Category: poverty

  • Exactly two years ago, I walked with my colleagues from Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research through the Camp Marielle Vive (‘Marielle Lives’) outside of Valinhos in the state of São Paulo, Brazil with a great sense of déjà vu. The camp resembles so many other communities of the desperately poor on our planet. The United Nations calculates that one in eight people on our planet – one billion human beings – live in such precariousness. The homes are made of a jumble of materials: blue tarpaulin sheets and bits of wood, corrugated iron sheets and old bricks. A thousand families live in Camp Marielle Vive, named after the Brazilian socialist Marielle Franco, who was assassinated in March 2018.

    The post Show Children The Green Fields And Let The Sunshine Into Their Minds appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Exclusive: Front Line Defenders report says rights defenders working in sex industry face ‘targeted attacks’ around the world

    Sex worker activists are among the most at risk defenders of human rights in the world, facing multiple threats and violent attacks, an extensive investigation has found.

    The research, published today by human rights organisation Front Line Defenders, found that their visibility as sex workers who are advocates for their communities’ rights makes them more vulnerable to the violations routinely suffered by sex workers. In addition, they face unique, targeted abuse for their human rights work.

    Related: ‘I’m sacrificing myself’: agony of Kabul’s secret sex workers

    Continue reading…

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

  • By: Michael Janda.

    The COVID-19 pandemic has been a social and economic disaster of almost unprecedented proportions in recent history. But, for one group of people, last year’s silver linings outshone the hardships.

    “When we had the coronavirus supplement, I was able to pay my rent, I could pay my bills on time, I got to pay off debts that I’d had for years, I was able to buy food and clothes,” says current Austudy recipient Teddy White, who was on JobSeeker for most of last year.

    White says he was able to buy new winter clothes, pyjamas and bedding for the first time in years.

    Without the anxiety of living hand to mouth, he found the headspace to consider his future, escape from a treadmill of unsuitable jobs that exacerbated his health problems, and enrol in university.

    Wendy Morgan also had a very positive 2020.

    “Last year was fantastic because I didn’t have to make do without electricity at all last year,” says the long-term JobSeeker recipient.

    She lost her last stable employment in 2012 and has since experienced evictions, homelessness and being repeatedly cut off from essential utilities. But keeping the lights on is not the only reason why Morgan can now see her crochet properly.

    “My lenses alone were over $750 and I just couldn’t afford that on the Newstart payment, and I’d been from 2012 until last year without any new glasses,” she explains.

    But the coronavirus supplement that started at $275 a week and ended in March at $75 has been replaced by a permanent increase in JobSeeker of just $25 a week, leaving income support recipients feeling like they’re back where they started the pandemic.

    Morgan is once again behind on her electricity payments as she juggles bills.

    Wendy Morgan sits outside her apartment doing crochet.
    Wendy Morgan does crochet, not only as a hobby, but also to save money.(ABC News: Simon Goodes)

    “After paying my rent, I get just over $400 a fortnight left over and out of that I’ve got to pay electricity and phone, internet is essential – you can’t look for a job without the internet these days, so I need to have a laptop,” she explains.

    She also needed to replace her laptop and phone when they were stolen in a break-in a couple of months ago, something she struggled to afford on the regular JobSeeker rate.

    But while she lives in a rough neighbourhood, Morgan is lucky to live in relatively low-rent Adelaide. Since the supplements ended, White’s situation in Melbourne is even more desperate.

    “I get $580 a fortnight from Centrelink and $520 of that has to go towards my rent each fortnight, which leaves me with $60 to cover literally every other living expense. So food, meds, clothes, transport, everything.”

    Sixty dollars a fortnight simply cannot cover all of White’s essentials.

    “I can’t buy phone credit, I can’t pay my internet bill, I can’t buy money to put on my Myki [travel card],” he laments.

    “There’s just no way to stretch it to cover everything.”

    Anglicare and Australians back basic income

    It’s experiences like these with the COVID support payments that have prompted charity Anglicare to come out in support of a basic income.

    Video still: Anglicare Australia Executive Director Kasy Chambers. May 2013.
    Anglicare’s executive director Kasy Chambers said COVID had highlighted that poverty is a policy choice.(ABC News)

    The charity’s executive director Kasy Chambers says the pandemic welfare supplements proved that lifting people above the poverty line was economically possible with political will.

    “This clearly showed us it is a choice and, when we made it, the sky didn’t fall in, people didn’t stop applying for work, people still wanted to work,” she tells The Business.

    A survey of a thousand people commissioned by the charity shows more than three-quarters of Australians back a basic income guarantee above the poverty line.

    In fact, more than half strongly support the concept, while only 3 per cent are strongly opposed.

    It is an even stronger finding of support than one revealed in a YouGov survey conducted for The Green Institute late last year.

    Kasy Chambers believes the pandemic and associated recession have increased empathy for those who’ve fallen on hard times.

    “I think many, many more people who hadn’t previously experienced poverty or didn’t know somebody who was living in poverty now do.”

    UBI price tag ‘not chump change’

    Sydney University political economy lecturer Troy Henderson wrote his PhD about basic income schemes and is co-director of the new cross-institution Australian Basic Income Lab with colleagues from Macquarie and ANU. 

    Dr Troy Henderson stands in a park in the sunshine.
    Dr Troy Henderson is co-director of the new Australian Basic Income Lab at the University of Sydney, and wrote his PhD about UBI.(ABC News: Adam Griffiths)

    He argues the pandemic has highlighted what’s financially possible for governments when there’s political will.

    “Providing a basic income floor for all Australians might cost in the order of $15-40 billion,” he says.

    “Now, that’s not chump change, but we’re still looking at an amount of money that is probably only 1-2 per cent of Australia’s GDP and is therefore eminently affordable.”

    Kasy Chambers says that could easily be funded by reducing tax concessions and government transfer payments for the better off.

    “$68.5 billion went to the top 20 per cent of income earners and only $6.1 billion went to the lowest 20 per cent,” she observes, citing previous research for Anglicare conducted by the Per Capita think tank.

    The kind of payment that provides would be $457 a week — around aged pension level — for all those out of work, including some not currently eligible for JobSeeker.

    It’s not a truly universal basic income, which, at that level of payment for all adults, regardless of their other income, would cost close to half a trillion dollars a year (although much of this would be taxed back from those earning money from wages, rents, investments or business profits).

    Simon Cowan from the Centre for Independent Studies think tank, a critic of the universal basic income (UBI) concept, argues this highlights the “impossible trinity” of a UBI as explained by Canadian economics professor Kevin Milligan.

    Simon Cowan stands in front of house holding his mobile phone.
    Simon Cowan is research director at the Centre for Independent Studies.(ABC News: John Gunn)

    “You can have a broad amount of coverage, you can have a generous payment or it can be affordable,” says Cowan.

    “Unfortunately, as Milligan showed, you can really only pursue two of those at once.”

    But Troy Henderson argues a slightly more generous and less restricted unemployment benefit would be superior to the one-off welfare top-ups put in place during COVID.

    “If we did have that type of scheme in place from the get-go we would not be suffering as we are at the moment from these ad hoc, piecemeal policy interventions that always create a significant number of losers during a time of extreme crisis.”

    The two aren’t in total disagreement, with Simon Cowan arguing for a different long-term welfare reform.

    “Basically split the unemployment payment into two,” he says.

    “Have a relatively contained payment for people who are short-term unemployed, transitioning from one job to the other, which was the original design of Newstart, and then have perhaps a more generous payment for long-term unemployed people.”

    ‘Catastrophic’ mutual obligation system doesn’t work

    Another area where Cowan, Henderson and Chambers all agree is dropping the current blanket mutual obligation requirements for job seekers to submit at least 20 applications a month, including for the long-term unemployed.

    “There’s a lot of people who move onto Newstart and cycle off Newstart in a relatively short period of time, they’re actively looking for work and they will find it in the near term,” Cowan observed.

    “They don’t need these additional requirements, they don’t need form-filling, they don’t need all of this government bureaucracy, they just need to be allowed to find a new job.

    “For those who do need additional support, the general obligation doesn’t actually do much for them either because they’re not really going to get a job without that targeted support, even if they send in a hundred job applications.”

    Aside from an increase in payments, those who have been subject to the mutual obligation requirements say it’s the one change that would make the biggest difference to living on JobSeeker.

