and the minimal impact charities actually have. When a charity tries to be more pro-active in its purposes, they get shut down by by Canada Revenue Agency for failing to promote "charitable objects". See the recent case of ICAN and a former case re the National Association of Minority Women. More on the charitable sector as a whole later ...
During their early development, food bank leaders did not want to become a permanent part of the landscape. They did not ask for government funding and hoped that the need for their programs will diminish over time. Graham Riches wrote an excellent history on the development and growth of food banks and the growth of food insecurity. However, as time went on, United Way and other community-based funding came available to these organizations, and they were able to grow and thus, have less incentive to shut down. This is not an evil conspiracy; this is a reality of the charitable sector. I was executive director at one time of a national charity and had no other goals than to assist the organization in its growth and breadth of services. It is only natural and that is what your Board of Directors wants you to do. However, we had a bit more leeway as a charity as our focus was on public education, as opposed to providing direct services. However, I have sat on boards of other charities, where there was almost a sense of competitiveness in terms of providing more and more services, while not necessarily studying the impact of such services on its recipients.
Because charities are not licensed or regulated outside of their fund raising methods, nobody knows if anything is getting better because any particular charity is at work. At this point in time, there is no rule against hiring somebody to run a charity that has a grade six education and is a convicted felon. While some charities require police checks for their staff and volunteers, these are usually only for those who are working directly with children or the elderly. There is also no rule about how much compensation the charity's executive staff get paid, not that there really should be, but when you consider my earlier posts about the number of well-educated people who are unemployed or under-employed, the education and skill level of the staff and administrators in all charities should be examined. I am aware of several charities operating in my region, which I will not name, who have high school drop-outs at the helm of these organizations, or who are directly involved in dealings with vulnerable persons. Many of them have not undergone police checks. In a private business, for example, I can *choose* to hire somebody who is a high school drop-out, or even a convicted felon, as it is my risk if this person makes a serious mistake in judgment. Only I lose money if this person does not work out. However, charities and publicly funded non-profit organizations are putting the public's money at risk whenever a hiring or spending decision is made, and to some extent - the well-being of vulnerable people served may also be compromised with poorly qualified workers.
If the same government that throws multiple units of billion dollar checks to hundreds of thousands of these organizations, decided to regulate people like me who deal directly with vulnerable people, why are these people working in the non-profit sector also not similarly regulated? I think in many ways, taxpayers would feel a little better about how their tax dollars are being spent if they knew that well-qualified, dedicated and motivated staff that adhere to a Code of Conduct are working in these organizations and that the services provided are regularly monitored to ensure that they are producing results. I have seen lots of publicly-funded poor results, and so have many other people, hence the frequent calls for tax cuts. In many western European countries, citizens pay way more taxes than we do in Canada, but rarely complain of their burden. Why? It's likely because they see results from the goods and services funded through their taxes.
Further, the definition of charity needs to be broadened to allow organizations that have as a primary purpose to empower their clients to lift themselves out of poverty, for example, as well as organizations that choose to advocate directly for or against government policies. For example, I should be able to register as a charity an organization that focuses on providing financial and mentoring assistance to persons with disabilities (or other low-income groups) to start and operate a small business, advocates for these same people to all levels of government on how social assistance rates MUST be raised and regulatory claw backs must be removed to aid such persons to reach their goals. OR an organization that invests its money on behalf of its "consumers" to purchase goods and services they may need to escape poverty, e.g. pay for a college course, obtain an up-to-date computer system, help somebody access a driver's license, or provide start-up funding for a small business. The reason I say this is there is a charity that I provided consulting advice and services to from time to time that WANTS to be an empowering agency, but ever since I assisted them in getting their charitable number - their advocacy efforts have waned. I asked them at one time about this and their concern was they did not want to cross the line on this, as they benefit substantially from their fund raising efforts in town here. The same concerns came from other charities I respect in town here.
As a result of this thwarted freedom of speech and in some cases, lack of specific direction towards actual results and empowerment of disadvantaged persons, this same group of people have no voice except their own. Given what gets written in the media about "homeless people" and "low-income" people, it would take a very brave person from this disadvantaged group to speak up and demand respect for themselves and their peers. They are forced to prove they are innocent of typical stereotypes, such as aggressive panhandling, so-called mental illness and/or addictions first (yet when CEOs and respected middle class people suffer from the same issues, they are not viewed as 'incompetent'), as well as have access to resources to empower themselves and get themselves to the next rung on the ever rising ladder out of poverty. I am talking about people who do not drive, therefore, they cannot get a job they can otherwise do. Or people who don't have ID, and can't get a bank account. Or can't get a home outside of a homeless shelter, which has not historically been effective in moving people into their own housing. Or getting their OWN income so they can purchase their OWN housing, their OWN food, their OWN clothing, etc. Charities are forced to continue to do for, as opposed to do "with" - leaving their charges forever dependent on them.
In my own informal studies of people who have used the various band-aid charities, as well as the limited academic research that has been done in the community psychology community, I have found that those who had to use these services more than once tend to have lower self-esteem, and continue to lack resources to empower themselves ... in other words, a charity may feed them for one day, but they are still hungry the next. More work has to be done towards making their services unnecessary. I don't think the charities can do this on their own because they will always lack enough money and volunteers to do what is truly necessary. Government policy must be changed to enable all of us - working or not - to live decently. Some of this can be corrected through a change in business ethics, whereby salaries truly reflect the area's cost of living and worth of an employee to that business, as well as increased income supplements to those that either cannot work or who have trouble securing work due to some type of disadvantage. Workplace barriers need to be identified and removed for those that may be otherwise employed. And finally, an economy CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be predicated upon bringing in more big box stores like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, etc. as the "answer" to the region's economic woes. Workers come from a variety of skills, education, career aspirations and economic requirements ... when programs are set up to assist folks with these issues, the individual's needs should be the foremost objective in achieving financial goals for them.
So, in conclusion, contrary to the neo-cons that seem to want less and less government spending, to Hell with the consequences, we should instead be demanding better results for our tax dollar and be asking for equal dignity being afforded to all persons in the community, regardless of their economic circumstances. People should not have to beg for their bare necessities of life or receive them from "sympathetic volunteers", whose services may not be a reliable and consistent effort, or delivered in a non-partisan way. Everybody has a right to feel they are contributing to the community, and not always be the recipient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
