Category: poverty

  • Martin Lewis has effectively become one of the few in the public eye people seem to trust and rely on. But even he can’t hide his frustration sometimes. This boiled over on Tuesday 8 November, as he gave an emotional diatribe on one aspect of the cost of living crisis: warm spaces.

    Lewis: not holding back

    As Lewis angrily said:

    I hate the fact I’m doing this. But I’m doing it anyway. If you are really struggling, and you know someone who is really struggling, we in Britain this winter… [pause] have warm spaces.

    Lewis was talking about warm “hubs” or “banks“. This supposedly new phenomenon is not really new. Ask plenty of poor people and they’ll tell you libraries or charity shops were always a go-to in winter. Warm spaces have a fairly obvious idea behind them. If people cannot afford to heat their homes, they can go to a warm space to stop themselves being cold. As the organisation Warm Spaces wrote on its website:

    Every space can offer something different. Some may offer free food; pay-it-forward schemes, advice, somewhere to charge your phone or maybe just somewhere to be comfortable & warm with no judgement.

    Warm spaces everywhere

    Warm Spaces’ interactive map shows people where spaces are – and there’s already a lot:

    A picture of a map of warm spaces in the uk

    Anyone can use them. And as Lewis explained, it’s important that everyone knows about them, because:

    libraries or local councils are saying everyone is welcome to spend time and stay warm. There’s a website, warmwelcome.uk, where you can find one near you. If you know perhaps elderly relatives or people who live near you who can’t turn their heating on and they’re worried, why not find where your nearest warm space is for them?

    However, Lewis was also right to point out that:

    We shouldn’t be doing [this]. But it’s important people know, and the nice bit is I’m glad there are people out there who care enough to set these things up.

    The reason for the sudden appearance of official warm spaces is the cost of living crisis. However, dangerously cold homes in the UK are hardly new – and they’re an issue of ethnicity and class. This is because it’s often the poorest and Black and brown people who are hardest hit.

    A perfect storm of negligence

    Poor social housing association properties and council houses are major culprits of poor people not being able to afford their heating bills. For example, 4% of social homes have damp – versus 2% of owner-occupied ones. This is probably an underestimate, as a recent survey found that five million social housing tenants had lived in a damp property at some point. Damp is often caused by poor heating systems or poor ventilation.

    In all types of housing, the damp figure rises to 13% for some dual heritage households, and 10% for some Black and Bangladeshi ones. It is likely that much of this percentage is, again, social housing – given these ethnic groups make up some of the largest proportions of residents. Recently, a coroner said two-year-old Awaab Ishak died because of the mould in his house – which the council hadn’t bothered to deal with.

    Cold homes: killing people

    Meanwhile, 31% of residents’ heating and hot water problems were due to social housing associations not doing their jobs properly. On top of this, social housing landlords are notoriously bad at insulating their housing stock. 44% of social housing falls below the standards needed by 2030. Social housing landlords’ dire track records on insulation is costing residents over £500 a year in increased bills, on average. Couple this with the government’s real-terms social security cuts – amounting to £13,000 a year for some people – and the situation is dire.

    Around 12,000 people die every year in the UK due to cold homes. However, this was in years without the huge energy price increases and sky-rocketing inflation we’ve seen this year. So the death toll from cold homes is likely to be even higher. This is why Lewis got so angry – and why he urged people to spread the word. Lewis is working with CILIP, and has created a guide for setting up warm spaces:

    Lewis: picking up the pieces of systemic failures

    So, it’s down to the poorest people to heed every human-heating tip Lewis gives us. This is where you heat your body, not your home:

    Meanwhile, social housing landlords allow people to live in dangerously low-quality, cold homes while the government cuts their benefits. Little wonder that Lewis is angry. The creation of official warm banks would have been completely avoidable, if there was the will from the government and social housing landlords. Sadly, there isn’t. So Lewis is once again left picking up the pieces.

    Meanwhile, as communities, we must stick together and support each other.

    Featured image via ITV Hub – screengrab 

    By Steve Topple

  • The fat cats running London’s biggest listed companies increased their pay by more than double the rate of UK inflation. A lot of the increase was on boss’s bonuses – as workers struggle to make ends meet.

    Fat cat pay: up

    Accountancy firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) has completed its annual survey on fat cat pay. As Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported, it found that total compensation for CEOs at FTSE 100 firms jumped by nearly 22%. It averaged £3.9m in 2021/22 compared with the previous 12-month period. A spokesperson for PwC said:

    The increase in executive pay and bonuses highlights that FTSE 100 companies were boosted by businesses opening up and demand returning after the pandemic. However, looking forward… higher pay outcomes are likely to be met with greater investor scrutiny, particularly in the context of rising inflation and pay increases across the workforce.

    The coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic meant that some companies’ values fell – British Airways, for example. But for others – such as Tesco – profits soared. Some companies froze CEO pay. However PwC said that the proportion of CEOs with salary freezes this year fell to 15% from 43%.

    However, while bosses rake it in, their workers and others are struggling.

    Workers’ pay: down

    UK annual inflation is at a four-decade high, standing at above 10%, while a majority of the country’s workers are receiving pay increases far below this level. Workers across various sectors have gone on strike across Britain this year in a bid to secure pay rises matching inflation. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) and its members were striking over dire pay. Meanwhile, the Royal College of Nurses (RCN) are also going on strike – and the National Education Union (NEU) is currently balloting its members.

    But it’s the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU) which best sums up the situation with fat cat pay. Its workers at Royal Mail are striking over a below-inflation pay cop-out. However, at the same time, the company’s CEO Simon Thompson took over £750,000 in salary and bonuses. It is exactly this kind of disparity which the PwC report shows.

    Disgrace

    Campaign group the High Pay Centre told AFP:

    Over the past decade or so, investors have started to take a tougher line on executive pay,

    However, the group also said that pay awards of £3-4m for most CEOs amount:

    to pay over 100 times that of the typical UK worker, historically very high in the context of the past half century. The effect of investor scrutiny has been to contain pay gaps rather than significantly reduce them.

    Bosses earning far more than workers is hardly new. But the latest PwC report comes in the middle of a cost of living crisis – and while the Tory government is still planning on scrapping the bankers’ bonuses cap. Unless bosses have the moral backbone to pay workers well before feathering their own nests, then strikes will continue to happen – and rightly so.

    Featured image via Epic Slow Mo – YouTube

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Rough sleeping in one city in Devon has doubled in the space of a year, according to a local charity. However, the news may represent the wider picture across the UK. St Petrock’s is a charity in Exeter which has reported the increase. Its boss said the current cost of living crisis is probably causing the spiralling number of rough sleepers.

    Exeter: rough sleeping doubled

    St Petrock’s supports homeless people, rough sleepers, and those it calls “vulnerably housed”. As Devon Live reported, two weeks ago St Petrock’s did a count of the number of rough sleepers in Exeter. It found that the number has doubled since last year: from 14 to 30. The figures come against a backdrop of Devon having lower rates of poverty than other places in the UK. However, there are still pockets of extreme deprivation and a growing life expectancy gap.

    The director of St Petrock’s is Peter Stephenson. He told Devon Live that:

    Rough sleeping numbers had been going down steadily in the last couple of years and the pandemic helped as the government brought everyone in off the street and not everyone went back to the streets again. But sadly it seems to be going the other way again.

    Stephenson wouldn’t commit to a definite cause of an increase in Exeter’s rough sleeper population. But he did tell Devon Live that:

    I think it’s to do with the cost of living crisis. One thing we have never had at St Petrock’s before, but have been for the last three months, is members of the public calling us saying they have tried everyone else to get help and are worried about losing their home and can’t pay for food and rent.

    However, the situation in Exeter may be a microcosm of the national picture.

    A national crisis that’s getting worse?

    As the Big Issue reported:

    the latest official count estimated a total of 2,440 people were sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2021 in England.

    This was down 10% on 2020. However, the Big Issue warned that:

    the number of people sleeping rough has grown steadily since 2010 and despite four consecutive years of falling numbers there, the current figures are 38 per cent higher in 2022 than they were 12 years ago.

    And the official rough sleeping figures are often thought to be a considerable underestimate as they rely on single-night counts and estimates by local authorities.

    Tory government: unconcerned and unprepared

    In reality, there are at least 8,239 rough sleepers a year in London alone – and again this figure may be an underestimate. Mayor Sadiq Khan has already warned the cost of living crisis may make things worse. This is already being seen in the quarterly rough sleeper figures, with a 10% increase between January-March and April-June this year.

    With the cost of living crisis set to get worse, the picture in Exeter and London is likely to be replicated nationally. And so far, the government is probably both unprepared and unconcerned.

    Featured image via Newtown Graffiti – Flickr, resized to 770×403 pixels under licence CC BY 2.0

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A protester captured a devastating photo at the People’s Assembly demo on Saturday 5 November. It’s one that should haunt the Tories. This is because it shows a disabled homeless person – as thousands marched against the government.

    Get the Tories out

    People’s Assembly staged its latest national demonstration on 5 November. Thousands of people turned out to call for a general election and to protest against the Tories:

    Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had hit the headlines during the week after he said he lived “rent free” in prime minister Rishi Sunak’s head. Corbyn also spoke at the People’s Assembly rally. He said that the Tories were sacrificing the UK:

    All on the altar of profits to distant hedge funds. That is the reality of what modern Britain is about.

    Disabled homeless people: the reality under the Tories

    Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) member and activist Paula Peters also spoke at the People’s Assembly rally. And she took photos along the way. One of them was of a homeless person’s tent with a wheelchair next to it:

    The fact this homeless person is disabled is not uncommon. As charity Just Life wrote:

    A study by Crisis of 14,922 individuals, 70% of whom were homeless while the others were either at risk of homelessness or had a history of homelessness, found that 39% reported having a disability. Another study… found that 12% of a group of people experiencing homelessness showed strong signs of autism. The prevalence of autism in the general population is approximately 1%.

    This figure has risen in recent years. Crisis reported in 2019 that it found a 53% rise in:

    the number of people with physical ill health or disability whose local council have been unable to help prevent or relieve their homelessness under the Homelessness Reduction Act (HRA) and now are classed as priority need for housing

    Moreover, 45% of homeless people live with mental health issues. This figure rises to 80% for rough sleepers. Peters, whose photo is evocative of the situation, thinks she knows why all this is the case.

    ‘Barely surviving – or dying’

    Peters told the Canary:

    DPAC formed in 2010. Now, after 12 years of brutal coalition and Tory austerity, things have got progressively worse for disabled people. Successive governments have cut social security, Housing Benefit and the Local Housing Allowance; they’ve introduced the bedroom tax and chaotic Universal Credit; they’ve overseen rising inflation, energy and food prices, and presided over cuts to social care. Many disabled people are in energy and social care debt – chased by bailiffs for money they haven’t got.

    The travesty of this [is] disabled people are in a precarious position of barely surviving – or dying. If they can’t afford to live, they end up on the street. This shouldn’t be happening. More disabled people will end up this way. With the Tories’ budget in a few weeks, that’s sadly going to be the case.

    However, it’s not just the Tories causing disabled people’s precarity which Peters thinks is a problem. She noted that during the People’s Assembly march:

    What struck me was the sheer number of activists walking past this homeless, disabled person to get to the start of the demo. People didn’t see the sheer poverty literally beside them. They were too intent on getting to where they needed to go. It was like the entire march went through the homeless disabled persons space: people marching to resist this government against precarious situations such as this. It is so important to show the horrific situation disabled people are ending up in. I think some of the protesters on the People’s Assembly march chose not to see the homeless, disabled person – because deep down there is a stab of fear it could be them.

    It could be you, next

    It goes without saying that we all need to be fighting back against the Tories and the system. However, we particularly need to be allies for chronically ill, disabled and homeless people. As Peters said:

    DPAC are still campaigning and fighting the government. But disabled people’s campaigns need all the support we can get, to pile the pressure on the government to stop the attacks on us. We need to resist this government with everything we have but we need support to do this.

    As Peters summed up:

    No-one is immune from disability or losing their job. Circumstances change – and you can end up like this.

    Successive UK governments have systematically persecuted chronically ill and disabled people. It got to the point where the UN accused Tory-led governments of “grave” and “systematic” violations of disabled people’s human rights. That was in 2016. And in 2022, as Peters’ photo shows, little has changed.

    Featured image via Paula Peters

    By Steve Topple

  • Exclusive: Olivier de Schutter says cuts could violate human rights laws, calling instead for higher taxes on rich

    The United Nations’ poverty envoy has warned Rishi Sunak that unleashing a new wave of austerity in this month’s budget could violate the UK’s international human rights obligations and increase hunger and malnutrition.

    Olivier de Schutter, the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty, said he was “extremely troubled” by likely multibillion-pound spending cuts – including possible real-terms reductions in welfare payments to millions of the nation’s poorest families.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • To consider the United States a wealthy and free nation, possessed of boundless ideals, one must ignore the obvious in no small measure. Even now, in the age of advancing technology, hunger quietly prevails. In urban and rural spaces, chilled by shadows of entitlement, the timeless problem of food remains with us. Who is unable to see this? Thanks to the rise of social media, and the drone of constant chatter, we are more aware than previous generations. However, endless streams of “content” leave us vulnerable to indifference, the presence of which invites hunger on many levels. The coming years will likely reveal this fact in dramatic fashion.

    For two decades, I worked as a municipal park ranger in San Diego, California, patrolling urban spaces with an eye towards habitat restoration. Enforcement was also a part of this responsibility, ensuring that no one encroached on public land. Generally, the task involved having tons of litter removed by reluctant administrators—no one wishing to assume responsibility—and convincing people to move their encampments from one canyon to another. Social services being limited and quite unappealing, this option was the most feasible. In fact, many people described the dangers and squalor of downtown “shelters” in alarming detail, making the solution seem more perilous than the problem. Needless to say, I saw the situation of urban poverty grow worse, carrying on throughout the years of my career. Indeed, it remains overwhelming to this day, as solutions elude politicians and municipal administrators. And what about society as a whole, we, the people? Perhaps we are not so much indifferent and uncaring as, quite simply, numb with the sorrow of it all, befuddled by media deception and torrents of useless information. With this in mind, we consider the future.

    With climate change threatening swathes of once productive farmland, and drinkable water becoming more scarce, the need for solutions is pressing, confronting us with an urgency once unimaginable. Are worldwide famines and thirst looming on the horizon, belittling our notions of progress and mocking our faith in technology? What seemed unthinkable to our nation in the previous century—endowed, as it was, with rich farmland, a strong currency (formerly backed by gold) and a wealth of factories—appears to be likely for the current generation.

    Upon concluding my career, and recalling so many faces of poverty, I’ve reflected more than a little on the days to come. Thanks to the people I met while on patrol, exploring miles of urban shadowlands, I realize the degree to which we share an uncertain future and cannot afford indifference, the luxury of a careless and nearly forgotten past.

    The post On the Persistence of Hunger first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Raquel Forner (Argentina), Fin-Principio (‘End-Beginning’), 1980.

    Chaos reigns in the United Kingdom, where the prime minister’s residence in London – 10 Downing Street – prepares for the entry of Rishi Sunak, one of the richest men in the country. Liz Truss remained in office for a mere 45 days, convulsed as her government was by a cycle of workers’ strikes and the mediocrity of her policies. In her mini budget, which doomed her government, Truss opted for a full-scale neoliberal assault on the British public with both tax cuts and unacknowledged cuts to social benefits. The policies startled the international financial class, whose political role emerged clearly as wealthy bondholders indicated their loss of faith in the UK by junking government bonds, thereby increasing the cost of government borrowing and raising the mortgage payments for homeowners. It was this wealthy bondholder class that acted as the real opposition to the Truss government. Even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) weighed in with a strong statement, saying that ‘the nature of the UK measures will likely increase inequality’.

    Duilio Pierri (Argentina), Retorno de los restos (‘Return of the Remains’), 1987.

    Duilio Pierri (Argentina), Retorno de los restos (‘Return of the Remains’), 1987.