    “It drives your mental health into the ground,” says Wendy Morgan.

    JobSeeker recipient Wendy Morgan sits outside her apartment in Adelaide.
    Wendy Morgan said she could finally afford a new pair of glasses in 2020, after years without being able to see properly.(ABC News: Simon Goodes)

    “You feel hopeless because you’re applying for job, after job, after job and most of the jobs you’re applying for are often jobs that you’re not even qualified for.”

    “It’s catastrophic,” agrees Teddy White.

    “It’s so bad for anyone’s mental health to be essentially press-ganged into accepting jobs that just will not work for you.”

    Kasy Chambers says it is also often counter-productive for the unemployed, with the applications taking up time many would otherwise use to volunteer or engage in community activities.

    “So, often it’s actually voluntary work that leads to employment, that links people and locks them into their community and that gives people real meaning and satisfaction in their lives,” she explains, noting that volunteering generally doesn’t count towards Centrelink’s activity tests.

    Anglicare’s survey reveals that, aside from paying down debts and saving (38 per cent), the most common behavioural changes in response to a UBI would be volunteering more, spending more time caring for others, spending more time on sports or hobbies, and doing further education. 

    Graphic showing how people would use the money from a universal basic income.
    Anglicare asked people how they would use the extra money provided by a universal basic income (respondents could select more than one option).(Supplied: Anglicare)

    The punishment for not applying for enough jobs, failing to comply with your job plan or knocking back any work is a potential suspension of your payment.

    “Having your payments stopped is terrifying,” says Morgan.

    “Trying to live without payments for up to eight weeks is harder than anyone can imagine.”

    Having previously had to sleep in her car for six months after losing her last stable job and rental house nearly a decade ago, homelessness is an experience Morgan never wants to face again.

    The post Poll: 77% of Australians back a basic income guarantee above the poverty line appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • SpaceX owner and Tesla CEO Elon Musk poses next to Axel Springer Board Chairman Mathias Doepfner on the red carpet of the Axel Springer Award 2020 ceremony on December 1, 2020, in Berlin, Germany.

    A new analysis released Tuesday by the Economic Policy Institute finds that CEO pay in the United States rose by a staggering 1,322% between 1978 and 2020 — a sharp contrast to the pay increase of the typical worker, which was just 18% during that same period.

    In 2020, a year of pandemic and widespread economic dislocation, the top executives at the largest public firms in the U.S. were paid 351 times as much as the typical worker, with CEO pay measured by salary, bonuses, long-term incentive payouts, and exercised stock options. According to Bloomberg, Tesla’s billionaire CEO Elon Musk was the highest-paid corporate executive in the U.S. in 2020.

    Highlighting the extent to which inequality has soared in recent decades, EPI observes in its report that the CEO-to-worker-pay ratio was 61-to-1 in 1989.

    CEOs saw their compensation increase by 18.9% between 2019 and 2020 while the pay of typical workers — those who were able to hold on to their jobs amid mass layoffs stemming from the pandemic — rose just 3.9% over that time, EPI shows.

    “Even that wage growth is overstated,” notes EPI, which has been tracking and documenting executive pay trends for years. “Perversely, high job loss among low-wage workers skewed the average wage higher.”

    Authored by EPI distinguished fellow Lawrence Mishel and research assistant Jori Kandra, the new report argues that “exorbitant CEO pay is a major contributor to rising inequality that we could safely do away with.” In 2020, EPI finds, a CEO at one of the top 350 public companies in the U.S. was paid $24.2 million on average.

    “CEOs are getting more because of their power to set pay and because so much of their pay (more than 80%) is stock-related, not because they are increasing their productivity or possess specific, high-demand skills,” Mishel and Kandra write. “This escalation of CEO compensation, and of executive compensation more generally, has fueled the growth of top 1.0% and top 0.1% incomes, leaving less of the fruits of economic growth for ordinary workers and widening the gap between very high earners and the bottom 90%. The economy would suffer no harm if CEOs were paid less (or were taxed more).”

    Other recent research has similarly called attention to the growing disconnect between CEO compensation and measures such as company performance, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic.

    In May, the Institute for Policy Studies found that 51 of the nation’s 100 biggest low-wage employers — including Coca-Cola, Chipotle, Tyson Foods, and YUM Brands — altered their own compensation rules to grant top executives massive pay packages as their workers struggled to get by on paltry wages.

    “Common manipulations included lowering performance bars to help executives meet bonus targets, awarding special ‘retention’ bonuses, excluding poor second-quarter results from evaluations, and replacing performance-based pay with time-based awards,” the report showed. “Companies enlisted an army of ‘independent’ compensation consultants in an effort to give all this rule-rigging a veneer of legitimacy.”

    In its new analysis, EPI points out that the 1,322% CEO pay jump between 1978 and 2020 far outstripped the 817% growth in the S&P stock market during that same period. The dramatic increase in executive pay has also significantly outpaced the 341% earnings growth of the top 0.1% overall since 1978.

    Refuting the notion that skyrocketing executive pay is merely a reflection of “the market for skills” or “talent,” Mishel and Kandra write that “CEO compensation grew far faster than compensation of very highly paid workers over the last few decades, which suggests that the market for skills was not responsible for the rapid growth of CEO compensation.”

    To reverse the decades-long trend of soaring CEO pay — which EPI argues is damaging to workers and the broader economy — the report suggests several potential policy solutions, including imposing higher marginal income tax rates on top earners and setting higher corporate tax rates for companies with high ratios of executive-to-worker compensation.

    In March, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced legislation that would raise the corporate tax rate by 0.5% for companies that report a CEO-to-median-worker pay ratio of 50-to-1. The tax increase would grow to 5% for companies reporting a ratio of 500-to-1 or higher.

    “At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the American people are demanding that large, profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes and treat their employees with the dignity and respect they deserve,” Sanders said upon introducing his bill, which has gone nowhere in the Senate.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Thursday last week (29 July), Zamekile Shangase, a 33-year-old woman from Asiyindawo in Lamontville, was shot and killed outside her home by the police. Zamekile was the mother of two children aged 6 and 11. She was elected to a position on the local Abahlali council in 2018 and served on the council for a year.

    Zamekile was shot while the police were raiding the settlement as part of Operation Show Your Receipt.

    Another life has been lost. Another family is in mourning. Two young children must now live without a mother.

    If you are poor and black your humanity is not recognised. You are shown to the world as a person who can’t think, and as a criminal. You do not count to society. People will speak about you without seeing any reason to speak to you. You can be brutalised and your dignity can be vandalised without any consequences. You can be killed by the state and if there is no movement (imbutho yabampofu) to insist that your life must be counted as a human life your death will count for nothing. In this system we are left to die like dogs.

    This is the second time that the police had come to raid the settlements in this area, and take people’s food. On Thursday they were going door to door, breaking locks, threatening and abusing people, and taking food from people. People got angry and started shouting. Some people started throwing stones at the police and banging on the police van. The police then got angry and started shooting.

    A police officer was standing on the road and shooting up the hill into Asiyindawo at random. After Zamekile was shot the police carried on with their operation of seizing people’s food at gunpoint while her body was still lying on the ground.

    Colonel Khumalo was at the scene after the murder but refused to engage the leaders in discussion.

    We were very concerned to read an article in a major news publication in which it was reported that the police were fired on from all directions by criminals armed with bullets stolen in the riots, that they were forced to return fire and that “a 33-year-old woman was killed”. Another article by the same journalist reported that Zamekile was “caught in the crossfire”. This article saw no need to even mention Zamekile’s name.

    The police lied to try and cover up the fact that they killed an unarmed person for no reason. There is no doubt that no one fired on the police. If the journalist had not just taken what the police said as the truth and had spoken to the residents of Asiyindawo, residents elsewhere in the nearby Sisonke settlement (formerly Madlala), and residents in the township (Lamontville) who live near the Asiyindawo he would have found that they all agree that only the police were shooting.

    As usual we are spoken about and not spoken too. As usual we are criminalised. As usual our lives count for nothing.

    There is a long history of the police lying to cover up their actions, and the media taking their lies as if they were facts without bothering to talk to eyewitnesses.

    In the early years of our movement (around 2005 to 2007), when Mike Sutcliffe was the city manager and Obed Mlaba was the mayor, the City always tried to prevent us from marching. When we would march, peacefully and unarmed, in defiance of their illegal bans we would be attacked with rubber bullets, stun grenades, dogs and sometimes water cannons and live ammunition. The police would always tell the media that they had attacked us because they had come under fire. Every time that was a complete lie but the media would report it as if it was the truth and not see any need to ask any of the people who had been on the march what they had seen. It was like they thought that we are just born liars and the police always tell the truth.

    Even when someone has been killed the police have often been allowed to lie with impunity. In 30 September 2013 Nqobile Nzuza, a 17-year-old, was killed by the police during a protest in Cato Crest. The police said that they had come under attack from an armed mob and that they would have been killed if they had not fired live ammunition. This was a complete lie but most of the media reported the police statement as if it was true. They saw no need to speak to eye witnesses. When the autopsy was done it showed that Nqobile had been shot in the back of the head. In 2018 a police officer was convicted for the murder of Nqobile and sent to prison. In the trial it became clear that the whole story told by the police, and often repeated as fact by the media, was untrue.

    As Operation Show Your Receipt continues, and people continue to be abused, insulted, threatened and have their food stolen by the police, more people will get hurt.

    Why is there so much hatred for the poor? When will the time come for our dignity to be recognised?

    We have been asking these questions for more than fifteen years. We have not received any answers to these questions, instead we are receiving bullets from the state.

    Our humanity is denied. Our dignity is vandalised. Our lives are criminalised. Our existence is criminalised.

    When the leadership of Abahlali arrived in Asiyindawo shortly after the shooting, while Zamekile’s body was still lying on the ground, one of the residents asked a very important question to the heavily armed police: “Why must we be killed for food, why must we die for food?”

    They did not answer. Others said “Yes, why must we die for a tin of fish?”

    In this press statement we are taking this question and putting it to the whole of society.

    Why must we be killed for food?

  • Image credit: Restless Stories
  • The post We are Dying for Food first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • New Yorkers wait in line to receive items from a food pantry on July 30, 2021, in the Bronx borough of New York City.

    Last week, the Urban Institute released stunning data on how the huge infusion of government assistance to counter the economic effects of the pandemic had reduced poverty in the U.S. The researchers found that because of enhanced unemployment benefits, rent assistance, eviction moratoriums, increased access to food stamps, tax credits and stimulus checks paid directly to families, the U.S. poverty rate (a conservative, and at times inadequate, estimate of poverty, but one used by poverty scholars for generations) had plummeted to a projected 7.7 percent for 2021. This contrasts with an official poverty rate, calculated by the U.S. Census, of 10.5 percent in 2019; and an Urban Institute estimate that by the end of 2020, the poverty rate had declined to 9.5 percent, largely because of federal and state government interventions to support the income of huge numbers of Americans. That trend continued into 2021: The Urban Institute researchers concluded that child poverty has now declined to 5.6 percent, a far lower number than ever previously recorded in the U.S.

    On one level, the data was entirely counterintuitive. After all, as the COVID crisis has raged the past 18 months, we have witnessed Great Depression-era level spikes in unemployment and unprecedented increases in housing and food insecurity. On the other hand, it oughtn’t to have been entirely surprising, because in 2020 and 2021, Congress, despite its general dysfunction, managed to pass into law several pandemic relief packages worth trillions of dollars — and much of that money ended up flowing, often at speed, to households around the country.

    The lesson is clear: Ambitious, outside-the-box government programs and investments can be extraordinarily effective in helping vulnerable Americans escape poverty. The Urban Institute’s research concludes that absent these interventions, the poverty rate at the end of 2020 would have been above 20 percent of the population.

    There’s a historical precedent for big-thinking and big-spending government programs successfully driving down the poverty rate: At the height of the “war on poverty,” in the 1960s and early 1970s, the United States also began posting huge drops in the number of residents living in poverty — though at a slower pace than occurred in 2020 and 2021.

    From 1964 to 1973, from the year Lyndon Johnson began putting in place the building blocks of his anti-poverty programs to the year that Richard Nixon began shifting the emphasis away from these programs and toward more punitive social policies such as the “war on crime” and the “war on drugs,” poverty in the U.S. declined by 42 percent.

    But, as political priorities shifted, and as the moral language around poverty morphed from the LBJ-era notions of poverty being a societal problem to the Reagan-era notions of poverty being the fault of poor people’s behavior and choices, the needed investments in social infrastructure began to wane. From the 1970s on, for most groups of Americans, the poverty rate either plateaued or increased. The numbers waxed and waned somewhat, but by and large, for most of the past half-century, with the exception of dips in 2000 and in 2018-19 triggered by historically low levels of unemployment, between 12 and 15 percent of Americans in any given year have lived in poverty — with a shockingly large number of those living in what economists term “deep poverty,” where their incomes only take them to (at most) half of the poverty threshold, and where significant physical and mental health impacts are most likely to occur.

    Of course, poverty has never been distributed evenly. Thanks to this country’s foundations in slavery and colonialism and its ongoing practices of systemic oppression, African American, Indigenous and Latino communities have long had far higher poverty rates than whites. And until the most recent anti-poverty interventions, young people, especially those living in single-parent households, were more likely to live in poverty than were older Americans.

    In fact, during these decades, for the elderly — who benefited from the creation of Medicare and a series of other targeted efforts — poverty plummeted, and continued to decline even after the broader war on poverty ended. At the start of LBJ’s anti-poverty efforts, more than one in four seniors lived below the poverty line. A half-century later, with Medicare, Supplemental Security Income and other benefits having been cemented into the social compact, fewer than 1 in 10 seniors were in similar straits.

    Of course, some of this data should be taken with a grain of salt: For decades, experts have critiqued the government’s definition of poverty, and the threshold that it uses to determine whether individuals and families are income-insecure as failing to fully measure economic hardship. Most poverty measures used by the federal government don’t, for example, fully take into account the high cost of housing in states such as California or New York; nor do they fully recognize that things such as affordable broadband access are now necessities of life rather than luxuries. Certainly, during the Trump era, falling official rates of poverty masked deepening fissures of inequality and deepening financial straits faced by those at the bottom of the economic pyramid.

    When the government invests in anti-poverty programs, across-the-board measures of poverty show that these programs can work to improve the financial condition of millions of Americans. Yet, despite that, too often those programs fail to sustain popular support over the long-term.

    In fact, historically, across-the-board anti-poverty programs have only ever attracted lukewarm political support from U.S. leaders. Poverty embarrasses those in power. They don’t like to talk about it or admit its durability. In the 1960s, the sociologist Michael Harrington wrote of a poverty that was rendered invisible by the broader affluence that hemmed it in. As a society, we have, over the decades, been remarkably willing to sweep our poverty crisis under the rug and pretend it doesn’t exist.

    Harrington’s book, The Other America, helped trigger a political and cultural awakening around poverty. It helped open eyes and create the conditions in which it was possible to put in place interventions such as Medicare and Medicaid, an expansion of food stamps, free and reduced school meals, increased job training and housing programs in poor neighborhoods, and so on. But, over time, the public’s appetite for these programs — and the costs of maintaining them — waned, and poverty rates began creeping up again.

    Today, in 2021, the country has a huge opportunity. Out of the pandemic, remarkably creative economic and political thinking has emerged about how to reduce poverty. Federally, one-year child tax credits are now in place that will massively reduce child poverty this year. At a state level, states like California are implementing universal pre-K education. Ideas around creating guaranteed income programs are no longer dismissed as being utopian or un-implementable. A dramatic expansion of unemployment benefits was shown not only to be possible, but to be remarkably effective at keeping unemployed people afloat economically.

    Yet all of these changes are as fragile as were so many of the programs of LBJ’s war on poverty. Already, Republican states have dismantled their expanded unemployment benefits. Already, Congress and President Biden have allowed the federal eviction moratorium to sunset — despite millions still struggling to pay their rent. Already, there is a political battle underway about whether or not to continue the child tax credits beyond this current year.

    Take these tools away, and poverty could all too easily boomerang back up to pre-pandemic levels within months. That would be a tragedy of historic proportions — and an entirely avoidable one at that.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Women who migrated to the Wangjia community participate in local activities at the community centre in Tongren City, Guizhou Province, April 2021.