    What is stunning here is the IMF’s worry about increased inequality. Over the IMF’s seventy-eight-year history, since it was founded in 1944, the fund has rarely paid attention to the phenomenon of increased inequality. In fact, in large part due to its policies, most of the countries of the Global South are stuck in an ‘austerity trap’, which was shaped by the following processes:

    • Old colonial histories of plunder meant that the new nations of the post-World War II era had to borrow money from their former colonial rulers.
    • Borrowing this money to build key infrastructure that was not built during colonial times meant that the loans were sunk into long-term projects that did not pay for themselves.
    • Most of these countries were forced to borrow more money to settle the interest payment on the loans, which resulted in the Third World Debt Crisis of the 1980s.
    • The IMF used Structural Adjustment Programmes to enforce austerity within these countries as a condition of being able to borrow to pay off the loans. Austerity impoverished billions of people, whose labour continued to be drawn into cycles of accumulation and was used – often very productively – to enrich the few at the expense of the many who poured their sweat into the global commodity chain.
    • A poorer population meant less social wealth in the countries of the Global South, despite increased industrialisation, and this lowered social wealth alongside the plunder of resources meant that there was both less surplus to improve the public’s conditions of life and that these countries’ governments had to pay higher rates to borrow money to pay off their debts. That is why from 1980, the countries of the Global South saw an outflow of public funds to the tune of $4.2 trillion to pay for the interest on their loans. Further compounding this plunder is the fact that an additional $16.3 trillion left the countries of the Global South from 1980 to 2016 through trade misinvoicing and mispricing as well as leakages in the balance of payments and recorded financial transfers.

    Antonio Berni (Argentina), Ramona espera (‘Ramona Waits’), 1964.

    The ugly detritus of this process of the Global South’s routine impoverishment is documented in detail in our dossier no. 57, The Geopolitics of Inequality: Discussing Pathways Towards a More Just World (October 2022). The dossier, produced by our office in Buenos Aires based on a detailed analysis of the available data sets, shows that whereas inequality is a global phenomenon, the deeper cuts in livelihood are experienced in the countries of the Global South. For example, the dossier recounts that ‘in the world’s 163 countries, only 32% of households have incomes above the global average. Of this total, only a few countries in the periphery have above average incomes, while 100% of the core countries are above the average’.

    This ‘geopolitics of inequality’ persists, even though industrial production has moved from the Global North to the Global South. Industrialisation in the context of the global division of labour and the global ownership of intellectual property rights means that while countries in the Global South house industrial production, they do not receive the gains from this production. ‘A paradigmatic case is that of the region of North Africa and the Middle East, which represents 185% of the manufacturing output of the North but only accounts for 15% of the per capita income of rich countries,’ the dossier notes. Furthermore, ‘[t]he Global South produces 26% more manufactured goods than the North but accounts for 80% less income per capita’.

    Industrialisation is taking place in the Global South, but ‘the centres of global capitalism still control the productive process and the monetary capital that allow the initiation of cycles of productive accumulation’. These forms of control over the capitalist system (industry and finance) lead to the ceaseless increase of the wealth of billionaires (such as the UK’s new prime minister, Rishi Sunak) alongside the pauperisation of the many, most of whom live in poverty no matter how hard or how much they work. During the early years of pandemic, for instance, ‘a new billionaire appeared every 26 hours, while the incomes of 99% of the population declined’.

    Nora Patrich and Carlos Sessano (Argentina), Historia, verdad, leyes (‘History, Truth, Laws’), 2012.

    In the interest of building a pathway towards a more just world, our dossier’s analysis of the reproduction of inequality closes with a five-point plan. These points are an invitation to a dialogue.

    1. The partial disconnection of global chains. Here, we call for new trade and development regimes that see greater South-South participation and greater regionalism rather than being bound to global commodity chains that are anchored by the needs of the Global North.
    2. The appropriation of revenue by the state. The state’s concrete intervention through taxation (or nationalisation) in appropriating revenue (such as land rents as well as mining and technological revenues) is key to reducing the ruling class’s income growth.
    3. The taxation of speculative capital. Large volumes of capital flee the countries of the Global South, which cannot be captured unless there are capital controls or taxes on speculative capital.
    4. The nationalisation of strategic goods and services. Key sectors of the economies of the Global South have been privatised and purchased by global finance capital, which expatriate profits and make decisions about these sectors based on their interests and not those of the workers.
    5. The taxation of corporate and individual windfall profits. Firms’ astronomical profits are largely put into speculation rather than production or towards raising the incomes and quality of life of the majority. Imposing a tax on super profits would be a step towards closing this gap.

    Baya Mahieddine (Algeria), Woman and Peacock, 1973.

    Almost fifty years ago, the countries of the Global South, organised by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the G77, drafted a resolution called the New International Economic Order (NIEO) and won its passage at the UN General Assembly on 1 May 1974. The NIEO articulated a vision for trade and development that did not rely upon the Global South’s dependency on the Global North, with specific proposals around science and technology transfer, the creation of a new global monetary system, the maintenance of import substitution, cartelisation, and other strategies to enhance food sovereignty and earn higher prices for raw material sales, as well as greater South-South cooperation.

    Many of the proposals outlined in our dossier and refined for our era are drawn from the NIEO. Algeria’s president, Houari Boumédiène, pushed the NIEO at the 1973 NAM meeting in Algiers. The year after the resolution passed at the UN, Boumédiène argued that the world was gripped by the ‘dialectic of domination and plundering on the one hand, and the dialectic of emancipation and recovery on the other’. If the NIEO did not pass and if the Global North refused to transfer the ‘control and use of the fruits of resources belonging to the countries of the Third World’, Boumédiène said that an ‘uncontrollable conflagration’ would result. However, rather than permit the NIEO to be established, the West drove a policy that created the Third World Debt Crisis, leading to the ‘austerity trap’ on the one hand and the anti-IMF riots on the other. History, since then, has not advanced.

    In 1979, Tanzania’s President Julius Nyerere said in the aftermath of the death of the NIEO and the birth of the Third World Debt Crisis that there was a need to create a ‘Trade Union of the Poor.’ Such a political unity did not emerge at that time, nor is there any such ‘trade union’ in our time. Its construction is a necessity.

    The post We Need a New Trade Union of the Poor Rooted in the Global South first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Ours is an ever more unequal world, even if that subject is ever less attended to in this country. In his final book, Where Do We Go From Here?, Reverend Martin Luther King wrote tellingly, “The prescription for the cure rests with the accurate diagnosis of the disease. A people who began a national life inspired by a vision of a society of brotherhood can redeem itself. But redemption can come only through a humble acknowledgment of guilt and an honest knowledge of self.”

    Neither exists in this country. Rather than an honest sense of self-awareness when it comes to poverty in the United States, policymakers in Washington and so many states continue to legislate as if inequality weren’t an emergency for tens, if not hundreds, of millions of us. When it comes to accurately diagnosing what ails America, let alone prescribing a cure, those with the power and resources to lift the load of poverty have fallen desperately short of the mark.

    With the midterm elections almost upon us, issues like raising the minimum wage, expanding healthcare, and extending the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and Earned Income Tax Credit should be front and center. Instead, as the U.S. faces continued inflation, the likelihood of a global economic recession, and the possibility that Trumpists could seize control of one or both houses of Congress (and the legislatures of a number of states), few candidates bother to talk about poverty, food insecurity, or low wages. If anything, “poor” has become a four-letter word in today’s politics, following decades of trickle-down economics, neoliberalism, stagnant wages, tax cuts for the rich, and rising household debt.

    The irony of this “attentional violence” towards the poor is that it happens despite the fact that one-third of the American electorate is poor or low-income. (In certain key places and races raise that figure to 40% or more.) After all, in 2020, there were over 85 million poor and low-income people eligible to vote. More than 50 million potential voters in this low-income electorate cast a ballot in the last presidential election, nearly a third of the votes cast. And they accounted for even higher percentages in key battleground states like Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin, where they turned out in significant numbers to cast ballots for living wages, debt relief, and an economic stimulus.

    To address the problems of our surprisingly impoverished democracy, policymakers would have to take seriously the realities of those tens of millions of poor and low-income people, while protecting and expanding voting rights. After all, before the pandemic hit, there were 140 million of them: 65% of Latinx people (37.4 million), 60% of Black people (25.9 million), 41% of Asians (7.6 million), and 39.9% of White people (67 million) in the United States. Forty-five percent of our women and girls (73.5 million) experience poverty, 52% of our children (39 million), and 42% of our elders (20.8 million). In other words, poverty hurts people of all races, ages, genders, religions, and political parties.

    Poverty on the Decline?

    Given the breadth and depth of depravation, it should be surprising how little attention is being paid to the priorities of poor and low-income voters in these final weeks of election season 2022. Instead, some politicians are blaming inflation and the increasingly precarious economic position of so many on the modestly increasing paychecks of low-wage workers and pandemic economic stimulus/emergency programs. That narrative, of course, is wrong and obscures the dramatic effects in these years of Covid supply-chain disruptions, the war in Ukraine, and the price gouging of huge corporations extracting record profits from the poor. The few times poverty has hit the news this midterm election season, the headlines have suggested that it’s on the decline, not a significant concern to be urgently addressed by policy initiatives that will be on some ballots this November.

    Case in point, in September, the Census Bureau released a report concluding that poverty nationwide had significantly decreased in 2021. Such lower numbers were attributed to an increase in government assistance during the pandemic, especially the enhanced Child Tax Credit implemented in the spring of 2021. No matter that there’s now proof positive such programs help lift the load of poverty, too few political candidates are campaigning to extend them this election season.

    Similarly, in September, the Biden administration convened the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health, hailed as the first of its kind in more than half a century. But while that gathering may have been an historic step forward, the policy solutions it backed were largely cut from the usual mold — with calls for increases in the funding of food programs, nutritional education, and further research. Missing was an analysis of why poverty and widening inequality exist in the first place and how those realities shape our food system and so much else. Instead, the issue of hunger remained siloed off from a wider investigation of our economy and the ways it’s currently producing massive economic despair, including hunger.

    To be sure, we should celebrate the fact that, because of proactive public intervention, millions of people over the last year were lifted above income brackets that would, according to the Census Bureau, qualify them as poor. But in the spirit of Reverend King’s message about diagnosing social problems and prescribing solutions, if we were to look at the formulas for the most commonly accepted measurements of poverty, it quickly becomes apparent that they’re based on a startling underassessment of what people actual need to survive, no less lead decent lives. Indeed, a sea of people are living paycheck to paycheck and crisis to crisis, bobbing above and below the poverty line as we conventionally know it. By underestimating poverty from the start, we risk reading the 2021 Census report as a confirmation that it’s no longer a pressing issue and that the actions already taken by government are enough, rather than a baseline from which to build.

    Last month, for example, although a report from the Department of Agriculture found that 90% of households were food secure in 2021, at least 53 million Americans still relied on food banks or community programs to keep themselves half-decently fed, a shocking number in a country as wealthy as ours. More than 20% of adults in the last 30 days have reported experiencing some form of food insecurity. In other words, we’re talking about a deep structural problem for which policymakers should make a commitment to the priorities of the poor.

    An Accurate Diagnosis

    If the political history of poverty had been recorded on the Richter scale, one decision in 1969 would have registered with earthshaking magnitude. That August 29th, the Bureau of the Budget delivered a dry, unfussy memo to every federal government agency instructing them to use a new formula for measuring poverty. This resulted in the creation of the first, and only, official poverty measure, or OPM, which has remained in place to this day with only a little tinkering here and there.

    The seeds of that 1969 memo had been planted six years earlier when Mollie Orshansky, a statistician at the Social Security Administration, published a study on possible ways to measure poverty. Her math was fairly simple. To start with, she reached back to a 1955 Department of Agriculture (USDA) survey that found families generally spent about one-third of their income on food. Then, using a “low-cost” food plan from the Department of Agriculture, she estimated how much a low-income family of four would have to spend to meet its basic food needs and multiplied that number by three to arrive at $3,165 as a possible threshold income for those considered “poor.” It’s a formula that, with a few small changes, has been officially in use ever since.

    Fast forward five decades, factor in the rate of inflation, and the official poverty threshold in 2021 was $12,880 per year for one person and $26,500 for a family of four — meaning that about 42 million Americans were considered below the official poverty line. From the beginning though, the OPM was grounded in a somewhat arbitrary and superficial understanding of human need. Orshansky’s formula may have appeared elegant in its simplicity, but by focusing primarily on access to food, it didn’t fully take into account other critical expenses like healthcare, housing, childcare, and education. As even Orshansky later admitted, it was also based on an austere assessment of how much was enough to meet a person’s needs.

    As a result, the OPM fails to accurately capture how much of our population will move into and out of official poverty in their lifetimes. By studying OPM trends over the years, however, you can gain a wider view of just how chronically precarious so many of our lives are. And yet, look behind those numbers, and there are some big questions remaining about how we define poverty, which say much about who and what we value as a society. For the tools we use to measure quality of life are never truly objective or apolitical. In the end, they always turn out to be as much moral as statistical.

    What level of human deprivation is acceptable to us? What resources does a person need to be well? These are questions that any society should ask itself.

    Since 1969, much has changed, even if the OPM has remained untouched. The food prices it’s based on have skyrocketed beyond the rate of inflation, along with a whole host of other expenses like housing, prescription medicine, college tuition, gas, utilities, childcare, and more modern but increasingly essential costs, including Internet access and cell phones. Meanwhile, wage growth has essentially stagnated over the last four decades, even as productivity has continued to grow, meaning that today’s workers are making comparatively less than their parents’ generation even as they produce more for the economy.

    Billionaires, on the other hand… well, don’t get me started!

    The result of all of this? The official poverty measure fails to show us the ways in which a staggeringly large group of Americans are moving in and out of crisis during their lifetimes. After all, right above the 40 million Americans who officially live in poverty, there are at least 95-100 million who live in a state of chronic economic precarity, just one pay cut, health crisis, extreme storm, or eviction notice from falling below that poverty line.

    The Census Bureau has, in fact, recognized the limitations of the OPM and, since 2011, has also been using a second yardstick, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). As my colleague and poverty-policy expert Shailly Gupta-Barnes writes, while factoring in updated out-of-pocket expenses the “SPM accounts for family income after taxes and transfers, and as such, it shows the antipoverty effects of some of the largest federal support programs.”

    This is the measure that the Census Bureau and others have recently used to show that poverty is dropping and there’s no doubt that it’s an improvement over the OPM. But even the SPM is worryingly low based on today’s economy — $31,000 for a family of four in 2021. Indeed, research by the Poor People’s Campaign (which I co-chair with Bishop William Barber II) and the Institute for Policy Studies has shown that only when we increase the SPM by 200% do we begin to see a more accurate picture of what a stable life truly beyond the grueling reach of poverty might look like.

    Volcker Shock 2.0?

    Taking to heart Reverend King’s admonition about accurately assessing and acknowledging our problems, it’s important to highlight how the math behind the relatively good news on poverty from the 2021 census data relied on a temporary boost from the enhanced Child Tax Credit. Now that Congress has allowed the CTC and its life-saving payments to expire, expect the official 2022 poverty figures to rise. In fact, that decision is likely to prove especially dire, since the federal minimum wage is now at its lowest point in 66 years and the threat of recession is growing by the day.

    Indeed, instead of building on the successes of pandemic-era antipoverty policies and so helping millions (a position that undoubtedly would still prove popular in the midterm elections), policymakers have acted in ways guaranteed to hit millions of people directly in their pocketbooks. In response to inflation, the Federal Reserve, for instance, has been pursuing aggressive interest rate hikes, whose main effect is to lower wages and therefore the purchasing power of lower and middle-income people. That decision should bring grimly to mind the austerity policies promoted by economist Paul Volcker in 1980 and the Volcker Shock that went with them.

    It’s a cruel and dangerous path to take. A recent United Nations report suggests as much, warning that inflation-fighting policies like raising interest rates in the U.S. and other rich countries represent an “imprudent gamble” that threatens “worse damage than the financial crisis of 2008 and the Covid-19 shock in 2020.”

    If the U.S. is to redeem itself with a vision of justice, it’s time for a deep and humble acknowledgment of the breadth and depth of poverty in the richest country in human history. Indeed, the only shock we need is one that would awaken our imaginations to the possibility of a world in which poverty no longer exists.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In an op-ed published Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) pointed out the sharp contrasts between Republicans’ economic policies and progressive Democrats’ ambitions, laying out a variety of policies that have popular support among the public but that are opposed by the GOP.

    Writing in The Hill, Sanders acknowledged that the Democratic Party is “far from perfect,” while urging voters to consider Republicans’ stances on key economic issues like Social Security and Medicare — two crucial anti-poverty programs that members of the party have plausibly threatened to cut if the GOP takes the House in the midterm election.

    “Too many Democratic members of Congress have been unwilling to stand up to the big money interests that dominate Washington and fight for working families,” Sanders wrote. At the same time, he said, “here is the simple reality: the Republicans in Congress are far worse when it comes to addressing the needs of the working class.”

    He then listed a variety of policies that Republicans nearly uniformly oppose, like cutting the prices of a wide variety of prescription drugs; raising the minimum wage; implementing universal health care; cutting child poverty through the expanded child tax credit; expanding workers’ unionization rights; and closing loopholes that allow corporations and the wealthy to avoid paying federal income taxes.

    The GOP also opposes taking on corporate greed through a corporate windfall tax, which Sanders proposed in a bill earlier this year amid soaring worldwide inflation that has been coupled with soaring corporate profits.

    “Not a single Republican in Washington agrees” with these policies, he wrote multiple times.

    In fact, many Republicans support policies that only worsen these problems. Rather than closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, for instance, they have slashed tax rates for corporations and the 1 percent. And, instead of supporting the union movement and boosting workers’ wages and rights in the workplace, as the progressive movement has done, Republicans have vowed to go after the labor movement and top labor regulators if they take the House.

    Sanders has spent this month emphasizing that the Democratic Party should be focusing more on economic issues if they want to win over voters and keep control of Congress this year. In interviews, op-eds and on social media, the senator has said that Democrats must tout their economic platform — and have the “guts” to follow through and lead on bold measures taking on corporate power.

    Indeed, as Sanders has pointed out, multiple polls have shown that voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on economic issues. This is likely the result of years of misleading messaging from the party branding themselves as deficit hawks (but only when Democrats are in power) or blaming Democrats for issues like gas prices that are often out of their control.

    At the same time, the economy and inflation are top of mind for voters this election. Polls have found that inflation consistently ranks as a top concern for voters casting a midterm ballot, suggesting that Sanders is right in his hypothesis that focusing on the economy would be a winning strategy for the Democratic Party.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • NHS hospitals have started opening foodbanks for their own staff. It’s a move one trade union called a “shocking sign of the times”.

    NHS staff: poverty-stricken

    BBC News reported that the University Hospitals of Leicester (UHL) NHS trust has opened foodbanks for its staff. The trust runs three hospitals in and around the city. BBC News said:

    Employees can get food, toiletries and supermarket vouchers from hospital restaurants and chapels.

    The trust has also put other measures in place, including:

    the reduction of food costs in canteens, children of staff eating for £1 in hospital restaurants, free facilities to wash and dry clothes on site, and free staff travel on hospital buses.

    Leicester is not the only city to see hospitals running foodbanks for staff. The Times reports that across England, 27% of hospitals have staff foodbanks.

    As inflation continues to climb, BBC News reports that 29% of NHS workers in Leicester earn between £20,000 and £23,000 per year. For a worker on £20,000, the average rental price is £9,900 a year in Leicester. After paying that, this would leave them with £10,100 a year – or £194 a week. If the worker is a lone parent with one child, they would be just £4 a week above the official poverty line. So it’s unsurprising that UHL has opened up foodbanks.

    Successive Tory cuts

    NHS staff are in this position because of the Tories. After Boris Johnson’s government gave NHS staff a pathetic 3% pay rise in 2021, it doubled down by only giving them 4% this year. However, in 2021 real-terms pay had already fallen by 7.3 to 7.6% since 2010 for nurses and other staff. However, recently departed PM Liz Truss still dismissed the issue of NHS staff using foodbanks. This is despite a recent survey finding that 14% of nurses had to use them. Little wonder that trade unions the Royal College of Nurses (RCN) and its midwife counterpart are currently balloting their members for strike action.

    Bosses at UHL seemed sympathetic, if sitting on the fence somewhat. UHL’s chief people officer Clare Teeney told BBC News:

    As NHS leaders, I think we have a moral responsibility to support our colleagues through this challenging period. At UHL, we are offering support around the costs of food, transport, energy for people who need it and considering how else we can support colleagues on the lowest pay.

    However, trade unions and campaign groups have blasted the situation.

    “Shocking sign of the times”

    UNISON East Midlands says UHL’s installation of foodbanks showed “the present problems within the NHS in respect of the level of pay”. Campaign group NHS Workers Say No went further, telling the Canary:

    It’s not a surprise to see yet another foodbank for hardworking staff opening in a hospital. The Tories have dealt NHS staff year after year of real terms pay cuts. This has left many of them working 40+ hours a week and selling back their annual leave just to survive. The Tories refusal to raise workers’ pay in line with inflation has left us with the situation that the NHS is no longer a living wage employer. This is why unions are conducting industrial action ballots across every corner of the NHS. We have no hope of recruiting or retaining staff unless this crisis is addressed – and that has repercussions for us all.

    Foodbanks themselves are already overstretched. Several organisations delivered a joint letter to Downing Street recently, saying they are:

    struggling to cope as demand for our support outstrips our food and financial donations

    With inflation set to rocket further and no additional pay rise in sight, NHS workers are already under immense strain. Factor in another looming, Tory-created winter crisis, rising coronavirus (Covid-19) deaths and increasing flu cases, and staff will soon be well-past breaking point. The Tories’ shocking treatment of some of the country’s most vital workers is disgusting. But when a government encourages claps over decent pay – this is the end result.

    Featured image via Channel Four Documentaries – YouTube and Richard Sutcliffe – Wikimedia, image cropped under licence CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The uprising sweeping Iran in response to the murder of 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman Mahsa (Jîna) Amini by the country’s morality police for “improper dress” is one of the truly monumental political events of our time. The upsurge began as an outraged response by women across Iran, who share the practically universal experience of harassment — and worse — by that police force. But it has quickly developed into something greater and deeper, with men taking up the cause of women’s rights, the whole protest wave taking up the slogan of the Kurdish freedom movement — “Women, Life, Freedom” — and huge crowds in the streets raising longstanding grievances with the Iranian government’s restrictions, repression and its presiding over a disastrous economy.

    Despite severe repression — with the state killing more than 200 people and hurting countless people with unbridled brutality and especially targeting Kurdish and Baloch areas — the uprisings are persisting and animating more sectors of Iranian society. Students and faculty at Tehran’s Sharif University faced the police in a defiant occupation and battle. Oil workers have gone on strike. And Iran’s adolescent girls have unleashed a new wave of revolt, chasing away administrators, taking over their schools, and — as with women of all ages — choosing to defy mandatory head covering.

    As this revolt shakes Iran to its core, however, it has barely registered in the mainstream U.S. public. After initial quiet, Biden and other U.S. officials are making a calculated move to voice rhetorical support for the protests. This may undermine them, however, by giving the Iranian state an alibi to paint the revolts as machinations of Washington. The Biden administration did do something useful by finally heeding the years-long call to lift a sanction on telecommunications. On balance, however, Washington is discussing the escalation of its extensive, devastating sanctions regime — the very one responsible for Iran’s economic catastrophe. Indeed, think tanks in Washington that have long cultivated militarism against Iran are holding events to assess and take advantage of the new situation.

    Ironically, while the U.S. government and right-wing organizations are stirred to action, and we are seeing more coverage in the mainstream media, it is the U.S. left — beyond Iranian and Iranian American folks — that appears quiet in comparison. There is little conversation, and with some exceptions, little is being published in left and progressive media.

    A number of things explain the muted response. The U.S. progressive community struggles in general when it comes to relating to international politics. Moreover, we have been consistently divided and often uncertain about our role when the U.S. is not the primary antagonist driving a violent injustice — something which also helps explain the division and confusion in the progressive community here when Russia invaded Ukraine. This challenge is especially complicated when the force that is committing the injustice is a state — however repressive, corrupt or reactionary — that is considered to be an enemy of the U.S. In the case of Iran, for example, some on the left wrongly consider Tehran to be playing a progressive, anti-imperialist role by countering U.S. power.

    The current revolt in Iran not only has profound implications for Iranian society; it also offers those of us here who seek a freer world an opportunity to overcome the historic obstacles to our ability to relate to liberation struggles abroad.

    To that end, Truthout spoke with some left-wing Iranians in the large and diverse diaspora to see what they think we in the U.S. progressive community could be doing more of in solidarity with this revolt.

    Perhaps the first thing is truly appreciating the significance of the uprising itself — for Iran, and for all of us.

    Alex Reza Shams, a graduate student in anthropology at the University of Chicago, asserts that “the revolts in Iran should inspire us all to remember that resistance is possible even in the most oppressive of circumstances.”

    “For decades, the Iranian state has crushed independent political organizing — and yet despite that, people have kept hope alive and have continued dreaming of a different future,” he continues. “Hope is something that cannot be killed — and it can inspire us to do great and previously unimaginable things — like rise up against a tyrant even when we don’t think there is much of a chance that we might succeed.”

    Second, it’s important to identify and appreciate our relationship to Iranian society as residents of the United States. After all, while the current uprising is first and foremost directed at the brutal Iranian state, the U.S. has played a decisive role in producing untold suffering for generations of Iranians. As Azadeh Shahshahani, a human rights lawyer and the legal and policy adviser at Project South in Atlanta, points out, “U.S. policies have only added to the oppression and suffering of the Iranian people — from the 1953 CIA-backed coup which overthrew Iran’s democratically elected leader to more than 40 years of [devastating] economic sanctions to U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during his invasion of Iran and the ensuing devastating war.”

    Not only does the U.S. bear tremendous responsibility for the circumstances that Iranians are revolting against — which are decades in the making — but as people located here, we are in the best position to effect change in Washington.

    Folks on the ground need to recognize where their power is, and who they have power over when leveraged,”
    says Hoda Katebi, an Iranian American writer and organizer. “Those of us not in Iran are not in a position to directly exert power on the government in Iran. People in Iran are doing that, and we should follow their lead, understand how we’re implicated in their demands, and act accordingly within the power we have here in the United States. The originally Kurdish slogan of ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’ is about bodily autonomy and mandatory dress codes but it is also about economic justice and liberation. Concretely for us here, that means fighting to lift U.S. economic sanctions that directly impacts protestors and striking workers and ensuring no U.S. intervention in Iranian self-determination.”

    Indeed, stepping up the campaign against U.S. sanctions is a straightforward way to offer solidarity that everyone interviewed pointed to. These sanctions are intimately linked with both Iranian suffering and with Tehran’s behavior.

    “U.S. sanctions on Iran have impoverished ordinary people and strengthened the most repressive aspects of the regime,” notes Shams. “And the regime has responded to the economic pressure by implementing neoliberal reforms that further impoverish the people — and responding with bullets when they protest. As a result, the situation has become more militarized in Iran than ever before — and the constant U.S. threat of war provides the regime with a rationale to keep it that way.”

    Shahshahani also calls attention to the political impact of U.S. sanctions for Iranian society. “Sanctions have negatively impacted civil society and women,” she says. “Iranian women leaders have come out strongly against the current ‘maximum pressure’ sanctions as they isolate civil society groups from international funding, impact socioeconomically vulnerable populations, and limit their political space for participation.”

    Clearly, Iranian women, Kurds, workers and students are claiming that space, leaving the Iranian state scrambling as its brute repression fails to extinguish the revolt. But we can imagine how much more spacious social and political life in Iran could be without the suffocating economic sanctions that make it untenable to make ends meet, especially for the most vulnerable.

    The people of Iran are the protagonists in this story, defying their government — and American, Islamophobic notions that they are helpless people suffering at the hands of a tyrannical state. But it is abundantly evident that the people of Iran do not need the U.S. to rescue them. They do, however, deserve our solidarity. As people who live in the U.S., we have a role to play in stopping the harm caused by Washington — and helping the people of Iran breathe freer.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Gélin Buteau (Haiti), Guede with Drum, ca. 1995.

    At the United Nations General Assembly on 24 September 2022, Haiti’s Foreign Minister Jean Victor Geneus admitted that his country faces a serious crisis, which he said ‘can only be solved with the effective support of our partners’. To many close observers of the situation unfolding in Haiti, the phrase ‘effective support’ sounded like Geneus was signalling that another military intervention by Western powers was imminent. Indeed, two days prior to Geneus’s comments, The Washington Post published an editorial on the situation in Haiti in which it called for ‘muscular action by outside actors’. On 15 October, the United States and Canada issued a joint statement announcing that they had sent military aircraft to Haiti to deliver weapons to Haitian security services. That same day, the United States submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council calling for the ‘immediate deployment of a multinational rapid action force’ into Haiti.

    Ever since the Haitian Revolution won independence from France in 1804, Haiti has faced successive waves of invasions, including a two-decade-long US occupation from 1915 to 1934, a US-backed dictatorship from 1957 to 1986, two Western-backed coups against the progressive former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991 and 2004, and a UN military intervention from 2004 to 2017. These invasions have prevented Haiti from securing its sovereignty and have prevented its people from building dignified lives. Another invasion, whether by US and Canadian troops or by UN peacekeeping forces, will only deepen the crisis. Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, the International Peoples’ Assembly, ALBA Movements, and the Plateforme Haïtienne de Plaidoyer pour un Développement Alternatif (‘Haitian Advocacy Platform for Alternative Development’ or PAPDA) have produced a red alert on the current situation in Haiti, which can be found below and downloaded as a PDF.

    What is happening in Haiti?

    A popular insurrection has unfolded in Haiti throughout 2022. These protests are the continuation of a cycle of resistance that began in 2016 in response to a social crisis developed by the coups in 1991 and 2004, the earthquake in 2010, and Hurricane Matthew in 2016. For more than a century, any attempt by the Haitian people to exit the neocolonial system imposed by the US military occupation (1915–34) has been met with military and economic interventions to preserve it. The structures of domination and exploitation established by that system have impoverished the Haitian people, with most of the population having no access to drinking water, health care, education, or decent housing. Of Haiti’s 11.4 million people, 4.6 million are food insecure and 70% are unemployed.

    Manuel Mathieu (Haiti), Rempart (‘Rampart’), 2018.

    The Haitian Creole word dechoukaj or ‘uprooting’ – which was first used in the pro-democracy movements of 1986 that fought against the US-backed dictatorship – has come to define the current protests. The government of Haiti, led by acting Prime Minister and President Ariel Henry, raised fuel prices during this crisis, which provoked a protest from the trade unions and deepened the movement. Henry was installed to his post in 2021 by the ‘Core Group’ (made up of six countries and led by the US, the European Union, the UN, and the Organisation of American States) after the murder of the unpopular president Jovenel Moïse. Although still unsolved, it is clear that Moïse was killed by a conspiracy that included the ruling party, drug trafficking gangs, Colombian mercenaries, and US intelligence services. The UN’s Helen La Lime told the Security Council in February that the national investigation into Moïse’s murder had stalled, a situation that has fuelled rumours and exacerbated both suspicion and mistrust within the country.

    Fritzner Lamour (Haiti), Poste Ravine Pintade, ca. 1980.

    Fritzner Lamour (Haiti), Poste Ravine Pintade, ca. 1980

    How have the forces of neocolonialism reacted?