    Confounding news comes from the flagship World Economic Outlook report of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The report highlights many of the pressing issues facing our planet: disruptions in the global supply chain, rising shipping costs, shortages of intermediate goods, rising commodity prices, and inflationary pressures in many economies. Global growth rates are expected to touch 6% in 2021 and 4.9% in 2022, driven by higher global government debt. According to the report, this debt ‘reached an unprecedented level of close to 100% of the global GDP in 2020 and is projected to remain around that level in 2021 and 2022’. Developing countries’ external debt will remain high, with little expectation of relief.

    Each year, IMF Chief Economist Gita Gopinath highlights the main themes of the report in her blog. This year, her blog has a clear headline: ‘Drawing Further Apart: Widening Gaps in the Global Recovery’. The rift runs along North-South lines, with the poorer nations unable to find an easy path out of the pandemic-induced global slowdown. A range of reasons cause this rift, such as the penalty of relying upon labour-intensive production, the overall poverty of the populations, and the long-standing problems of debt. But Gopinath focuses on one aspect: vaccine apartheid. ‘Close to 40 percent of the population in advanced economies has been fully vaccinated, compared with 11 percent in emerging market economies, and a tiny fraction in low-income developing countries’, she writes. The lack of vaccines, she argues, is the principal cause of the ‘widening gaps in the global recovery’.

    Peasant workers till the land in an organic bamboo fungus company, which was established to help lift Longmenao, a village that is officially registered as poor, out of poverty in Wanshan District, Guizhou Province, April 2021. Credit: Xiang Wang

    Peasant workers till the land in an organic bamboo fungus company, which was established to help lift Longmenao, a village that is officially registered as poor, out of poverty in Wanshan District, Guizhou Province, April 2021.

    These widening gaps have an immediate social impact. The UN’s Food and Agricultural Organisation’s 2021 report, The State of Food Insecurity and Nutrition in the World, notes that ‘nearly one in three people in the world (2.37 billion) did not have access to adequate food in 2020 – an increase of almost 320 million people in just one year’. Hunger is intolerable. Food riots are now in evidence, most dramatically in South Africa. ‘They are just killing us with hunger here’, said one Durban resident who was motivated to join the unrest. These protests, as well as the new data released by the IMF and UN, have put hunger back on the global agenda.

    In late July, the United Nations’ Economic and Social Council held a high-level political forum on sustainable development. The forum’s ministerial declaration recognised that ‘the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare and exacerbated our world’s vulnerabilities and inequalities within and among countries, accentuated systemic weaknesses, challenges, and risks and threatens to halt or damage progress made in realising the Sustainable Development Goals’. Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by the UN member states in 2015. These goals include poverty alleviation, an end to hunger, good health, and gender equality. Before the pandemic, it was already clear that the world would not meet these goals by 2030 as projected, certainly not even the most basic goal of eradicating hunger.

    During this bleak period, in late February 2021, China’s president Xi Jinping announced that – counter to this general global downturn – China had eradicated extreme poverty. What does this announcement mean? As our team at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research reported last month, it means that 850 million people had climbed out of absolute poverty (the culmination of a seven-decade-long process that began with the Chinese Revolution of 1949), that their per capita income had increased to US$10,000 (a ten-fold increase in the last twenty years), and that life expectancy had increased to 77.3 years on average (compared to 35 years in 1949). Having met the poverty reduction SDGs ten years in advance, China contributed to more than 70% of the world’s total poverty reduction. In March 2021, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres celebrated this achievement as a ‘reason for hope and inspiration to the entire community of nations’.

    First Secretary Liu Yuanxue speaks with a local villager during routine home visits in the village of Danyang, Wanshan District, Guizhou Province, April 2021.

    Our July studyServe the People: The Eradication of Extreme Poverty in China, inaugurated a new series called Studies on Socialist Construction, through which we aim to study experiments in the construction of socialist practices from Cuba to Kerala, Bolivia to China. Serve the People is based on ground-level studies of poverty eradication schemes in different parts of China and on interviews with experts who participated in this long-term project. For instance, Wang Sangui, dean of the National Poverty Alleviation Research Institute of Renmin University, told us how the concept of multidimensional poverty is central to the Chinese approach. The concept became a policy through the Communist Party of China’s programme of ‘three guarantees’ (safe housing, healthcare, and education) and ‘two assurances’ (being fed and being clothed). But even here, the essence of this policy is in the details. As Wang put it in terms of drinking water:

    How do you classify drinking water as safe? First, the basic requirement is that there must be no shortages in the water supply. Second, the source of water must not be too far, no more than twenty minutes round-trip for water retrieval. Last, the water quality must be safe, without any harmful substances. We require test reports that confirm the water quality is safe. Only then can we say that the standard is met.

    Once a policy is crafted, the real work of implementation begins. The Communist Party (CPC) sent out 800,000 cadre to help local authorities survey households to understand the depth of poverty in the countryside. Then, the CPC delegated 3 million cadre out of the Party’s 95.1 million members to be part of 255,000 teams that spent years living in poor villages working towards the eradication of poverty and the social conditions it created. One team was assigned to a village, one cadre to each family.

    The studies of poverty and the experience of the cadre resulted in five core methods for eradicating poverty: developing industry; relocating people; incentivising ecological compensation; guaranteeing free, quality, and compulsory education; and providing social assistance. The most powerful lever of these five methods was industrial development, which created capital-intensive agricultural production (including crop processing and animal breeding); restored farmlands; and grew forests as part of the ecological compensation schemes, reviving areas that had become prey to resource over-exploitation. In addition, an emphasis was placed on educating minority populations and women. As a result, by 2020, China ranked first in the world in the enrolment of women in tertiary education, according to the World Economic Forum.

    Less than 10% of the people who lifted themselves out of poverty did so because of relocation, which was often the most dramatic instance of the programme. One relocated resident, Mou’se, told us about Atule’er, a village on the edge of a mountain, where he lived before relocating. ‘It took me half a day to climb down the cliff to buy a packet of salt’, he recalled. He would go down the cliff on a rattan ‘sky ladder’, which dangled perilously from the edge of the cliff. His relocation – along with the eighty-three other families who lived there – has allowed him to access better facilities and live a less precarious life.

    The eradication of extreme poverty is significant, but it does not solve all problems. Social inequality in China remains a serious problem. These are not China’s problems alone but pressing problems facing humanity in our time. As we move to capital-intensive agriculture that requires fewer farmers, what kinds of habitations will we produce that are neither in rural nor urban areas? What kinds of employment can be generated for people who are no longer needed in the fields? Can we begin to think about a shorter work week, allowing more time to be civic and social?

    A local food vendor and user of the Yishizhifu short video platform showcases her cooking in the village of Danyang, Wanshan District, Guizhou Province, April 2021.

    Eradicating poverty is not a Chinese project. It is humanity’s goal. That is why movements and governments committed to this goal look carefully at the achievement of the Chinese people. Many of the projects in motion, however, take a dramatically different approach, seeking to address poverty by transferring income (as several South African research institutes advocate). But cash transfer schemes are not enough. Multidimensional poverty requires more than this. For example, Brazil’s Bolsa Familia programme, implemented by former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, made an enormous dent in hunger in that country, but it was not designed to eradicate poverty.

    Meanwhile, in the Indian state of Kerala, absolute poverty fell from 59.79% of the population in 1973-74 to 7.05% in 2011-2012 under the governance of the Left Democratic Front. The mechanisms that led to this dramatic decline were agrarian reform, establishing public health and education, creating a public distribution system for food, decentralising political authority to local self-governments, providing social security and welfare, and promoting public action (such as through the Kudumbashree cooperative projects). Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said recently that his government is committed to eradicating extreme poverty in the state. The next study in our series on socialist construction will concentrate on Kerala’s cooperative movement, focusing on its role in the eradication of poverty, hunger, and patriarchy.

    From the countryside to Tongren City, Guizhou Province, April 2021.

    In March, the UN Environment Programme released its Food Waste Index Report, which showed that an estimated 931 million tonnes of food went into waste bins across the world. The weight of this food roughly equals that of 23 million fully loaded 40-tonne trucks. If we let these trucks stand bumper-to-bumper at the earth’s circumference, they would make a ring long enough to circle the earth seven times, or to go deep into space, where billionaires Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson decided to go. The $5.5 billion Bezos spent on a four-minute trip into space could have fed 37.5 million people or fully funded the COVAX programme that would vaccinate two billion people.

    The ambitions of Bezos and Branson are not life. Life is the abolition of the harshness of necessity.