    The United States and Canada are now arming Henry’s illegitimate government and planning military intervention in Haiti. On 15 October, the US submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council calling for the ‘immediate deployment of a multinational rapid action force’ in the country. This would be the latest chapter in over two centuries of destructive intervention by Western countries in Haiti. Since the 1804 Haitian Revolution, the forces of imperialism (including slave owners) have intervened militarily and economically against people’s movements seeking to end the neocolonial system. Most recently, these forces entered the country under the auspices of the United Nations via the UN Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), which was active from 2004 to 2017. A further such intervention in the name of ‘human rights’ would only affirm the neocolonial system now managed by Ariel Henry and would be catastrophic for the Haitian people, whose movement forward is being blocked by gangs created and promoted behind the scenes by the Haitian oligarchy, supported by the Core Group, and armed by weapons from the United States.

    Saint Louis Blaise (Haiti), Généraux (‘Generals’), 1975.

    How can the world stand in solidarity with Haiti?

    Haiti’s crisis can only be solved by the Haitian people, but they must be accompanied by the immense force of international solidarity. The world can look to the examples demonstrated by the Cuban Medical Brigade, which first went to Haiti in 1998; by the Via Campesina/ALBA Movimientos brigade, which has worked with popular movements on reforestation and popular education since 2009; and by the assistance provided by the Venezuelan government, which includes discounted oil. It is imperative for those standing in solidarity with Haiti to demand, at a minimum:

    1. that France and the United States provide reparations for the theft of Haitian wealth since 1804, including the return of the gold stolen by the US in 1914. France alone owes Haiti at least $28 billion.
    2. that the United States return Navassa Island to Haiti.
    3. that the United Nations pay for the crimes committed by MINUSTAH, whose forces killed tens of thousands of Haitians, raped untold numbers of women, and introduced cholera into the country.
    4. that the Haitian people be permitted to build their own sovereign, dignified, and just political and economic framework and to create education and health systems that can meet the people’s real needs.
    5. that all progressive forces oppose the military invasion of Haiti.
    Marie-Hélène Cauvin (Haiti), Trinité (‘Trinity’), 2003.

    Marie-Hélène Cauvin (Haiti), Trinité (‘Trinity’), 2003

    The common sense demands in this red alert do not require much elaboration, but they do need to be amplified.

    Western countries will talk about this new military intervention with phrases such as ‘restoring democracy’ and ‘defending human rights’. The terms ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ are demeaned in these instances. This was on display at the UN General Assembly in September, when US President Joe Biden said that his government continues ‘to stand with our neighbour in Haiti’. The emptiness of these words is revealed in a new Amnesty International report that documents the racist abuse faced by Haitian asylum seekers in the United States. The US and the Core Group might stand with people like Ariel Henry and the Haitian oligarchy, but they do not stand with the Haitian people, including those who have fled to the United States.

    In 1957, the Haitian communist novelist Jacques-Stéphen Alexis published a letter to his country titled La belle amour humaine (‘Beautiful Human Love’). ‘I don’t think that the triumph of morality can happen by itself without the actions of humans’, Alexis wrote. A descendent of Jean-Jacques Dessalines, one of the revolutionaries that overthrew French rule in 1804, Alexis wrote novels to uplift the human spirit, a profound contribution to the Battle of Emotions in his country. In 1959, Alexis founded the Parti pour l’Entente Nationale (‘People’s Consensus Party’). On 2 June 1960, Alexis wrote to the US-backed dictator François ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier to inform him that both he and his country would overcome the violence of the dictatorship. ‘As a man and as a citizen’, Alexis wrote, ‘it is inescapable to feel the inexorable march of the terrible disease, this slow death, which each day leads our people to the cemetery of nations like wounded pachyderms to the necropolis of elephants’. This march can only be halted by the people. Alexis was forced into exile in Moscow, where he participated in a meeting of international communist parties. When he arrived back in Haiti in April 1961, he was abducted in Môle-Saint-Nicolas and killed by the dictatorship shortly thereafter. In his letter to Duvalier, Alexis echoed, ‘we are the children of the future’.

    The post The Last Thing Haiti Needs Is Another Military Intervention first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • What if I told you this story connected poverty, Tony Fauci, the Military-Industrial Complex, the Prison-Industrial Complex, crack, the Civil War, Covid, AIDS, Lou Reed, and my grandfather — and that’s just for starters?

    Hart Island is located at the western end of the Long Island Sound, off the coast of the northeastern Bronx. Despite being only one mile long and 1/3 mile wide, it’s home to more than one million souls. It could be the tenth most populous city in the U.S. — ranked above teeming metropolises like San Francisco, Denver, DC, Boston, and Detroit.

    I say “could” because Hart Island, as a potter’s field for New York City, is actually the largest tax-funded cemetery in the world. And, until 2019, it was manned by grave-digging inmate labor shipped over from nearby Rikers Island.

    (credit: Claire Yaffa)

    Generally speaking, a potter’s field is where any city buries the bodies (and body parts) of those not claimed by any family members or unable to afford a private funeral. This typically includes the homeless, indigent, and people who live alone and below the poverty line. Low-income victims of epidemics and pandemics are often buried in such a location.

    Near the very end of his life, my grandfather would half-jokingly implore my mother to abandon him in the hospital. “They’ll put me in a potter’s field,” he explained, “and you won’t have to waste money on a funeral.”

    For the record, Mom did not take Grandpa up on his suggestion.

    My maternal grandfather with me and my older sister, approximately 200 years ago.

    Why “Hart” Island, you wonder? Like so many other Big Apple tales, there are a couple of interesting but questionable origin stories. The Middle English word “hart” means “stag.” This kinda-sorta makes sense when you consider that the island was once used as a game preserve. Also, deer did migrate from the mainland when ice covered this geographic region way back when.

    The yarn I prefer, for its poetic license, is that British cartographers originally called it “Heart” Island due to its shape. To believe this story is to assume the cartographers to be quite inept as the island’s shape is not exactly like something you’d see in a cardiology textbook. But I’m going with it.

    (credit: Claire Yaffa)

    Besides being a game preserve, over the centuries, Hart Island was also, um… multi-purposed? It’s been a potter’s field since 1875, of course, but here are just a few of the many other uses the “Island of the Undesirables” has served:

    • Training ground for the “United States Colored Troops” during the Civil War
    • Civil War prison camp (235 Confederate prisoners died and were buried on the island)
    • A special hospital was built on the island during the 1870 yellow fever epidemic
    • Tubercularium
    • Reformatory for delinquent boys
    • A women’s “lunatic asylum”
    • Homeless shelter
    • The base for Nike surface-to-air missiles during the Cold War

    In the 1960s, Phoenix House even ran a drug rehabilitation program on the island. They’d hold annual sober music festivals there (one year’s headliner was the Velvet Underground).

    At one point, plans were made to erect an amusement park on the island but somehow, that was never built. It’s not hard to discern why so many believe Hart Island to be haunted.

    Despite the myriad uses, Hart Island seemed resigned to its destiny as a potter’s field and that’s what it is full-time now. The list of famous individuals interred on the island includes:

    During the 1980s, far too many of what came to be called “crack babies” died alone in hospitals or in other settings — often diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. These unfortunate souls were frequently laid to rest on Hart Island, lined up in tiny coffins.

    (credit: Claire Yaffa)

    Fear, prejudice, paranoia, and Fauci/Big Pharma criminality helped shape the heartless response to the AIDS pandemic in the 1980s. This reality was manifest on Hart Island with inmate workers being required to wear protective outfits when handling body bags containing those who were said to have died from AIDS.

    Eventually, when it was accepted that no one could “catch” AIDS from a corpse, those bodies were buried in mass graves along with all the others. You can use an interactive map here to identify them.

    In 2008, it was decided that Hart Island would be used for mass burials should there be something like an extreme flu pandemic on the horizon. Some 20,000 slots were made available, just in case. Twelve years later, this planning would go into effect.

    Drone picture show bodies being buried on Hart Island where the Department of Corrections is dealing with the COVID-19 “outbreak” in New York City, U.S., April 9, 2020. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

    In 1992, a Rikers Island inmate named Michael Roman was part of a work crew assigned to bury bodies on Hart Island. Roman called the location, “an island of poor unfortunate souls, buried here in the unknown to others.”

    He bemoaned: “If only I had the power to help this lost island.”

    With that in mind, I urge you to please take another moment to peruse the images that accompany this article. Honor them and the anonymous victims they represent. Ponder how many unrealized moments are also buried on those 101 acres. And what about the children and all the chances they never had? Who will remember these lost souls?

    Vicki Pavia, whose baby is buried on Hart Island. ©1994 Joel Sternfeld

    This is where the Hart Island Project comes in. Here’s a little from their mission statement:

    The Hart Island Project maintains an online database of people buried between 1980 and the present as well as maps of their grave locations. This database is the foundation for a system of storytelling and visualization called the Traveling Cloud Museum in an attempt to preserve the histories of who is buried for present and future generations. The Hart Island Project advocates for increased transparency of New York City burial procedures and assists individuals in gaining access to actual graves and information.

    Click here to learn how you can help them.

    (credit: Claire Yaffa)

    Maybe you’ll feel inspired by what you’ve learned about Hart Island — inspired to not assume you’ve got things all figured out. No one ever imagines they’ll be that person who ends up buried in a plain wooden box among a pile of such boxes in a mass grave that almost nobody is ever allowed to visit. But it can and it does happen, even amidst the best-laid plans.

    Perhaps the best way to venerate the virtually anonymous million-plus humans laid to rest on Hart Island is to not take our own lives or the people in our lives for granted. To live today with compassion and self-compassion, because tomorrow is never guaranteed.

    There’s nothing we can do for those buried on the “Island of the Undesirables” except to remember them and mourn them. But, a bigger question remains: What are we doing right now for those who are still here among us?

    As Mary Harris “Mother” Jones urged: “Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living.”

    The post AIDS, Covid-19, Confederate Prisoners and a Million More Stories on Hart Island first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Anti-poverty activists and welfare recipients called on Social Services minister Amanda Rishworth to raise welfare payments on the International Day for Eradicating Poverty. Isaac Nellist reports.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Imagine wanting to tell your story, racing to the microphone, only to find that there is a proverbial sea separating you from it; you can see the microphone, but you cannot access it. You do not have the required credentials to stand before it. You watch people on the other side and quickly realize they have power and social mobility. Hell, their entire experience is constructed in a way that they can operate without acknowledging or seeing you. They have the political, financial and social capital to do so. Relatedly, they also have the means to tell their story; they never pray to be heard because they know they will be heard.

    You, on the other hand, have none of that. You do not have a big name. You do not have a big bank account. Every title you hold — woman, mother, person of color, person living in poverty — is devalued. This is the plight of working-class families (especially mothers), early childhood education workers and anti-poverty advocates. Political leaders, on the other hand, have the luxury of engaging you and your community only when it benefits them, such as for photo ops or election season.

    It is painful to watch leaders who are disconnected from the struggle of working families control not only the microphone but the platform. They control the narrative about those who struggle. But even worse, they easily disregard those whose only offense is being unable to make ends meet.

    What I’m describing is not an intro to a fictitious work. Some, like me, come from places such as West Virginia, where Sen. Joe Manchin is provided opportunity after opportunity to share his austere viewpoint, even though he consistently conveys contempt for the poor.

    Political leaders like Manchin often view poverty as a character defect rather than a problem created by policy. For example, Manchin killed the extension of the Child Tax Credit which would have lifted scores of children out of poverty. Refusing to extend the credit meant an estimated 4 million children — 50,000 in his own state — returned to poverty. Manchin’s gripe: The measure didn’t have strict work requirements. But such requirements are punitive and inflexible for mothers without access to child care, caregivers of children with disabilities, grandparents, parents in schools, and others with unique circumstances. There are no carveouts that address the nuances of life.

    What is more, millions of children fell back into poverty, yet their advocates and caregivers never had an opportunity to express how this felt. They watched persons with power disregard the needs of the poor and lacked an opportunity to offer a rebuttal. This is because the majority of working people — including early childhood education workers — cannot capture the attention of those in power.

    Last year, a group of women from West Virginia and I as part of Team for West Virginia Children and Rattle The Windows took 500 teddy bears to Washington, D.C. to symbolize the 50,000 West Virginia kids who would go back into poverty once the Child Tax Credit expired. Working with national partners, we learned how to obtain a permit, where to position ourselves physically so that the teddy bears would be seen by elected leaders, and how to engage congressional offices. If we didn’t have funding for the trip, or a firm to help us, we would not have known the mechanics of effectively engaging elected leaders. The truth is that most Americans wouldn’t even know where to start if they wanted to plan an action at the nation’s capital. Access to our policy makers is blocked by gatekeepers and rules that most of us are not privy to. It is almost impossible for us to capture the attention of people elected to represent us. Advocates are often told to wait until our elected leaders are in district, but there is nothing that guarantees policy makers will meet with us even if they have an office down the street. Additionally, having a meeting scheduled is no guarantee elected leaders will show up, show up on time or be willing to interact with us in good faith.

    It is painful to watch people like policy makers — people who are never searching for a microphone, platform or audience — disregard us, yet be offered one opportunity after another to make their case. The mainstream media cover their every move, their every objection and their every illogical rationale for making life harder for marginalized communities. They are given ample opportunity to explain their opposition to policies that would improve life for poor and working-class folk. Working people do not stand a chance in a nation that pardons the rich, despises the poor, and caters to those with power.

    We are experiencing a child care crisis in this country. Early childhood education has been underfunded for years. This has meant that centers are unable to retain staff, child care workers themselves are being paid poverty wages, and families in need of child care are going without, making it ridiculously impossible for families to participate in the workforce. The persistent challenge in early childhood education has meant that children are not getting what they need, and parents are unable to meet the demands of their families due to systemic barriers. And with rising inflation and rising housing costs, families are more squeezed than ever. When will the working poor be asked to weigh in on policies that impact their ability to be self-sustaining? When will our lived experience warrant a press pass? I do not know the answer, but I know that children and families will continue to suffer until they are seen as part of the solution rather than the problem.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Thousands of students are forced into poverty to pursue their degrees, according to a damning report by the National Union of Students. Tyrus Maxwell reports.

  • Just over a month has passed since the Tory party made Liz Truss prime minister. And, it’s been hell on earth for everyone involved – including her. She has lurched from one crisis to another as the UK falls apart. But how bad is it really? And what has gone on in the past month that you may have missed? The Canary takes a look at 31 days of the new PM – where she’s made Boris Johnson look like a genius.

    Climate chaos

    The Tories installed Truss on 6 September. Now, as of the 7 October, the UK is facing pre-planned energy blackouts this winter, even after Truss said during the Tory leadership race that she wouldn’t let that happen. The National Grid has warned that due to capitalism’s fossil fuel crises, it may have to impose three-hour intentional power cuts on “pre-defined periods during a day”.  The news comes after Truss repeatedly lied about energy bills, saying her £2,500 ‘cap’ was the most households would pay – a claim groups like Full Fact repeatedly corrected. She even stopped the new king, Charles Windsor, going to the Cop27 climate summit – weaponising the climate and ecological crisis for her own, climate crisis-denial agenda when our planetary boundaries are collapsing and we’re in the midst of the Holocene (sixth) extinction event – which started at the end of the last ice age but has been turbocharged by human activity.

    Under Truss’s leadership the state is already continuing the drift to far-right authoritarianism. Madeleine Budd could face 18 months in jail after pouring human faeces over a memorial to Tom Moore. She admitted criminal damage and a judge denied her bail. The sentence seems ridiculous – and as the Canary‘s Joe Glenton alluded to – if Budd had poured the faeces into a river she probably would have gotten away with it. Because under Truss water companies have continued to violate the environment by pumping raw sewage into our rivers and seas.

    Economic chaos

    Truss has continued with the Tory policy of freeports – but upped the capitalism stakes by changing them to “investment zones” (onshore tax havens to the rest of us). This encapsulates her neoliberal approach to economic policy – with hers and chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget nearly causing a financial catastrophe. After the Tories announced the package, the value of the pound collapsed, mortgage lenders pulled countless rates, and the Bank of England had to step in to save pension funds. But that wasn’t the end of it, even after Truss’s now-infamous U-turn. By Thursday 6 October the pound sunk again against the dollar after a credit rating agency warned of further problems with the UK economy.

    All this is without Truss’s other potential policies which could have disastrous consequences for the poorest people. As the Canary previously reported, her government is planning to cut social security in real-terms next April. Johnson’s government had already indicated it would increase benefits by around 10%. Now, Truss wants to change how April 2023’s rise is worked out – and track it to pay rises. This would mean social security would only go up by around 5.4% – which is a real-terms cut. Think tank the Resolution Foundation says this would mean households could see up to £500 a year wiped-off their incomes. This is on top of years of real-terms cuts Tory governments have already meted out.

    Truss: worse than Johnson?

    Director of campaign group Global Justice Now Nick Dearden summed the situation up. He wrote for Al Jazeera that:

    It might be hard for those outside Britain to believe we now have a worse government than that of Johnson. But we do. Johnson was deceitful, venal and incompetent but, in his desire to stay in power, he spent money. He knew it was popular. In fact, it was this lack of adherence to free market principles, as much as the shambolic nature of his government, that turned the Conservative Party membership against him.

    Dearden makes an interesting point. Previous Tory leaders were not neoliberal in the true sense of the word. David Cameron’s brand of capitalism was very much a globalist corporatism – where companies hold power over government, and the government therefore acts in their interests. Looking back, there was unease at this at the time from those that are now closest to Truss’s administration. For example, controversial think tank the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) criticised Cameron’s MO in 2011  – comparing him to Ted Heath and even Tony Benn. Theresa May then took a more moderate line of capitalism.

    But Johnson trashed all of this, as Dearden noted – and now we see the free market ideologues in charge. Truss’s agenda is in many ways more extreme than Johnson’s. Because even he realised shrinking the state and slashing public spending during a socioeconomic crisis was far-right conservatism too far. Of course, the current so-called cost of living crisis is now affecting the middle classes, hence the uproar. But even angering ‘Middle England‘ hasn’t discouraged Truss. After all, her ideology is so extreme that the middle classes are expendable, too.

    Classism, the Truss way

    This will not end well. Truss has infuriated mainstream corporate capitalists – to the point where even the nation-destroying International Monetary Fund (IMF) sounds moderately reasonable. Her economic policies are classism on steroids – designed to create a society of the dazzlingly rich versus the destitute, disposable poor, with everyone else in between simply ‘getting by’. Truss will be a disaster – and make Johnson look positively reasonable. Make no mistake, though – contrary to some opinions, she is not “incompetent“. Because if you look at her approach to economics – and therefore by default her approach to social security, the climate crisis, and criminal justice – it reveals what actually drives her to make decisions which seem ludicrous to most people.

    Her unfettered free market neoliberalism is ideological. Truss is a conservative who’s socially authoritarian, but her economics are that of libertarianism, by all accounts. She believes society should be free to do what it wants; people can get as rich as they desire – but only if she approves of their views. This of course includes a disdain for poor and marginalised people – because under Truss’s worldview it’s their fault they’re that way. The problem she’s faced is that this ideology is too extreme for the system (hence interventions from the likes of the IMF). Its proponents rely on the system seeming “human” or “inclusive” to get buy-in from most of the population. And Truss’s brand of worldview is neither of these things.

    The Financial Times posited that the Tories were now the most economically right-wing political party in the so-called “developed world”. So, like we saw with Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour on the other end of the political spectrum, the system will attempt to crush Truss, too – hence her breakneck speed U-turn on tax cuts for the rich. She’s too neoliberal even for corporate capitalists.

    No-one is coming to save us

    Of course, the obvious problem with all of this is that no-one is coming to save us. Labour is dead; the SNP will evacuate the United Kingdom as soon as it can, and the Green party are still on the fringes. Even with Labour’s current polling, under our system, the party may still not win a majority – due to boundary changes that favour the Tories and the SNP’s strength in Scotland. And if they did, Keir Starmer’s brand of politics would still be a disaster for us all.

    After just a month in charge, Truss has shown the hell that is facing most of us. So, the fight against both her and the system has to continue from our communities and organisations – it just needs stepping up several more gears, now.

    Featured image via PoliticsJOE – YouTube 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary Workers’ Co-op.

  • A new report has found that “overwhelming numbers” are “struggling with high rents and large rent increases, with profound impacts for their health”. Isaac Nellist reports.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • By: Will Brown 

    More than a trillion aid dollars have been pumped into the continent since the 1960s. Famines have been averted. Hundreds of millions have been vaccinated. Yet the total number of Africans surviving on less than $1.90 a day has hovered around 400 million for about 40 years. 

    But could the solution have been staring us in the face the whole time? Could we get rid of the white United Nations 4x4s, arcane development plans dreamt up in Western capitals and concentrate on one thing: giving poor people money?  

    Rory Stewart, former UK cabinet minister and one-time Conservative leadership contender, thinks so. He has just been appointed President of GiveDirectly, an American NGO trying to shake the foundations of the aid world.  

    “Instead of giving a tent to people in poverty, which they sell for cash to buy what they want, or moving wheat halfway around the world from a farmer in Idaho, we’re actually letting people determine what their needs are,” Mr Stewart tells The Telegraph in Kilifi, a drought-stricken county in southern Kenya.  

    GiveDirectly’s pitch is as radical as it is simple. They argue that if you give every family in an impoverished community a no-strings-attached one-time payment of $1,000 (£865) – roughly four days’ salary for a typical UN staffer – you can transform their lives for the better in almost every way.  

    “Cash has this magic multiplier effect. It gets the general economy going,” says Stewart. “It allows people to buy a roof for their homes. “A cash donation lets people get a cow which produces milk and gives calcium to their kids. It lets them set up a small business or get their children through school. It improves their diets, so they’ll have fewer sick days,” he says.  

    There is a quiet revolution couched in his words. For half a century, the aid industry has revolved around legions of Western expatriates, with fancy master’s degrees, parachuting into far-off places to tell locals what they need to get out of poverty.

    ‘Now I have some dignity’

    UN agencies and NGOs will sometimes play dazzling accounting tricks that give the illusion that most of their donations go directly to those in need. But ineffective projects, huge overheads for contractors and dodgy officials often suck up resources, leading to widespread disillusionment among rank and file humanitarians. 

    Stewart, who was Secretary of State for International Development in 2019, is damning in his criticism of patronising attitudes in the aid sector. “We dress it up in fancy words like best practice and capacity building. But basically, ‘best practice’ means we know what’s best. And ‘capacity building’ means we need to teach you what to do. And then if you fail, we say there’s a lack of ‘political will’. In other words, you’re lazy,” he says. “At some level, these are fancy jargon words for suggesting that communities in Asia or Africa are ignorant, unskilled and idle.” 

    By effectively cutting out the highly paid middlemen, GiveDirectly claims that its work has a better bang for its buck than almost any other intervention. But many national governments are cautious of the idea. The international community has already been sold many dud silver bullets and giving out cash to poor people is not a popular political decision. Could this really work on a grand scale?  

    Five years ago, almost everyone in the Mgandamwani village lived in fragile, leaky huts. There was no electricity and women used to walk three hours a day to the nearest reservoir to get water. Most men earned a pittance – £3.50 to £7 – working the occasional hard labour job in town.  

    Villagers say their lives transformed overnight when they received $1,000 on their mobile money accounts. They got local builders to get tin roofs, concrete floors, solar panels and lights so their children could read in the evening. Some young men went on training courses to become electricians or welders. Three middle-aged women – Kanze, Dama and Kadzo – pooled their cash together to lay water piping in the village for the first time. 

    “It’s the genius of the market. It’s very pure market economics,” says Stewart excitedly after coming back from seeing a new herd of goats.

    “Most people in extreme poverty have spent their entire lives thinking about what they would do if they got a bit of money and they can get it much cheaper than we can.” 

    Broader research backs up the improvements at Mgandamwani. A major study by academics at the Universities of California San Diego and Georgetown found that a simple $500 transfer reduced the child mortality rate by 70 per cent and improved child growth. A review of seven studies in Africa found that cash transfers reduced risky sexual behaviour, increased the use of antenatal care and increased the likelihood of having a nurse on site when a woman gave birth.

    The villagers in Mgandamwani are all still brutally poor on a level almost unimaginable to anyone in Britain. But that’s not how recipients see it.

    “I spent all the money on my house,” says Zawadi Kitsao, an illiterate woman who is probably much older than the 36 years written on her ID card.

    “Before, I didn’t even have a door on my house for privacy. Now I have some dignity,” she says as she walks around her newly constructed breeze block home. 

    One fear many critics of cash payments have is that men will end up spending the money on drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. While this happens in some isolated cases, researchers say this is a tired cliche and that most people seize the opportunity to change their lives for the better. But several broader problems remain. Most countries where GiveDirectly have been working are stable and relatively law-abiding. 

    It is hard to see how the lean NGO can guarantee security for cash recipients in war-ravaged nations like South Sudan, where whole villages are sometimes taken hostage for the money stored on their digital mobile wallets. The next problem is one of scale. 

    Since the organisation was founded by four students at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2008, they have reached more than 300,000 households with large payments across Liberia, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda and Uganda. Could the massive investment of liquid cash cause rampant inflation? 

    The answer is not entirely clear, although Stewart cites economic modelling showing that you would need to dump about 20 per cent of GDP to have a serious impact on inflation. Many aid workers still need to be convinced. But in some ways, it is easy to see why the simple idea of giving people cash has faced so much resistance. 

    “It’s difficult. It’s not just that people are selfish; it’s psychological. People have dedicated their whole life to the idea that they have a unique set of knowledge and skills and that they are necessary to save people,” says Stewart. “If you have to confront the fact that actually the villagers have a better idea about what they need than you do, your whole life is called into question.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • An open letter signed by over 200 humanitarian groups calls on world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly to urgently take action on world hunger, citing that one person dies of hunger every four seconds. We speak with Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, one of the letter’s signatories, who just returned from Somaliland, where a famine may be declared as early as next month. Climate change, COVID and conflicts such as the war in Ukraine are largely to blame for rising hunger, she says, and “those who are the least responsible are suffering its worst impacts.”

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: One person is dying of hunger every four seconds. That’s the warning from a coalition of humanitarian groups, who say global hunger is spiraling out of control. Oxfam, Save the Children and other groups say 345 million people are now experiencing acute hunger — double the number from 2019. Humanitarian groups from 75 countries sent an open letter to world leaders and high-level diplomats gathering this week for the United Nations General Assembly here in New York Ciy. This is the first U.N. General Assembly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and a key meeting Tuesday focused on how the war is contributing to skyrocketing levels of hunger. This is the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

    SECRETARY OF STATE ANTONY BLINKEN: At the outset of 2022, conflicts, COVID-19, the effects of the climate crisis had already driven more than 190 million people into acute food insecurity. According to the World Food Programme, President Putin’s brutal war of aggression in Ukraine may add 70 million people on top of that — an already staggering number becoming even more staggering.

    AMY GOODMAN: This comes as the United Nations is warning of a looming famine in Somalia, where a searing drought fueled by the climate crisis has withered crops, killed livestock and left nearly 8 million people, or half of Somalia’s population, in need of humanitarian assistance. The U.N. says millions more are at risk of hunger and famine across East Africa, including Kenya and Ethiopia.

    For more on the world hunger emergency, we’re joined in New York by Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America. She recently returned from a trip to Somaliland, where a famine may be declared as early as October. Oxfam is one of the signatories to an open letter submitted by over 200 NGOs to world leaders this week, calling on them to take immediate action.

    Welcome to Democracy Now!, Abby Maxman. Can you start off by laying out the scope of the problem and what you’re calling for?

    ABBY MAXMAN: Thanks so much, Amy. Good to be with you.

    Having just returned from Somaliland last week, I’m able to connect what we’re seeing in the lived, real lives of people and how they’re affected, and connect them with those global numbers you already outlined. Three hundred and forty-five million people are facing extreme hunger as a result of that confluence of climate, COVID and conflict — and that number, in and of itself, 345 million people, more than the entire population of the United States, and this in the 21st century.

    Now, we know that we have been calling the alarm for several years. And we’ve had used our early-warning systems to trigger, to show — that have showed drought has continued to erode the lives and livelihoods of pastoralist and agropastoralist communities. Someone I saw in Somaliland, the stories were very similar. A woman named Safia, mother of eight, divorcée, who had stayed in her community as long as she could over the past several years, and ultimately went to a displaced persons camp near Burao called Durdur after she had lost 90% of her livestock. And hyenas were literally circling her family and her community as the livestock weakened. They had no choice but to move.

    What is so egregious about this is the cause of this is climate change. The increasing frequency and ferocity of intense climatic shocks, droughts, floods and heat waves, that we’re observing from Pakistan to Puerto Rico and, of course, across East Africa, are evidenced in all of the news. But we know it’s people like Safia and the 74-year-old farmer who said this is the worst drought he has ever seen in his lifetime, they are down to one meal a day. And they need and deserve our help.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Abby Maxman, you mentioned conflict, as well. To what degree has the Russian invasion of Ukraine affected the food supply, especially to the Global South? And also, to what degree, from your sense, is it the corporations taking advantage of situations? We see the secretary-general mentioning oil companies or energy companies exploiting the current crises. Your sense of these two things — the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and general super profits sought by some international companies?

    ABBY MAXMAN: Yeah, Juan, thanks for pointing those two things out. Yes, the war in Ukraine has exacerbated an already dire situation. The economic consequences of COVID and the climate crisis have been supercharged by the war in Ukraine. Prices have gone up exorbitantly. And people in Somaliland who I was talking to and seeing were spending more than 90% — 90% — of their income on food just to survive, and they were using coping strategies, down to one and two meals a day. That just is one anecdote of many about the impacts, direct and indirect, of the global crisis and conflict and its impact on those in East Africa and Somaliland.

    Your point on fossil fuel profit and others, it can’t be understated. It is extraordinary that as humanity faces this existential crisis of climate, that there is still more incentive by fossil fuel companies to destroy our planet and people than to save lives and to save the planet. Now, we know that the oil and gas industry has enjoyed staggering profits as they have wrought havoc on the planet. They’ve been amassing $2.8 billion a day. That’s more than a trillion dollars a year over the last 50 years. And just let me contrast that against the fact that 18 days of fossil companies’ profit could cover the entire U.N. humanitarian appeal for 2022, which has been woefully underfunded.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you also mentioned that you were in Somaliland recently. Particularly, could you talk about the situation in Africa? Obviously, there are major conflicts still raging there, especially in Ethiopia. Your sense of the impact of those regional conflicts in terms of hunger and poverty in Africa?

    ABBY MAXMAN: Yeah, Juan. Well, that confluence of those toxic three Cs — COVID, climate, conflict — are just supercharging the situation. And those who are least responsible are suffering its worst impacts. So, we need to make sure — we know that when humanitarian access is limited, that exacerbates people’s lives and livelihoods and the ability to get basics of their human rights — food, shelter, water, safety, protection. So, that is part of the cocktail, if you will, the toxic one, that people who — are experiencing, people like the countless pastoralists who are facing existential crisis to their lives, livelihoods, and that of their ancestors. They have rights and dignity that we need to protect and support in crisis. And the international community has a responsibility and a moral duty to act. And this week, in New York, around the U.N. General Assembly, we are calling on those in power, member states and policymakers, to take action now.

    We need to do three big things. Save lives — and there’s a number of ways of doing that: make sure we resource the humanitarian appeals and get the resources to people who need them, support local organizations, women-led organizations. Second, we need to build resilience. We cannot repeat this pattern of pulling resources to respond to crises that we know are coming. And we need to invest in both now. It’s an investment in the future. It’s an investment in protection. It’s an investment in promoting lives and livelihoods and dignity. And third, we need to invest in that future, beyond the resilience. We need to double climate adaptation funds. We need to make sure that special drawing rights are modified so that countries are relieved from debt and debt burden. And we need to fund nutrition and other fundamental issues that need to be supported at this time.

    AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about the growing inequality in the world and how this relates to the crisis of hunger around the world. According to a report just released by the investment bank Credit Suisse, the number of “ultra-high-net-worth” individuals, UHNW people, also increased exponentially last year to a record 218,200. Can you comment on this extraordinary rise in wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, while hundreds of millions are dying from hunger and hunger-related causes? And how must this be addressed?