    The post China Eradicates Absolute Poverty While Billionaires Go for a Joyride to Space first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Vijay Prashad.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • By: Spencer Daniels

    Uganda is a southeastern African country neighboring Lake Victoria, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), South Sudan, Kenya and Tanzania. Its population sits below 50 million people and although it has been one of the poorest countries in the world as of 2012, the U.N. determined that it made enormous leaps in eradicating poverty thanks to ambitious ideas and thoughtful programs. For example, Eight, a Belgian pilot project, highlighted the effectiveness of universal basic income (UBI) in places where extreme poverty is a problem. The Borgen Project spoke with Eight, which enacted its first program in 2017 and showed the rest of the world just what Uganda and universal basic income might mean to the fight against global poverty.

    How Eight Began

    Maarten Goethals and Steven Janssens founded Eight in 2015 after finding poverty in their travels hard to swallow.

    “We see a lot of inequality and that is so unfair. A lot of people think poverty is a character problem, but it’s a money problem.” That unfairness inspired them to develop actionable solutions and experiments.

    In this case, they launched a basic income pilot program in Busibi, a remote village, in 2017. The idea was simple; give every inhabitant (about 150 people) 16 euros per month and children 8 euros per month. with no strings attached. The money would transfer to mobile bank accounts that the people of Busibi could access by telephone.

    While some might believe this to be a futile attempt at utopia, the academic literature supports this kind of unburdened cash transfer system as a means of raising communities out of poverty. The Borgen Project has profiled universal basic income programs in the U.K., India, Iran, Kashmir and other places. All this research leads to one conclusion: when people receive money and freedom of choice, they make remarkably astute decisions. As co-founder Steven Janssens said in his interview with The Borgen Project, “people deserve to be trusted.”

    Likely because of the freedom and dignity it allows, UBI yields remarkable results in lifting people out of poverty. Without mandates, universal basic income restores agency and allows people the opportunity to insist on what is right for themselves.

    What it Became

    Eight’s pilot program took place over the course of two years from 2017 to 2019 and immediately showed the work ethic of the villagers. Inhabitants built businesses and sent kids who would otherwise be working to school. Maarten Goethals noted that “Shops started up in the village and a new dynamism arose.” Free money worked, as Rutger Bregman said in his 2014 book “Utopia for Realists.” It turns out that eradicating global poverty is much easier than many think tanks make it out to be.

    Ortrud Lebmann, chair of labor relations at Helmut Schmidt University, conducted landmark research about those who live in poverty and their “restricted opportunity to choose among different ways of life.” His research, in essence, confirms what Eight intended to study. The Eight pilot project proved just how necessary and effective freedom of options are for those with inadequate resources. Janssens noted how bizarre of a concept UBI was to many in Uganda and elsewhere. “The people of Busibi reacted with a kind of disbelief… That they would receive money without conditions. Aid is always project-oriented.” By lifting the onus of conditions, the environment improved.

    The Results

    After two years, the data appears irrefutable. Most people in the group spent around 50% of their money on food, investments, clothes, health and education. Self-reported happiness improved by 80%.

    Only 50% of children in the village went to school before the unconditional cash transfers began compared with 94.7% after. Twenty businesses populated the town compared to the two that stood before the program. All markers of poverty declined with the advent of cash and choice.

    Eight now plans to bring its ambitious idea that began with Uganda and universal basic income to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. “EIGHT wants to find out if the people from the villages close to a mine can be given more choices.”

    The question is not only if it will work (the evidence suggests it will) but how it might work in a place where children work in mines and risk their wellbeing for a dangerous but lucrative practice. Will unconditional cash transfers facilitate less child labor in these mines? Previous experiments tend to predict just such an outcome.

    For now, there is a film about Goethals and Jansens’s project entitled “Crazy Money,” set to debut later in 2021. What Eight did with Uganda and universal basic income was nothing short of revelatory. Although UBI is not new, this is further proof it represents an actionable solution against global poverty. Maarten Goethals and Steven Janssens provided more evidence for choice, dignity and compassion for those who live in poverty.

    The post 2-Year UBI Pilot in Uganda Results in More Happiness, Education, Entrepreneurship, Savings, and Independence appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • On 25 February 2021, the Chinese government announced that extreme poverty had been abolished in China, a country of 1.4 billion people. This historic victory is a culmination of a seven-decade-long process that began with the Chinese Revolution of 1949. The early decades of socialist construction laid the foundation that was deepened during the reform and opening-up period. During this time, 850 million Chinese people were lifted and lifted themselves out of poverty; that is to say, 70 percent of the world’s total poverty reduction took place in China. In the most recent ‘targeted’ phase that began in 2013, the Chinese government spent 1.6 trillion yuan (US$246 billion) to build 1.1 million kilometres of rural roads, bring internet access to 98 percent of the country’s poor villages, renovate homes for 25.68 million people, and build new homes for 9.6 million others.

    The post The Eradication Of Extreme Poverty In China appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Rep. Ilhan Omar speaks during a press conference at a memorial for Daunte Wright on April 20, 2021, in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.

    Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) plans to introduce a bill that would create a guaranteed income program that would send $1,200 a month to most Americans. The bill, she argues, could be a major step toward ending poverty in the U.S.

    The SUPPORT Act would send $1,200 a month to U.S. adults making up to $75,000 a year, or a head of household making up to $112,500 a year, with supplemental income for children, according to HuffPost. The bill would phase out payments at higher income brackets.

    The bill strives to include groups that are traditionally left out of government aid like the recent COVID stimulus checks. Undocumented immigrants who file taxes with an ITIN would be included. People without banking accounts or people experiencing homelessness could also access payments through a banking system run by the United States Postal Service.

    The SUPPORT Act has been cosponsored by Reps. Cori Bush (D-Missouri), Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), Dwight Evans (D-Pennsylvania) and Jamaal Bowman (D-New York). It faces long odds in Congress.

    “Poverty is a choice. For too long we have prioritized endless growth while millions are homeless, hungry or without healthcare,” Omar said in a statement, per HuffPost. “We as a nation have the ability to make sure everyone has their basic needs like food, housing and healthcare met.”

    The state of poverty and debt in the U.S. is dire. The gap between the highest and lowest earners is growing, while people working on the dismally low federal minimum wage are struggling to meet their needs. Tax cuts for the rich, meanwhile, have allowed the rich to avoid paying income tax altogether some years, creating a stark contrast between the wealthy and the poor.

    A study by the Federal Reserve published in 2019 found that almost 40 percent of Americans didn’t have $400 in savings, leaving them vulnerable if unexpected expenses were to arise.

    Omar argues that her bill could help reverse poverty in the U.S., pointing to the stimulus checks sent out earlier this year and last. Indeed, a recent study of the effects of the COVID stimulus bill passed earlier this year found that poverty dropped to the lowest level on record in the U.S. The largest contributor to the reduction in poverty is from the stimulus checks — a similar program to what Omar is proposing.

    Not only did the checks reduce poverty, they also helped families stay afloat through the pandemic. Half of Americans used the $1,400 checks sent by the government earlier this year to pay debts. Many others used the checks to pay off bills, relieving a burden from families while the country was, and still is, being crushed by COVID-19.

    Universal basic income has been tried before in the U.S. Recently, Stockton, California, experimented with the idea, giving randomly selected members of the public $500 a month with no strings attached for two years. The cash stipends benefitted or increased participant’s financial stability and career prospects. It also helped better the participant’s overall well-being.

    Similar programs have had success in other countries. Countries like Finland and South Korea have had similar results from guaranteed income programs, which freed up participants to pursue goals like starting a business or attending school.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • By Aliya Chikte and Gilad Isaacs

    Political will and strategic taxation channels could help bridge the yawning divide between the haves and the have nots in South Africa.

    The reinstatement by President Cyril Ramaphosa of the Covid-19 social relief of distress grant and its extension to caregivers take us one step closer to a universal basic income guarantee.

    The Covid-19 pandemic has placed the idea of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) back on the agenda, as can be seen from the numerous demands from civil society groups and community organisers. This recognises, in the context of a long-standing structural unemployment crisis, that poverty and inequality cannot be addressed only through expanding employment.

    However, the SRD grant of R350 per month can, at best, cover only 60% of a person’s minimum required food intake. In the short term, the SRD grant should be increased to at least R585, which is the food poverty line. This would cost an additional R17-billion until March 2022. The inadequate amount and the delays in implementing this are reflective of a government whose social policies have become reactive and crisis-driven.