    ABBY MAXMAN: It must be addressed. And I appreciate there’s an acronym now, UHNW, though that’s sad, a sad fact that that needs to be called out. This is a failure in our economic system, a system that is broken and serving a privileged few. It’s not — it’s immoral, it’s wrong, and there’s an opportunity to fix it. It’s not happening by chance. It’s happening intentionally by those in power and political capture and those who are wreaking profits to benefit themselves.

    There can be an opportunity to have a global wealth tax, to ensure that fossil fuel companies’ profits can be fairly taxed so that things like the U.N. humanitarian appeals, at a minimum, are funded. This is — nobody suffers. This is a race to the bottom versus a race to the top. And extreme inequality is harmful to all of society and all of humanity. It is very frustrating, it makes me very angry, to hear that, “Oh, there are no resources. That’s why we cannot save lives, build resilience and invest in the future.” That is not accurate. In the 21st century, there are enough resources to ensure the integrity and dignity of people’s lives and livelihoods and a more equal world. And there’s an opportunity to end extreme inequality by changing this failing economic system.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, Abby Maxman, we thank you so much for being with us, president and CEO of Oxfam America, recently returned from a trip to Somaliland, where a famine may be declared as early as October.

    Next up, Adnan Syed has been freed after spending 23 years behind bars. His case gained international attention when it was the subject of the podcast Serial. We’ll speak with the first attorney to represent him. Stay with us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • After 12 bleak years of various Conservative governments, led by inadequate Prime Ministers, the UK is on its knees. Democracy is under attack like never before; the disaster of Brexit, which has resulted in a catalogue of negatives including social polarization, isolationism and rabid tribalism.

    Years of grinding austerity, underinvestment in public services, frozen wages and staggering levels of incompetence have culminated in the unmitigated mess we see before us: A country in terminal decline, poverty growing, inequality entrenched, and  to cap it all The Wicked Witch of the raving Right, Liz Truss, has now been elected leader of the Conservatives, and, as they are in office, the new Prime Minister. A totally undemocratic electoral process, but hey, ‘that’s the way it’s always been’.

    She was voted in, in a country of around 69 million people, by 81,326 (57.4% of the total gaggle) Conservative members. A tiny group, overwhelmingly old, posh, white, male, anti-Europe, anti-immigrant, anti-environment – pro-fossil fuels, backward-looking nationalists. A crazy bunch operating within  a dysfunctional system that, like much of the UK parliamentary structure and the primordial electoral model, desperately needs reforming.

    The revolting campaign rhetoric spouted by Truss, was we hoped, just that, ranting rhetoric aimed solely at the conservative golf club nobs. Alas, in her first pronouncements as PM, surrounded by baying Tory sycophants, it was clear that Truss lives not in the real world at all, but in a crumbling castle for one, built on a foundation of Neo-Liberal doctrine, situated further to the right than any UK Prime-Minister in recent years.

    Despite decades of disappointment, whenever a new PM/government takes office, naivety gives rise to a prickle of optimism: surely now things will improve, surely social justice will be prioritized, peace and environmental action imperatives. Well, PM Truss swiftly crushed any such childish hopes with her first speech in parliament and her wooden responses during Prime Minister’s Questions. Arrogance masquerading as certainty imbued every cruel statement of policy intent, and, as opposition parties shook their heads in disbelief, people around the country, millions of whom are struggling to pay rising energy bills and increased food prices, were again crushed.

    Truss, her cabinet, and thanks to a purge of moderate voices undertaken by Boris Johnson to quieten dissent, most, if not all of the parliamentary party, is now firmly wedded to an extreme version of Neo-Liberalism and the failed doctrine of Trickle Down economics. After forty years of most boats being sunk by the rising tide, the Ideology of Injustice has been shown to deepen inequality, intensify poverty and further concentrate wealth in the pockets of The Already Wealthy.

    In addition to economic plans designed to benefit corporations and, by her own admission, intensify inequality (‘I’m not interested in re-distribution’ she told the BBC), she plans to increase military spending, allow global energy companies to restart gas extraction in the North Sea, end the moratorium on fracking and abolish green levies, which are used to fund energy efficiency and renewable electricity. She despises labor rights and the Trades Union movement, peaceful public protest and immigrants, all of which she is threatening to criminalize or clutter with so much bureaucracy as to make such human rights unenforceable.

    Her policies, dogmatism and the doctrine that underpin them are, in many ways, terrifying. And with the  suspension of parliament and consequently, any form of scrutiny, resulting from the death of The Queen, there is a danger, or for her, an opportunity, that she attempts to introduce legislation under cover of national mourning. If Truss and her gang get their way, the limited form of democracy that exists in the UK will become a distant memory, rather as ethics and honesty in public office, compassion and honoring international commitments have in recent years.

    Rising misery

    The list of national crises that the Truss government inherits, most if not all of which she had a grubby hand in causing, is long, and growing. As is public anger. It is a list resulting from ideological obsession, gross incompetence and absenteeism.

    The National Health Service (NHS) is in crisis – years  of underfunding, lack of training and Brexit, which saw thousands of NHS workers from Europe leave the UK, have led to around 135,000 vacancies, including 40,000 nurses and over 8,000 doctors in England alone. The service has the longest waiting lists for routine treatments on record; if you dial 999 for an ambulance, it could be hours, or in extreme cases, days before it arrives. Social care is dysfunctional; there is a housing crisis, property prices are sky high, rents are unaffordable, tenancies offer no security, homelessness is increasing – according to Government figures, “between January to March 2022, 74,230 households were assessed as homeless or threatened with homelessness,”up 5.4% in the same period in 2021, a further 38,000 were regarded as at “risk of homelessness”.

    Inflation is at 10.1% and rising, recession predicted, poverty booming. Thousands of people/families (many of whom are in full-time employment) rely on food banks for basic supplies – over two million people visited a food bank last year, and this doesn’t include independent providers – local charities, churches etc. Ten years ago food banks barely existed in the UK, now there are estimated to be 2,572, and constitute a growth area.

    The privatization of utility companies including water in 1989 under Thatcher, has led to energy and water companies making huge profits for shareholders (£72bn in dividends), but neglecting consumers and failing to invest. Since water was privatized no new reservoirs have been commissioned (in 33 years), and, The Guardian reports,“2.4bn liters [of water] a day on current estimates have been allowed to leak away.” Airports including Heathrow, have had to limit the number of flights due to lack of staff; the airport authorities and airlines use the ‘It’s not us, it’s Covid’ excuse, so loved by companies and government agencies who laid off too many employees during the pandemic and either haven’t re-hired enough, or employees refused to return unless wages and conditions improved.

    The judiciary is in crisis, as is the prison system and the police, particularly in London; childcare and nursery education is shambolic, unaffordable for most, hard to find, limited places, particularly for those on average incomes; again due in part to lack of properly trained staff. It is, it seems, an endless list, shameful and intensely depressing, There may, however, be a glimmer of light within the storm; a positive effect of this cacophony of chaos is a growing movement of resistance to economic injustice, and Trades Union industrial action.

    Enough is Enough

    Wages for most people in the UK have been effectively frozen for years; and now, with rising inflation income is reducing in value, economic hardship intensifying, fury rising. Unions, which have been greatly weakened in the last thirty years through restrictive legislation, have rediscovered their courage and purpose, and in response to members’ demands have organised strikes in a number of areas. Most notably, railway and Transport for London workers have withdrawn their labor on a number of occasions in disputes over pay and conditions; refuse workers in Scotland have been on strike over pay; postal workers have also been striking; junior barristers are on indefinite strike over pay; workers at the UK’s largest container port, Felixstowe, recently withdrew their labour for eight days in another dispute about pay. Nurses and doctors working in the NHS are threatening industrial action, as are teachers.

    The leader of the RMT union, Mick Lynch, who has emerged as a leading voice for the people, has suggested that, “unions are on the brink of calling for ‘synchronized’ strikes over widespread anger at how much soaring inflation is outpacing wages.” If such a positive step were taken, it would be a powerful act of resistance against  years of exploitation and injustice, and may further empower working people, who for years have been silenced.

    In parallel with the workers revolt is a social movement of defiance. Initially triggered by high energy bills, rising costs and low wages, the scope of disquiet is expanding to include outrage at huge profits for energy companies and other corporations, increasing payments to shareholders whilst the majority struggle to feed themselves and their families; i.e., it’s about social injustice, exploitation and greed. Two movements of resistance and change have emerged from the widespread disquiet – ‘Don’t Pay’, which aims to empower people to not pay increased energy bills, and ‘Enough is Enough’, which is a broader social movement founded by union leaders and MPs.

    The appearance of these groups is deeply encouraging and could prove to be a pivotal moment. Many people, the majority perhaps, are worn down, ashamed of where the country finds itself, and have had enough. Enough of being ignored and manipulated; of being told to ‘tighten their belts’ and ‘carry on’, whilst corporations, public/private companies including energy firms, pay out huge dividends and government ministers, spineless, unprincipled puppets, who live in the silk-lined pockets of big business, including most notably the media barons, lie and lie and lie again.

    In the face of increasing levels of social injustice, government duplicity and economic hardship, eventually the people must unite and revolt. If, after the endless pantomime of the Queen’s funeral, people do come together, refuse to pay rising energy costs; refuse to work, refuse to be exploited and marginalized; refuse to stand by while the natural world is vandalised; if the unions do take coordinated action, and many of us would support such a progressive act, there is a chance, slim, but real, that years of frustration and anger, can be turned into empowerment and hope.

    The post UK: Fragmentation and Decline Under Conservative Rule first appeared on Dissident Voice.

  • For the past several months, the Federal Reserve has used a traditional toolkit to attempt to rein in the high inflation that was unleashed by the pandemic and worsened by Russia’s attack on Ukraine.

    This traditional model for responding to inflation, hewed to by economists for decades, posits that inflation is triggered by excess demand, and that the way to rein in demand (and thus to put the brakes on inflation) is to raise the cost of borrowing. Hence the rush upward in the interest rate set by the Federal Reserve, and, by extension, the increased cost of borrowing for companies looking to finance new investments and for consumers looking to get mortgages from banks. In the summer of 2021, for a buyer with good credit, a 30-year mortgage could be approved at a 2.75 percent interest rate. Last week, those mortgages headed north of 6 percent. For a family with, say, a $400,000 mortgage, that’s a difference of roughly $14,000 per year. Not surprisingly, millions of people are deferring home purchases. Between the moment when mortgage rates hit their lows last summer and now, the demand for mortgages has declined by nearly a third.

    The idea is pretty straightforward: If it costs more — perhaps a lot more — to borrow, people will defer purchases. Fewer new cars, fewer house purchases and fewer big-spending items put on credit cards lead to companies needing fewer employees, which in turn recalibrates the labor market away from worker-power, making it harder for employees, in a soft labor market, to bargain up their wages. That particular circle will, the idea goes, rapidly put the squeeze on inflation.

    The theory, which is epitomized by an economic graph known as the Phillips Curve, says that a little bit of short-term consumer pain, and a willingness to tolerate higher levels of unemployment for a few months or even a couple years, ought to do the trick in putting the inflation genie back in its bottle. Proponents of this model argue that workers’ short-term pain is more than compensated for by the longer-term gains that come with stable prices.

    Yet, a strange thing is happening in this current bout with inflation, as many progressive economists, such as Joseph Stieglitz and Dean Baker, had predicted would be the case. As interest rates soar, housing demand is, indeed, easing back, as the model would predict. But the broader labor market remains tight — in part because so many Americans dropped out of the job market during the pandemic, either out of fear of exposure, because they couldn’t find child care, or in many instances, because they ended up suffering debilitating effects from long COVID. And, despite momentary optimism that inflation was peaking in June and July, the recently released numbers for August, which sent the stock market into a swoon last week, suggest that a higher-than-wanted level of inflation (the Federal Reserve aims for inflation in the 2 percent range) is firmly entrenched at the moment.

    Similarly bad inflation numbers are also being posted by other major industrial democracies: The inflation rate in the U.K. is slightly higher than in the U.S., and some models predict it could hit as much as 18 percent by year’s end, although these worst-case scenarios are likely to have been muted somewhat by Prime Minister Liz Truss’s recent announcement that the government would cap energy prices. In the EU, the inflation rate is above 9 percent. In Canada, it is just under 8 percent. In Australia, inflation is hovering at around 6 percent. And even in Japan, which has extraordinarily low levels of inflation due in part to decades of stagnant growth, and in part to the government subsidizing a wide range of consumer products, all the inflation indicators have gone up in recent months, though price increases still remain far less of a problem there than in most other wealthy nations.

    This stubborn persistence of inflation globally oughtn’t to be surprising: the traditional model assumes inflation is triggered by excess demand, and thus can be curbed by reining in demand. But the last couple years of supply chain disruptions have shown that when an unpredicted but catastrophic “black swan event” such as a pandemic holds the world in its grip, prices around the world get driven up by a cascading series of glitches that make it harder both to produce goods and then to ship the finished product to stores and to consumers.

    Why, for example, are consumers paying so much more for cars? Not because there’s suddenly been a spike in the number of drivers on the road, but because at every level of the supply chain — from rubber and steel to semiconductors — there are shortages or delivery bottlenecks. In the globalized economy, a consumer in an import-heavy economy such as the U.S. is particularly vulnerable to, say, price spikes caused by supply shortages triggered by COVID lockdowns half a world away in China.

    Given this, raising interest rates ad nauseam is an extraordinarily clumsy way to deal with the problem. Sure, eventually demand will be curbed so much by the unaffordability of borrowing money that it will tamp down inflation. But before it does that, it’s likely to cause a huge amount of pain. And that hurt won’t be evenly distributed.

    Since the labor market remains tight, those higher up the economic ladder, those with more marketable skills and higher education qualifications, are more frequently able to largely neutralize the loss of purchasing power that comes with inflation through successfully negotiating for wage increases, for starting bonuses, and for other compensation.

    As a result, the inflation spiral will most heavily impact poorer residents, who have less money saved; have less power to negotiate wage increases; and have poorer credit to begin with, meaning that they will pay disproportionately more when they seek to borrow during a moment of rising interest rates.

    Meanwhile, low-income residents face particularly dire circumstances in poorer countries, mainly in the global South, whose governments lack the clout to intervene in the energy and food markets to try to lower costs or to cushion the blow on poorer people through implementing price subsidies for food and energy. In much of the world, inflation, triggered by the twinned dislocations of pandemic and of war, is soaring beyond anything experienced in the first world. Argentina’s inflation is roughly 80 percent, Lebanon’s 116 percent, Sri Lanka’s increased from 5.7 percent a year ago to over 60 percent today, and so on.

    Last week, the head of the United Nations World Food Programme warned that up to 345 million people worldwide or roughly 50 times the number known to have died from COVID so far — could face starvation as food prices soar and as shortages increase. This represents a doubling in global food insecurity since early 2020. Already, roughly 50 million people are facing acute malnutrition. With the recent catastrophic flooding in Pakistan, and the displacement of tens of millions from their homes, that number will surely increase over the coming months. The war in Ukraine, with the resulting disruptions to global markets in grain, wheat, soy and other staples has, the UN estimates, pushed 70 million people closer to starvation.

    The UN’s stark warning ought to have generated headlines around the world; instead, it simply became a side story.

    But, even while economics writers around the world fixate on spiraling inflation in economic powerhouses such as the U.S., the U.K. and the EU bloc, while ignoring even worse inflation — and the damage it causes — in poor countries, there are underlying similarities. To be poor anywhere on Earth is to bear a disproportionate brunt of the impact of failing, one-size-fits-all policies. To be poor is to bear the brunt of inflation spirals; but to be poor is also to bear the brunt of shock-and-awe policy responses designed to wrestle inflation back under control.

    There are, however, alternatives ideas on the table for tackling inflation in a fairer way. Last week, the Center for American Progress released a report detailing how the supply chain could be strengthened so as to reduce disruptions and thus rein in prices. The authors called for ramping up COVID vaccine distribution; expanding the child care system so that parents could return to work; increasing immigration levels in countries such as the U.S. to fill jobs left empty by the contracting workforce; going after price-gouging trusts; and ramping up investments in renewable energy so as to wean the economy from fossil fuels and from the profiteering companies who have made such fortunes during the price-increase months since Russia attacked Ukraine in February.

    The authors concluded that the Fed’s approach, looking to gently tamp down demand without sinking the economy into a deep recession, was unlikely to work to knock excess inflation out of the economy. They warned that if the Fed keeps raising interest rates, eventually the landing could be extremely hard and painful — in other words, this strategy risks crashing both the housing and the job markets, which would hurt poor Americans the most. Better, they argued, to craft an economic policy that “addresses the supply issues brought into high relief during this recovery.”

    Because of the Fed’s outsized influence on global economic policy, the rest of the world is likely to follow where the U.S. goes on interest rates. Raising interest rates moderately may make sense as one tool among many to tackle this rather unique inflationary moment, but raising them immoderately — and excluding more unorthodox supply side anti-inflation interventions — risks doing long-term damage to those at the bottom of the economy. Doing so poses an acute threat to the poor both within the U.S. and in less affluent countries overseas, which could end up plagued by persistently high inflation, rising unemployment and ever-greater difficulties accessing loans for businesses and for house purchases. That’s the sort of lose-lose proposition that could create cascading problems for decades to come.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In the American ethos, sacrifice is often hailed as the chief ingredient for overcoming hardship and seizing opportunity. To be successful, we’re assured, college students must make personal sacrifices by going deep into debt for a future degree and the earnings that may come with it. Small business owners must sacrifice their paychecks so that their companies will continue to grow, while politicians must similarly sacrifice key policy promises to get something (almost anything!) done.

    We have become all too used to the notion that success only comes with sacrifice, even if this is anything but the truth for the wealthiest and most powerful Americans. After all, whether you focus on the gains of Wall Street or of this country’s best-known billionaires, the ever-rising Pentagon budget, or the endless subsidies to fossil-fuel companies, sacrifice is not exactly a theme for those atop this society. As it happens, sacrifice in the name of progress is too often relegated to the lives of the poor and those with little or no power. But what if, instead of believing that most of us must eternally “rob Peter to pay Paul,” we imagine a world in which everyone was in and no one out?

    In that context, consider recent policy debates on Capitol Hill as the crucial midterm elections approach. To start with, the passage of the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) promises real, historic advances when it comes to climate change, health care, and fair tax policy. It’s comprehensive in nature and far-reaching not just for climate resilience but for environmental justice, too. Still, the legislation is distinctly less than what climate experts tell us we need to keep this planet truly livable.

    In addition, President Biden’s cancellation of up to $20,000 per person in student loans could wipe out the debt of nearly half of all borrowers. This unprecedented debt relief demonstrates that a policy agenda lifting from the bottom is both compassionate and will stimulate the broader economy. Still, it, too, doesn’t go far enough when it comes to those suffocating under a burden of debt that has long served as a dead weight on the aspirations of millions.

    In fact, a dual response to those developments and others over the past months seems in order. As a start, a striking departure from the neoliberal dead zone in which our politics have been trapped for decades should certainly be celebrated. Rather than sit back with a sense of satisfaction, however, those advances should only be built upon.

    Let’s begin by looking under the hood of the IRA. After all, that bill is being heralded as the most significant climate legislation in our history and its champions claim that, by 2030, it will have helped reduce this country’s carbon emissions by roughly 40% from their 2005 levels. Since a reduction of any kind seemed out of reach not so long ago, it represents a significant step forward.

    Among other things, it ensures investments of more than $60 billion in clean energy manufacturing; an estimated $30 billion in production tax credits geared toward increasing the manufacture of solar panels, wind turbines, and more; about $30 billion for grant and loan programs to speed up the transition to clean electricity; and $27 billion for a greenhouse gas reduction fund that will allow states to provide financial assistance to low-income communities so that they, too, can benefit from rooftop solar installations and other clean energy developments.

    The IRA also seeks to lower energy costs and reduce utility bills for individual Americans through tax credits that will encourage purchases of energy-efficient homes, vehicles, and appliances. Among other non-climate-change advances, it caps out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, reduces health insurance premiums for 13 million Americans, and provides free vaccinations for seniors.

    As the nation’s biggest investment in the climate so far, it demonstrates the willingness of the Biden administration to address the climate crisis. It also highlights just how stalled this country has been on that issue for so long and how much more work there is to do. Of course, given our ever hotter planet and the role this country has played in it as the historically greatest greenhouse gas emitter of all time, anything less than legislation that will lead to net-zero carbon emissions is a far cry from what’s necessary, as this country burns, floods, and overheats in a striking fashion.

    Pipelines and Sacrifice Zones

    Earlier iterations of what became the IRA recognized a historic opportunity to enact policies connecting the defense of the planet to the defense of human life and needs. Because of the resistance of Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, as well as every Senate Republican, the final version of the reconciliation bill includes worrying sacrifices. It does not, for instance, have an extension or expansion of the Child Tax Credit, a lifeline for poor and low-income families, nor does it raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, even though that was a promise made in the 2020 election. Gone as well are plans for free pre-kindergarten and community college, in addition to the nation’s first paid family-leave program that would have provided up to $4,000 a month to cover births, deaths, and other pivotal moments in everyday life.

    And don’t forget to add to what’s missing any real pain for fossil-fuel companies. After all, coal baron Manchin seems to have succeeded in cutting a side deal with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer for a massive natural gas pipeline through his home state of West Virginia and that’s just to begin a list of concessions. Indeed, the sacrificial negotiations with Manchin to get the bill passed ensured significantly more domestic fossil-fuel production, including agreement that the Interior Department would auction off permits to drill for yet more oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and possibly elsewhere, all of which will offset some of the emissions reductions from climate-change-related provisions in the bill.

    It’s important to note as well that, although progress was made on reducing fossil-fuel emissions, expanding health care, and creating a fairer tax system, for the poor in this country, “sacrifice zones” are hardly a thing of the past. As journalist Andrew Kaufman suggests, “One thing that does seem assured, however, is that the arrival — at last — of a federal climate law has not heralded an end to the suffering [of] communities living near heavy fossil-fuel polluters.” And as Rafael Mojica, program director for the Michigan environmental justice group Soulardarity, put it, the IRA “is riddled with concessions to the big carbon-based industries that at present prey on our communities at the expense of their health, both physically and economically.”

    Keep in mind that Michigan is already anything but a stranger to sacrifice zones. Case in point: the water crisis in the city of Flint as well as in Detroit. The Flint Democracy Defense League and the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization have battled lead-poisoning and water shut-offs for years in the face of deindustrialization and the lack of a right to clean water in this country. Such grassroots efforts helped sound the alarm during the Flint water crisis that began in 2014 and have since linked community groups nationwide dealing with high levels of toxins in their water supply so that they could learn from that city’s grassroots organizing experience. Meanwhile, so many years later, Michiganders are still protesting potential polluters like Enbridge’s aging Line 5 oil pipeline.

    And there are many other examples of frontline community groups protesting the ways in which their homes are being sacrificed on the altar of the fossil-fuel industry. Take, for example, the communities in the stretch of Louisiana between New Orleans and Baton Rouge that contain hundreds of petrochemical facilities and has, eerily enough, come to be known as Cancer Alley. There, among a mostly poor and Black population, you can find some of the highest cancer rates in the country. In St. James Parish alone, there are 12 petrochemical plants and nearly every household has felt the impact of cancer. For years, Rise St. James and other local groups have been working to prevent the construction of a new plastics facility near local schools on land that once was a slave burial ground.

    Then, of course, there are many other sacrifice zones where the issue isn’t fossil fuels. Take the city of Aberdeen in Grays Harbor County, Washington, once home to a thriving timber and lumber economy. After its natural landscape was stripped and the local economy declined, that largely white, rural community fell into endemic poverty, homelessness, and drug abuse. Chaplains on the Harbor, one of the few community organizations with a presence in homeless encampments across the county, has now started a sustainable farm run by formerly homeless and incarcerated young people in Aberdeen as part of an attempt to create models for the building of green communities in places rejected by so many.

    Or take Oak Flat, Arizona, the holiest site for the San Carlos Apache tribe. There, a group called the Apache Stronghold is leading a struggle to protect that tribe’s sacred lands against harm from Resolution Copper, a multinational mining company permitted to extract minerals on those lands thanks to a midnight rider put into the National Defense Authorization Act in 2015. Along with a growing number of First Nations people and their supporters, it has been fighting to protect that land from becoming another sacrifice zone on the altar of corporate greed.

    On the east coast, consider Union Hill, Virginia, where residents of a historic Black community fought for years to block the construction of three massive compressor stations for fracked gas flowing from the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Those facilities would have potentially subjected residents to staggering amounts of air pollution, but early in 2020 community organizers won the fight to stop construction.

    Consider as well the work of Put People First PA!, which, in Pennsylvania communities like Grant Township and Erie, is on the tip of the spear in the fight against an invasive and devastating fracking industry that’s ripping up land and exposing Pennsylvanians to the sort of pollutants that leaders in Union Hill fought to prevent. Note as well that, in many similar places, hospitals are being privatized or shuttered, leaving residents without significant access to health care, even as the risk of respiratory illnesses and other industrially caused diseases grows.

    Such disparate communities reflect a long-term history of suffering — from the violence inflicted on indigenous people, to the slave plantations of the South, to the expansion (and then steep decline) of industrial production in the North and West, to pipelines still snaking across the countryside. And now historic pain inflicted on low-income and poor Americans will increase thanks to a growing climate crisis, as the people of flooded and drinking-water-barren Jackson, Mississippi, discovered recently.

    In a world of megadroughts, superstorms, wildfires, and horrific flooding guaranteed to wreak ever more havoc on lives and livelihoods, poor and low-income people are beginning to demand action commensurate with the crisis at hand.

    Dark Clouds Blowing in From the “Equality State”

    While reports on the passage of the IRA and student debt relief dominated the news cycle, another major policy announcement at the close of the summer and far from Capitol Hill slipped far more quietly into the news. It highlights yet again the “sacrifices” that poor Americans are implicitly expected to make to strengthen the economy. Just outside of Jackson, Wyoming, one of the wealthiest and most unequal towns in this country, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell committed his organization to take “forceful and rapid steps to moderate demand so that it comes into better alignment with supply and to keep inflation expectations anchored.”

    Couched in typically wonkish language, his comments — made in the “equality state” — may sound benign, but he was suggesting capping wages, an act whose effects will, in the end, fall most heavily on poor and low-income people. Indeed, he warned, mildly enough, that this would mean “some pain for households and businesses” — even as he was ensuring that the livelihoods of poor and low-income people would once again be sacrificed for what passes as the greater good.

    What does it mean, for instance, to “moderate demand” for food when more than 12 million families with children are already hungry each month? It should strike us as wrong to call for “some pain” for so many households facing crises like possible evictions or foreclosures, crushing debt, and a lack of access to decent health care. It should be considered inhumane to advocate for a “softer labor market” when one in three workers is already earning less than $15 an hour.

    It is disingenuous to say that the economy is “overheating,” as if what’s being experienced is some strange, abstract anomaly rather than the result of decades of disinvestment in infrastructure and social programs that could have provided the basic necessities of life for everyone. Nonetheless, Powell continues to push a false narrative of scarcity and the threat of inflation to smother the powerful resurgence of courageous and creative labor organizing that we’ve seen, miraculously enough, in these pandemic years.

    At this point, as a pastor and theologian, I can’t resist quoting Jesus’s choice words in the Gospel of Matthew about how poor people so often pay the price for the further enrichment of the already wealthy. In Matthew 9, Jesus asserts: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” The Greek word “mercy” is defined as loving kindness, taking care of the down and out. In Jesus’s parlance, mercy meant acts of mutual solidarity and societal policies that prioritized the needs of the poor, which would today translate into cancelling debts, raising wages, and investing in social programs.

    Despite the encouraging policy-making that hit the headlines this summer, America remains a significant sacrifice zone with economic policies that justify their painful impact on the poor and marginalized as necessary for the greater good. It’s time for us to fight for a comprehensive, intersectional, bottom-up approach to the injustices that continually unfold around us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Poverty rates hit a record low by some measures in 2021, the Census Bureau found in a new report released Tuesday, thanks in large part to the direct aid provided in stimulus bills passed by Congress over the first year of the pandemic.

    The Census Bureau found that the poverty rate hit an all-time low of 7.8 percent last year, while the child poverty rate fell to an all-time low of 4.5 percent, according to the Supplemental Poverty Measure.

    The Supplemental Poverty Measure takes a more holistic view of poverty, taking into account aid provided by public programs like Social Security and costs like food, shelter and utilities, rather than just looking at income and food costs like the Census’s traditional poverty measure. Because of the increase in costs taken into account, the supplemental poverty rate is typically higher than the official poverty rate, but dropped below the official poverty rate for the second time in history last year.

    The programs that drove the largest reductions in poverty were Social Security, refundable tax credits like the expanded child tax credit and the stimulus checks, the agency found; these measures moved about 26 million, 10 million and 9 million people out of poverty last year, respectively. The expanded child tax credit, which expired at the end of 2021, lifted 5.3 million people out of poverty alone.

    These findings are an astounding show of the efficacy of the measures put forth in the stimulus packages.

    Not only did the aid help to keep millions from experiencing poverty, the Census measurements show, they also appear to have staved off losses that were expected from economic instability and unemployment rates last year. Indeed, the massive reductions in poverty rates came despite the fact that median household income remained statistically unchanged from 2020, adjusted for inflation.

    “This has been a large-scale experiment that shows that child poverty is a solvable problem in the United States, and that poverty more broadly is,” Alix Gould-Werth, director of family economic security policy for the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, told The New York Times. “So in order to see these changes last, we really need sustained public investment.”

    The Agriculture Department similarly found earlier this month that child food insecurity declined to an over two-decade low last year, thanks in large part to expansions in the U.S.’s social safety net.

    Although the stimulus measures had a massive hand in reducing poverty and child poverty, conservatives in Congress fought to lessen or eliminate the direct aid in negotiations for the bills. Progressive lawmakers fought to keep the expanded child tax credit alive and continued to advocate for the program after it expired, but the program is effectively dead due to Republicans’ and Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-West Virginia) opposition.

    Republicans argue that continuing programs like the expanded child tax credit would provide aid to those who don’t truly need it, or that it would cost the government too much money.

    But these arguments are fallacious; the Census analysis shows that the program helps millions of children who would otherwise experience poverty, while an investment into a version of the program would pay off 10-fold for the government, massively increasing health and education outcomes for both children and parents.

    On the other hand, progressives have long argued that poverty is a policy choice, and that reducing poverty is not only the moral thing to do but also an economically sound choice to raise up low-income people and help rebuild the middle class.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • COMMENT: By John Minto

    Deception and political spin crossed new boundaries this week with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, under pressure to explain the housing catastrophe in Rotorua, making the absurd statement:

    “Our long-term plan is to get them into sustainable, long-term safe housing. It’s why for instance we’ve worked so hard to now have built 10 percent of all the state houses in New Zealand.”

    Meaningless, ludicrous and irrelevant.

    Why was she not challenged by journalists on this preposterous statement?

    The government has been demolishing state houses almost as fast as it builds them so that the net increase in state houses over the last five years stands at a piddling 1100 per year for a waiting list of 26,664. The waiting list has increased five-fold since Labour came to power in 2017.

    Labour is taking us backwards on state housing at a spectacular rate.

    And neither is it the fault of the previous National government. Labour has kept the policy settings for state house building the same as applied under National — right down to maintaining the same tough criteria to enable a low-income tenant or family to get on the waiting list.

    Largest Labour privatisation since 1980s
    The awful reason Labour is demolishing state houses and selling the land is to provide funding for Kainga Ora. The government doesn’t want to borrow to build, which any sensible government would, so it is forcing Kainga Ora to sell land and properties to do this.