    A permanent UBIG is a chance to close the gaps in South Africa’s social security net. The question is then not about whether a UBIG should be implemented, but rather how it should be designed and financed.

    To answer part of this question, the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) has put forward a financing policy brief for a UBIG, outlining 19 recommendations that will allow South Africa to raise funds to tackle poverty. The policy brief serves as a supplement to an earlier one on UBIG published by the IEJ in March 2021 and a summary of further research produced for the IEJ by DNA Economics. The proposals include adjustments to income taxes, consumption taxes, and wealth and property taxes; removal of corporate tax breaks; the reduction of wasteful and irregular expenditure; and the recoupment of expenditure on UBIG through existing value-added tax (VAT).

    How much and for whom?

    There are numerous suggestions for the amount at which a UBIG should be set. We present a set of options, ranging from the food poverty line of R585 per month to the initial starting level of the national minimum wage of R3,500 per month. These amounts are not, on their own, sufficient to provide a dignified standard of living, but rather seek to address the depth and severity of poverty by meeting people’s most basic needs.

    The preferred approach is one of universality, allowing all people between the age of 18 to 59, currently excluded from permanent social security benefits, to be eligible for the UBIG. In tandem, if South Africa is to reach the National Development Plan’s objective of reducing poverty to 0% by 2030, then the child support grant should also be increased to at least the level of the food poverty line.

    The universality ensures that lower-income taxpayers will benefit more from the income guarantee than they contribute in new taxes. The net benefit varies according to income brackets. For example, if a UBIG of R585 per month is provided, 84% of taxpayers will be net beneficiaries.

    How to finance this?

    The IEJ puts forward 19 tax proposals. These are options, and are not necessarily proposed as a package to be implemented simultaneously.

    Adjustments to income taxes include:

    • The implementation of a ring-fenced Social Security Tax on income, operating similarly to Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) contributions. This will generate R67-billion annually. It would be progressively levied upon all income earners — ranging between 1.5 to 3% of taxable personal income;
    • A resource rent tax levied on excess profits earned by extractive industries, estimated to bring in R39-billion annually. This would redistribute the gains from commodity booms while preserving incentives for investors;
    • The removal of tax breaks for high-income earners — in the form of medical aid tax credits and the pension fund contribution deduction — could contribute a total of R26-billion annually; and
    • A halt to the National Treasury’s proposed reduction in the corporate income tax rate. In the context of pressing social needs, this reduction would be deeply irresponsible

    Proposed changes to taxes on products consumed include the introduction of a VAT rate of 25% on luxury goods; a temporary increase in excise duties; and an increase in carbon taxes to one-quarter of the European Union standard. We estimate that changes to such consumption taxes will result in an additional R13-billion that can be used to finance a UBIG.

    These provide good revenue-raising options but do not tax accumulated wealth. For this reason, we propose a wealth tax. Though South Africa has one of the highest levels of wealth inequality, a wealth tax has historically been excluded from the tax framework. Using the wealth tax simulator from the World Inequality Database, we show that a 1% wealth tax for the top 1%, and a 3% wealth tax for the top 0.1% would generate R59-billion in revenue in the medium to long term. While a wealth tax is not an immediate source of financing, it is an important proposal to ensure the sustainability of a UBIG.

    It is also possible to tax the income that derives from wealth, which is also highly unequally distributed. A currency transaction tax (CTT) of 0.005%; raising the Securities Transfer Tax from 0.25 to 0.3%; and a financial transaction tax of 0.1%, would raise R3.68 billion, R1.37 billion, and R41 billion respectively. These tax the buying and selling of different financial assets and have the benefit of reducing stock market speculation.

    An increase in the estate duty tax would mean higher taxes when wealth is passed on after someone’s death. The proposal would align the tax to personal income tax rates, ensuring greater equity across the tax system. Given the skewed nature of accumulated wealth under apartheid, this seems necessary.

    This combination of taxes on wealth and income that derives from wealth would add R48-billion to government revenue.

    In addition, we propose scrapping ineffective corporate tax breaks — such as the employment tax incentive — and redoubling efforts to tackle tax evasion. The IEJ tax proposals target a 25% reduction in profit shifting of multinational corporations. Combined, this would free up a total of R18-billion in additional revenue. We also target a 30% reduction of irregular expenditure reported by the Auditor-General, freeing up R36.4-billion. A further reduction of wasteful expenditure in Cabinet and government departments would provide an additional R1.85-billion.

    Spill-over effects

    A UBIG would spur a host of positive spill-over effects in the economy, including shifting unspent funds from the wealthy and corporates to poor households, thus injecting spending into the economy that favours locally produced goods. This would also increase tax revenue as the economy grows. These all need to be investigated. One easy element to calculate is that around 12% of any expenditure on a UBIG would be recouped back by the state via VAT.

    This array of financing proposals shows that implementing a UBIG progressively and sustainably is feasible in the short term. Furthermore, some funds could be raised through additional debt, or other avenues.

    A UBIG is an important component of a broader package of social support that a capable state should ensure for all. The urgency of the moment, in addition to the longstanding persisting patterns of poverty and inequality, needs to be recognised and reflected in the debate around the implementation of a UBIG. Addressing extreme poverty is therefore not simply about financing constraints, but rather about willingness to take the immediate measures that this moment demands.

    _______________________________

    About the Authors: Aliya Chikte is a Research Associate at the Institute for Economic Justice, where Gilad Isaacs is the Director.

    The post Opinion: Yes, we can afford Universal Basic Income in South Africa appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The most comprehensive study yet of the federal response to the pandemic shows huge but temporary benefits for the poor — and helps frame a larger debate over the role of government.


    By: Jason DeParle

    The huge increase in government aid prompted by the coronavirus pandemic will cut poverty nearly in half this year from prepandemic levels and push the share of Americans in poverty to the lowest level on record, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of a vast but temporary expansion of the safety net.

    The number of poor Americans is expected to fall by nearly 20 million from 2018 levels, a decline of almost 45 percent. The country has never cut poverty so much in such a short period of time, and the development is especially notable since it defies economic headwinds — the economy has nearly seven million fewer jobs than it did before the pandemic.

    The extraordinary reduction in poverty has come at extraordinary cost, with annual spending on major programs projected to rise fourfold to more than $1 trillion.

    Yet without further expensive new measures, millions of families may find the escape from poverty brief. The three programs that cut poverty most — stimulus checks, increased food stamps and expanded unemployment insurance — have ended or are scheduled to soon revert to their prepandemic size.

    While poverty has fallen most among children, its retreat is remarkably broad: It has dropped among Americans who are white, Black, Latino and Asian, and among Americans of every age group and residents of every state.

    “These are really large reductions in poverty — the largest short-term reductions we’ve seen,” said Laura Wheaton of the Urban Institute, who produced the estimate with her colleagues Linda Giannarelli and Ilham Dehry. The institute’s simulation model is widely used by government agencies. The New York Times requested the analysis, which expanded on an earlier projection.

    The finding — that poverty plunged amid hard times at huge fiscal costs — comes at a moment of sharp debate about the future of the safety net.

    The Biden administration has started making monthly payments to most families with children through an expansion of the child tax credit. Democrats want to make the yearlong effort permanent, which would reduce child poverty on a continuing basis by giving their families an income guarantee.

    Progressives said the new numbers vindicated their contention that poverty levels reflected political choices and government programs could reduce economic need.

    “Wow — these are stunning findings,” said Bob Greenstein, a longtime proponent of safety net programs who is now at the Brookings Institution.

    “The policy response since the start of the pandemic goes beyond anything we’ve ever done, and the antipoverty effect dwarfs what most of us thought was possible.”

    Conservatives say that pandemic-era spending is unsustainable and would harm the poor in the long run, arguing that unconditional aid discourages work and marriage. The child tax credit offers families up to $300 per child a month whether or not parents have jobs, which critics call a return to failed welfare policies.

    “There’s no doubt that by shoveling trillions of dollars to the poor, you can reduce poverty,” said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. “But that’s not efficient and it’s not good for the poor because it produces social marginalization. You want policies that encourage work and marriage, not undermine it.”

    Poverty rates had reached new lows before the pandemic, Mr. Rector added, under policies meant to discourage welfare and promote work.

    To understand how large the recent aid expansion has been, consider the experience of Kathryn Goodwin, a single mother of five in St. Charles, Mo., who managed a group of trailer parks before the pandemic eliminated her $33,000 job.

    Without the pandemic-era expansions — passed in three rounds under both the Trump and Biden administrations — Ms. Goodwin’s job loss would have caused her income to plunge to about $29,000 (in jobless benefits, food stamps and other aid), leaving her officially poor.

    Instead, her income rose above its prepandemic level, though she has not worked for a year. She received about $25,000 in unemployment benefits (about three times what she would have received before the pandemic) and $12,000 in stimulus checks. With increased food stamp benefits and other help, her income grew to $67,000 — almost 30 percent more than when she had a job.

    “Without that help, I literally don’t know how I would have survived,” she said. “We would have been homeless.”

    Still, Ms. Goodwin, 29, has mixed feelings about large payments with no stipulations.

    “In my case, yes, it was very beneficial,” she said. But she said that other people she knew bought big TVs and her former boyfriend bought drugs. “All this free money enabled him to be a worse addict than he already was,” she said. “Why should taxpayers pay for that?”

    The Urban Institute’s projections show poverty falling to 7.7 percent this year from 13.9 percent in 2018. That decline, 45 percent, is nearly three times the previous three-year record, according to historical estimates by researchers at Columbia University.

    The projected drop in child poverty, to 5.6 from 14.2 percent, amounts to a decline of 61 percent. That exceeds the previous 50 years combined, the Columbia figures show.

    In addition to there being nearly 20 million fewer people in poverty, the institute projects about 10 million fewer in “near poverty,” with incomes of 100 to 150 percent of the poverty line. Under the yardstick the Urban Institute used (the government’s Supplemental Poverty Measure), the poverty line for two adults and two children with typical housing costs is about $30,000.

    “The decline in ‘near poverty’ is significant because families in that income range, like people in poverty, suffer high rates of food insecurity and other hardships,” said Elaine Waxman, an Urban Institute researcher.

    Poverty fell across racial and ethnic groups but most for people who are Black and Latino, meaning the gap with white Americans narrowed. The Rev. Starsky Wilson, the president of the Children’s Defense Fund, credited the racial protests of the past year for prompting lawmakers to act. “It’s no coincidence that the effort at mobilizing resulted in investments that reduced poverty and narrowed disparities,” he said.

    Poverty fell less among Asian Americans, leaving them more likely than Black Americans to be poor. The institute found that was partly because they tended to live in more expensive areas.

    Jessica Moore of St. Louis said the expanded aid helped her make a fresh start.

    A single mother of three, Ms. Moore, 24, lost work as a banquet server at the pandemic’s start but received enough in unemployment insurance and stimulus checks to buy a car and enroll in community college. She is studying to become an emergency medical technician, which promises to raise her earnings 50 percent.

    “When you lose your job, you don’t expect benefits that are more than you were making,” she said. “It was a pure blessing.”

    Payments also went to people who kept their jobs, which helps explain why “near poverty” fell. The beneficiaries included John Asher of Indianapolis, who once served prison time for selling drugs but is now sober and earning $500 a week as a maintenance man. With $3,200 in stimulus checks, Mr. Asher, 49, was able to leave a boardinghouse, rent an apartment and take custody of an autistic son, who he feared would go to foster care.

    But he said he distrusted “the crooked government” and urged poor people to help themselves. “If you want to change your life, you have to get up and do something — not sit home and get free money,” he said.

    Leah Burgess, who also kept her job, drew the opposite lesson from the help she received. A part-time chaplain at a school outside the District of Columbia, Ms. Burgess, 43, is studying for two master’s degrees at Howard University. With three children, she and her husband, who was also a student, received about $18,000 in stimulus checks and expanded food stamps.

    The aid helped them eat better and worry less, said Ms. Burgess, who called the support a foundation for a more just society. “If our resources in a pandemic could change millions of people’s lives, then what’s stopping us from continuing to do that?” she said.

    The institute projected spending on core programs would more than double, to about $13,900 per family from $5,700 in 2018. The stimulus checks removed more than 12 million people from poverty. Food stamps ended poverty for nearly eight million people and unemployment aid for nearly seven million.

    Critics said the aid was poorly devised, noting that many people received more from unemployment benefits than they had earned on the job. “We spent like we’ve never spent before and we reduced hardship for most people quite dramatically,” said Bruce D. Meyer, an economist at the University of Chicago. “But this came at a very high and unnecessary cost.”

    While Democrats and Republicans remain divided over future safety net spending, a bipartisan group of senators agreed Wednesday on about $550 billion in new spending for roads, bridges and physical infrastructure projects, and the Senate advanced the package in an initial vote.

    How Government Relief Might Have Helped Two Different Families

    At the request of The New York Times, the Urban Institute illustrated the safety net’s effects on two hypothetical Pennsylvania families. The first shows that increased aid would lift a single mother out of poverty in 2021 even if her earnings fell in half. The second shows that the aid would lift a married couple out of “near poverty” even if their earnings remained the same.

    Measuring poverty is contentious, and some conservatives accuse the left of exaggerating the recent poverty reduction to justify more spending. They say the government’s methodology undercounts the benefits people receive and overstates what it takes to meet basic needs. The Urban Institute modified the government’s approach to correct for undercounting, but Ms. Wheaton said methodological issues did not change the conclusion that poverty fell since “we are applying a consistent measure to both years.”

    If there are biases in the institute’s methodology, they lean in offsetting directions. Using a 2018 baseline may modestly overstate the recent poverty reduction, since poverty was lower when the virus hit. But the study, which was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, also understated the poverty reduction by omitting several large new programs, including $45 billion in rental aid.

    Robert Doar, the president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, warned that the poverty numbers were being used to attack a successful social compact established a quarter-century ago with the overhaul of the welfare system. Under a new system of time limits and work requirements, payments to poor people without jobs fell, but subsidies for low-wage workers grew. Mr. Doar noted that while liberals warned child poverty would grow, by 2019 it had hit a prepandemic low.

    “We required work, we rewarded work, and poverty rates were lower than had ever been,” he said. “The Democrats want to ignore all that and just send everybody a check.”

    The evidence of falling poverty in 2021 may seem at odds with reports of increased hunger and other pandemic-era hardships. But the trends can coincide, as Ms. Goodwin’s experience shows. That is because poverty is based on annual income, and help has fluctuated greatly from month to month as a result of policy changes and administrative bottlenecks. Many families have swung between moments of surplus and desperation.

    After six years on the job, Ms. Goodwin was shocked to find herself laid off (“that was really a slap in the face”) and distraught when her request for unemployment benefits went unanswered for a month. Fearing she might lose the children to foster care, she drove them 800 miles to Niagara Falls with thoughts of them all jumping in.

    Since then, her jobless benefits swung from a high of $920 a week (much more than she had received on the job) to a low of $320 (much less) as federal policy changed. She lost food stamps for several weeks and fed the children smaller portions. She waited months for stimulus aid after the payment went to a closed bank account.

    “It was all very unreliable,” she said.

    A low point came last fall, when her jobless benefits bottomed out. The trailer park where she once had worked evicted her.

    Ms. Goodwin said she had been looking for work but it was harder than the “Help Wanted” signs would suggest. Fast-food chains say she is overqualified, and the pandemic-era closure of child care centers complicates her logistics. (She previously worked at home.) She started a sideline making church T-shirts and is an apprentice at a nail salon, where she hopes to get hired.

    At once a beneficiary and critic of aid, Ms. Goodwin said the safety net, however imperfect, had lived up to its name. “It enabled us to stay out of poverty — that’s absolutely safety,” she said.

    __________________________________________

    Article originally appeared in New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/28/us/politics/covid-poverty-aid-programs.html

    The post Pandemic Aid Programs Spur a Record Drop in Poverty of Almost 45% appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • A report has raised human rights concerns regarding decades of failed government privatisation in the UK. A campaign group said it identified potentially ‘serious human rights breaches’. And one of its authors, former UN investigator Philip Alston, is no stranger to criticising UK political agendas. Indeed, it was Alston who wrote a damning report on poverty in the country in 2018.

    “Public Transport, Private Profit”

    Alston is the former special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. His 2018 report was scathing in its criticism of the UK government. Now, he’s helped put together another damning assessment.