    It’s the largest privatisation of state assets by Labour since the 1980s.

    Where are the journalists to put some simple questions to the Prime Minister?

    • Why has Labour allowed the state house waiting list to INCREASE FIVE FOLD (from 5,000 in late 2017 to over 26,000 in 2022) with no effective policy response?
    • Why does Labour still think it’s OK to produce just 1,100 net new state houses per year for a state house waiting list of over 26,000? (When Labour came to power there were 63,209 state houses which has increased to just 68,765 by June this year).
    • Why are the number of children living in grotty motels STILL INCREASING?
    • Why is the number of children living in cars STILL INCREASING?
    • Why are the number of children in tents STILL INCREASING?
    • Why is Labour still ONLY FUNDING 1600 new IRRS places (for state house and social housing providers combined) each year for the more than 26,000 families on the state house waiting list?
    • Why does Labour still think it’s OK to keep the proportion of state house at just 3.6% of total housing stock when it was 5.4 percent in 1990?
    • Why has Labour not instigated an industrial-scale state house building programme such as the first Labour government did in the 1930s? (Labour then built 3500 state houses each year – equivalent to 10,000 today on a population basis).
    • Why is the government planning to sell 55 to 60 percent of crown land in Auckland to private property developers when we have a housing catastrophe for low-income New Zealanders?

    Where are the journalists to expose this prime ministerial spin?

    Republished from The Daily Blog with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Dave on the Street
    Card machines might be an alternative for Australians who rely on spare change from strangers to stay afloat in today’s increasingly cashless economy, but is this the best way to get ahead?

    This post was originally published on Michael West.

  • There’s a Jobs and Skills Summit in the offing – the new government canvassing issues and strategies with key stakeholders, and there is pre-caucusing going on to bring specific perspectives to the table.

    This was floating in the back of my head as I drafted an email to a colleague about matters monetary, about the recognition of my skills, and knowledge, and expertise – all of which I know I have. And yet, the level of “agh” and “awwwkward” that I had to work my way through as I drafted the note.

    I’ve had jobs since my teens, but I still have to wade through the sludge of societal and familial stories about what is and isn’t appropriate for “ladies” to discuss, let alone assert. (And, let’s be clear, I had a teenage job to pay for fun things, not food; and when I say “ladies” I’m situating that in the English-Scottish roots of my family, who have moved from working class to middle class in the space of three generations).

    There are powerful family stories wrapped up in how I see money and assert my value. The legacy of the ideas of “pin money” for the wee fripperies of genteel ladies is one. The aspirational mimicking of the power of aristocratic classes in declaring it gauche to discuss money is another, even though it was only the introduction of compulsory education in the 1880s that lifted my family from the floors of the cotton mills of Yorkshire, dirt-poor tenements in Aberdeen, and life on the road as commercial travellers in Somerset.

    There are also complicated stories of relationship status and work and the attendant conceptualisations of financial independent and dependence that have shaped my financial settings. These include the conscious removal of women from the paid workforce in the post-second-world-war period in England that informed the lives of my grandmothers and mother, alongside their navigations of personal preferences for meaning and family.

    And they run parallel with the imposition of spinsterhood that followed the loss of multiple generations of men in the first and second world wars, and the opportunities that opened up in both the traditional (teaching and retail) and non-traditional (stockbroking) fields that my great-aunts pursued.

    Interesting research has been done to help us understand the ongoing impact of these stories, showing that even today women display less financial literacy than men.

    Of course, my white, single, middle-class story as a 70s child tells one version of women and finance. It’s an entirely different story to navigate when the colonial state has systematically and intergenerationally stolen your wages, your land, your culture. And another story again when society tells you that your body or brain has lesser value in a capitalist economy, pushing you to the poverty margins in closed workshops.

    There are, of course, big fat levers governments can, and should, pull to address gender inequalities in jobs and skills – provision of childcare, parental leave, vocational training programs, to name just a few – alongside the levers that can be pulled to address workplace racism.

    But one of the biggest and most slippery is how to start telling new stories – individually and societally – about the gendered and raced and abled stories of our relationship with money. To do that we need a lever that, if we pulled it, would shift not just inequality in jobs and skills, but inequality in all areas of society.

    Specifically, we need tools that help us to name and challenge the gendered, raced, classed myths that we buy in to – for example, the half-lives of the myths that meant whole groups of people in our society were denied bank accounts simply because of their race or because they were female.

    Or that a woman’s economic zenith, to namecheck one of the fathers of neo-liberalism, Milton Friedman, was the moment when she was vacuuming the lounge, dinner in the oven, caring for one child, and pregnant with another.

    We need to value unpacking our Gendered Selves, our Raced Selves, our Embodied Solves – and support people by co-creating tools that enable you go beyond unpacking the stories and step into transforming the stories – for ourselves and for society.

    We need easily accessible, go-to-language to challenge the old stories, safely. We need tools that support families, in all their diversity, to have conversations and gender, care, and their household economies. We need to tell new personal and societal stories of gender, work, and the economy as a critical part of a policy response to jobs and skills.

    • Feature image is a stock photo 

     

    The post Forging tools to challenge gendered financial inequality appeared first on BroadAgenda.

  • The post Is There a Vaccine for Poverty? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • By: Tanner Matthews.

    See original post here.

    Demands for “economic justice” in public policy debates are emotionally powerful, imparting a profound sense of purpose and moral urgency to a cause. However, these appeals must be more than a mere rhetorical tactic. Clarity about ends is a prerequisite for choosing effective means.
    Of the three contrasting accounts of economic justice most commonly considered—economic egalitarianism, laissez-faire capitalism, and the “decent level view”—economic egalitarianism and laissez-faire each fall short in their own way. The decent level view constitutes the most plausible account of economic justice.

    Universal basic income is a potential means of implementing the decent-level view. Although dialogue and debate should continue, universal basic income could be a feasible vehicle for achieving economic justice in our society.

    What Is Wrong With Economic Egalitarianism?

    Economic egalitarianism is “the doctrine that it is desirable for everyone to have the same amounts of income and of wealth.”

    Economic egalitarianism is attractive to many people repulsed by the excesses of our economic status quo.

    They survey our society, where some are stuck in abject poverty while others are sitting on more wealth than they could possibly spend in a thousand lifetimes and correctly conclude that something has gone horribly awry. Still, they are mistaken to identify economic inequality as the root problem and an equal division of wealth as the remedy.

    If economic egalitarians were to reflect at length on what bothers them about the current system, I think most would come to see that inequality is not really the issue. Our economy generates astonishing wealth and abundance, yet many remain mired in poverty. This is a scandal.

    But it is not the inequality per se that makes it so disgraceful; rather it is our collective choice to permit poverty despite having at our disposal the resources to eradicate it.

    This line of argument gains support from the following thought experiment. Imagine a society where those at the bottom of the “economic ladder” were millionaires, while those at the top were billionaires. This society is economically unequal–possibly extremely economically unequal–but there is no economic injustice.

    As the philosopher Harry Frankfurt points out, “Economic equality is not…of particular moral importance. With respect to the distribution of economic assets, what is important…is not that everyone should have the same but that each should have enough. If everyone had enough, it would be of no moral consequence whether some had more than others.” Economic egalitarians are correct to see our current economic order as sick. But their focus on inequality misdiagnoses the true nature of the disease.

    The Limits of Laissez-Faire

    Laissez-faire capitalism equates economic justice with the results of free market processes left to their own devices.

    Laissez-faire capitalism holds that a just distribution of income and wealth is identical to whatever pattern the free market produces, even if this spells starvation for some and opulence for others. People deserve whatever they manage to earn in the market—no more and no less. And any government “meddling” with the market distribution of income is unjust.

    Laissez-faire capitalism holds great appeal for many Americans, particularly those who identify as libertarians. However, there are a number of significant problems with this view. To begin with, it fundamentally misunderstands the role of markets. Markets are merely a means to an end and not ends in themselves. When kept within their proper bounds, markets can make great contributions to prosperity and human flourishing. But they are not the barometer of justice. 

    Many people assume that markets necessarily give people what they deserve.

    The line of thinking goes something like this: Working hard and contributing to society makes one deserving of a high salary; the market rewards people who work hard and make important contributions to society with high salaries; therefore, the market distribution of wealth is just. But it is simply not true that the market always allocates rewards in this manner.

    Markets operate in accordance with the laws of supply and demand—not any innate tendency to recognize and reward merit. To see this one need only contrast the phenomenon of passive “windfall profits” with the backbreaking labor of the people who grow our food or compare the earnings of researchers developing life-saving vaccines with those of the Kardashian family.

    Moreover, the market is, in part, a government creation sustained by collective investment in roads, education, a legal system that enforces contracts, and other public goods.

    There would be no functioning free market in an unstable and insecure state of nature.

    Given that the very possibility of acquiring private wealth in the market depends on the social order that government secures, it is only right and proper that a portion of this wealth be subject to taxation and redistribution.

    Finally, laissez-faire capitalism leaves no room for what the philosopher Stephen Nathanson calls “human desert.” We should resist the idea that a decent standard of living must be “earned.” People are entitled to be treated in certain ways and to be provided with a certain level of resources simply because they are human beings with inherent dignity. The decent level view recognizes this truth; laissez-faire capitalism denies it.

    Fleshing Out the Decent Level View

    The decent level view does not seek economic equality and imposes no definite “ceiling” on the level of wealth and resources that individuals may attain. But neither does it accept the unfettered free market as the arbiter of economic justice. In the wealthiest nation in human history, there is a moral obligation to ensure a “decent level” of resources for all, a guaranteed “floor” below which no individual should be allowed to fall.

    It is important to clarify what I mean by a “decent level.” Some thinkers draw a distinction between absolute and relative poverty. “Absolute poverty” refers to circumstances in which people struggle to meet even their most basic human needs for food and shelter. “Relative poverty” describes circumstances in which people who may not be experiencing absolute poverty nevertheless “are deprived of the conditions of life which ordinarily define membership of society.”

    The decent level view calls for the elimination of both absolute and relative poverty. The concept of “dignity,” or what the economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen refers to as “self-respect,” is crucial here. We should make sure that everyone has not only food to eat and a roof over their heads but also the resources they need to flourish and fully participate in 21st century American life. The precise details can be worked out, but the aim is to provide to all a level of resources that qualifies as decent and dignified by current societal standards.

    The decent level is at once radical and conservative. It contemplates the end of poverty but keeps the underlying capitalist economy in place. If it were implemented, some would have more than others, but no one would be poor.

    Universal Basic Income: The Decent Level View in Action?

    According to Juliana Bidadanure, universal basic income (UBI) is “a cash payment granted to all members of a community on a regular basis, regardless of employment status or income level. It is meant to be individual, unconditional, universal and frequent.” We could wipe out absolute and relative poverty alike in a single stroke by simply paying people an annual income sufficient to be at a decent level.

    In contrast to our current tangle of means-tested benefits, eligibility for UBI would not be conditioned on adherence to a set of arbitrary criteria. The demeaning scrutiny of recipients’ personal lives associated with many of today’s welfare programs would disappear.

    At last, we would have a social safety net that treats people with dignity and respect. As a universal benefit available to all members of society, UBI would concretize the decent level view’s commitment to “human desert.” Instituting UBI could help us to transcend traditional distinctions between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor that have shaped poverty policy for far too long.

    The advent of UBI would advance freedom and human dignity across multiple spheres. People would be empowered to turn down or resign from exploitative jobs. Individuals in abusive relationships would find it easier to leave, secure in the knowledge that the UBI will shield them from poverty.

    Responding to Criticisms of Universal Basic Income

    Many objections have been raised against UBI. Some argue that UBI would disincentivize work to a dangerous degree. With legions of people exiting the labor market and electing to live off their UBI payments, the economy will cease to generate the wealth needed to fund a UBI in the first place. Ironically, UBI will then have sowed the seeds of its own demise.

    It bears remembering, however, that while UBI would remove the fear of poverty as a motivation to work, it would not do away entirely with financial incentives. The promise of obtaining a standard of living better than a decent level would still be enticing to many people, as would the status and prestige associated with certain jobs.

    In addition, the objection might take an overly cynical view of why people work. Financial incentives play a role, but being part of a team, engaging in productive activity, and developing professional capacities carry intrinsic appeal for most of us. Some would no doubt opt out of the labor force if they knew they could rely on UBI to support themselves, but the objection may overestimate the frequency with which this would actually happen.

    Another objection insists that people simply should not get something for nothing. This is not so much a pragmatic concern that UBI would undermine itself as it is a moral conviction. Those who raise this objection are uncomfortable with the idea that people would receive an income without being expected to “make some reciprocal contribution to society.”

    However, many who claim to hold this belief fail to apply it consistently. People who choose to live off a substantial inheritance from their parents seem to violate the principle that “one should not get something for nothing” just as flagrantly as those who might choose to live off UBI payments, yet few have stepped forward to propose that we abolish inheritance.

    Besides, as philosopher Matt Zwolinski has observed, holding down a traditional job is not the only legitimate way to contribute to society. UBI would enable people to pursue parenting, caregiving, the arts, or volunteer work. The market does not typically compensate for these forms of labor, but they clearly “give back” to society in important ways. The decent level view provides a cogent interpretation of what “economic justice” requires, and UBI is a serious candidate for making the decent level view a reality

    The post A Decent Level for All: Economic Justice and Universal Basic Income appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Social Security, one of the nation’s oldest welfare programs, is set to start running out of money in about a decade — and Americans want Congress to take action, new polling finds.

    In a poll of about 1,300 likely voters, Data for Progress found that a bipartisan majority of Americans — 84 percent — are “very” or “somewhat” concerned that Social Security won’t be able to pay out full benefits to future generations. Eighty-three percent of voters, also on a bipartisan basis, support raising Social Security benefits in order to match current cost of living standards, and to ensure that everyone who has paid into the program will be able to access its full benefits when they’re of retirement age.

    Plans to expand Social Security by taxing the rich are also popular. When asked about lawmakers’ bills that would raise taxes for Americans making more than $400,000 a year in order to pay for expansions of the program, 76 percent of respondents, including 83 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents and Republicans, said they “strongly” or “somewhat” support the proposal.

    One such bill is the Social Security Expansion Act, introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) last month. The bill would increase Social Security payments by $2,400 a year, and would fully fund the program for the next 75 years, until 2096.

    It would also create more parity in the tax system, as it would eliminate the cap for Social Security payments for people making over $250,000. Currently, the income cap for Social Security taxes is $147,000, meaning that people making more than that stop paying into the program by the time they’ve made that amount of income in the year; for instance, people making a salary of $1 million stop paying into the program by February each year.

    Thanks in part to Republicans’ refusal to raise taxes, the program is set to be insolvent by 2033, meaning that it will have to start paying out only 75 percent of the benefits, which are already low. Though GOP lawmakers likely wouldn’t say it out loud, due to the program’s popularity, right-wingers have been working behind closed doors and in think tanks for years to slash Social Security, often with the goal of privatization.

    This is an unpopular idea, however. Data for Progress found that 68 percent of likely voters oppose privatizing the program, including 75 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans. Economists also agree that privatizing Social Security would be harmful and lead to yet more poverty — and that what’s truly needed to ensure that the seniors and disabled people who are most in need have the funds they need to survive is a large expansion of the program.

    Meanwhile, when presented with the statement that Democrats are trying to expand the program and the GOP is trying to end it, 55 percent of voters say they would vote for a generic Democrat running for Congress, with 22 percent of self-identified Republicans agreeing as such.

    As it is, Social Security is failing to provide enough funding for many seniors to live off of, as Sanders pointed out in a Senate Banking Committee hearing in June. Over half of seniors are living on incomes of less than $25,000 a year, while many of those same seniors don’t have any retirement savings.

    “Our job, in my view, is not to cut Social Security, is not to raise the retirement age, as many of my Republican colleagues would have us do,” Sanders said at the time. “Our job is to expand Social Security so that everyone in America can retire with the dignity that he or she deserves and that every person in this country with a disability can retire with the security they need.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.