    The new report is called Public Transport, Private Profit: The Human Cost of Privatizing Buses in the United Kingdom. It looks at the state of bus services across the UK since Margaret Thatcher’s government privatised them in 1985. Alston co-authored the report with Bassam Khawaja and Rebecca Riddell. They are co-directors of the Human Rights and Privatization Project at New York University’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. They’ve pulled together facts and figures and collected testimony from passengers across the country.

    Alston: a “master class in how not to run” a public service

    Overall, Alston said of UK bus services:

    Over the past 35 years, deregulation has provided a master class in how not to run an essential public service, leaving residents at the mercy of private actors who have total discretion over how to run a bus route, or whether to run one at all.

    In case after case, service that was once dependable, convenient, and widely-used has been scaled back dramatically or made unaffordable.

    The absence of a strong public bus system affects a great many people’s economic opportunities, but also their means to participate in their communities, travel to football matches or libraries, and visit family and friends.

    These comments were just the tip of the iceberg. Because the report itself detailed how the UK’s bus network is failing the poorest people the most.

    Spiralling financial chaos

    There are overarching problems with the services. For example:

    • Average bus fares have risen by 403% since 1987. Yet the government has frozen fuel duty on cars for the past 11 years.
    • Prior to 2013, bus companies made an average profit of £297m a year. But they only reinvested between 0.2-1.5% of turnover into services.
    • As of 2019, the public was paying for 42% of funding for bus services in England, to the tune of £2bn a year.
    • Since 2009, local authorities have cut more than 3,000 bus routes in England which they were subsidising.

    The end result of all this? A service that’s falling apart.

    Unreliable

    As the report summed up:

    Deregulation has failed to provide a reliable bus service. Passengers said buses were frequently late, did not show up at all, or often broke down.

    The report didn’t document the statistics for bus punctuality and reliability. But the latest government figures show:

    • “Frequent” bus services in England were on average 1.7 minutes late in 2018/19.
    • This lateness varied across local authorities. For example, in Gloucestershire it was 6.1 minutes. A lot of local authorities did not report their data.
    • Meanwhile, “non-frequent” bus services in England (outside London) were only on time 83.5% of the time in 2018/19.
    • Again, the local authority figures for this varied. For example, in Leicestershire only 63% of non-frequent services ran on time.

    The report was clear on where the blame lies for this run-down industry.

    Disastrous deregulation

    It said that:

    Deregulation has made it impossible to run the type of integrated network of services that is taken for granted in many countries around the world. The government argued in 1984 that a free-market approach would outperform an integrated, regulated system, confidently predicting that “informal measures of co-operation between operators will develop to ensure that their services connect. But deregulation of bus transport has led to a deeply fragmented system that would shock those not accustomed to it: multiple private bus operators competing in the same areas and sometimes on the same routes, timetables that do not line up between operators or other modes of transportation, and multiple ticketing options that add needless complication to bus journeys.

    So, what is the effect on passengers?

    Passengers at the sharp end

    The report found multiple failures in bus services for passengers. For example:

    • Between 1982 and 2016/2017, passenger journeys on local bus services dropped by 38% in England (outside London), 45% in Wales, and 43% in Scotland. Yet under the government-regulated Transport for London in the capital, they rose by 89%.
    • A 2012 study found that 19% of workers turned down a job offer because of “the quality of bus service”.
    • Almost 300,000 children cannot reach a secondary school within 30 minutes using public transport.
    • Less than 50% of rural households live within a “13-minute walk of an hourly bus service”.
    • By 2019, over 3 million people couldn’t “reach any food stores within 15 minutes by public transport”.

    And bus privatisation has hit poor and disabled people the hardest.

    Poor people

    The report noted that around 40% of “low-income” people don’t have a car. Yet as it said:

    those on lower incomes take the highest number of bus trips.

    Such individuals can face severe barriers to public transport and are heavily impacted by rising costs and service cuts. They often have worse bus access, may not be able to afford it, work non-standard hours, and are more likely to rely on the bus as their only option. An inability to afford transportation can prevent people from accessing necessary services, limit access to work, reduce quality of life, increase health inequalities, and lead to social isolation.

    Disabled people

    For chronically ill and disabled people, the law says buses have to have at least one wheelchair space. But this doesn’t mean buses are fully accessible. A 2019 report found numerous barriers for chronically ill and disabled people in London. These included:

    • Ramps not working.
    • Bus drivers prioritising pushchairs over wheelchairs.
    • Some buses only having one wheelchair space.

    Also, up until last year, the government had not made accessibility a legal requirement on rail replacement bus services. Figures showed that six out of 10 of the vehicles train operators used did not comply with accessibility requirements. Moreover, England’s disabled person’s free bus pass only permits off-peak travel. So if chronically ill and disabled people want to travel at busier times of the day, they have to pay. In 2019, only 60% of disabled people in England (excluding London) were happy with bus services.

    So, what is the government doing?

    Tinkering around the edges

    The report noted that the government’s:

    2021 bus strategy for England doubles down on the role of private companies to deliver a public service, without addressing the reasons they have failed in the past or meaningfully expanding options for public ownership and control.

    The proposed reforms do little more than tinker with the existing system. The strategy does not commit the government to legalizing new municipal bus companies or removing the severe barriers to achieving bus regulation that local authorities face. It does not address power imbalances between local transportation authorities and bus operators. And it does not impose an obligation on local authorities to provide a minimal service, leaving the core of the deregulated system fully in place.

    The report also compared the aims of bus privatisation according to Thatcher’s government with what the UK government now says about it. This essentially shows the government admitting that privatisation has failed:

    UK government claims on bus services

    The UK government says…

    The government disagreed with the report’s conclusions. As the Guardian reported, a spokesperson for the Department for Transport said the new bus strategy would “completely overhaul services”, and:

    Services across England are patchy, and it’s frankly not good enough.

    They added:

    We will provide unprecedented funding, but we need councils to work closely with operators, and the government, to develop the services of the future.

    The report recommends…

    The report said [pdf, p37] the government should:

    • “Embrace public control of bus transport.”
    • “Guarantee access to public transport.”
    • “Support local authorities.”
    • “Ensure affordability.”
    • “Combat climate change with a strong bus system.”

    But overall, it seems that little is going to change. This is despite the UN already expressing concerns over the UK’s public transport system. And as the report notes, it’s not just the detailed issues around bus services which are the problem here.

    A human rights issue?

    The report states that:

    There is currently no right to a minimum level of public transportation set out in UK law or policy. And public transportation is not traditionally regarded as a right in and of itself. Yet it is abundantly clear that lack of transportation has severe impacts on people’s ability to live a decent and fulfilling life, including their access to work, education, healthcare, and food.

    It also noted:

    The privatization of public transportation raises significant human rights concerns. There is a strong case to be made that human rights law requires States to directly provide public services or ensure the provision of public services by a public body where the service is essential for realizing one’s rights—and that increased privatization of rights-related services undermines human rights.

    “Serious” human rights “breaches”

    Emily Yates from the campaign group the Association of British Commuters said:

    There is only one conclusion to take from this report – the government must urgently amend bus legislation and provide proper support to councils to move towards public control and ownership. There are now just months left before England’s National Bus Strategy locks us into bus deregulation for another generation. Failure to act will leave the UK on the wrong side of history – and the government in serious breach of its human rights obligations.

    So, as Alston summed up:

    The United Kingdom is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and can afford a world-class bus system if it chooses to prioritise and fund it. Instead, the government has outsourced responsibility for a vital public service, propping up an arrangement that prioritises private profits and denying the public a decent bus.

    Given the UK government previously ignored UN reports into its human rights violations against chronically ill and disabled people, it will probably not heed this report’s findings. But Alston and the team’s report provides a valuable and much-needed insight into the state of bus provision in the UK. It’s one that campaign groups and trade unions can use to drive the narrative around our public transport system forward. And hopefully, the report will lead to change in the future.

    Watch the launch event for the report below:

    Featured image via Bassam Khawaja

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Rates of hunger are more than 150% the national average in one out of every six local authorities, according to researchers who created a map showing where millions of UK residents struggle to access food.

    The University of Sheffield Institute for Sustainable Food modelled data from the Food Foundation and for the first time was able to identify food insecurity at a local authority scale.

    This new analysis of the national data collected during the pandemic breaks down experiences of food insecurity into three distinct groups.

    Three groups of food insecurity

    Firstly, those who are hungry but were unable to eat food because they could not afford it, or were unable to access food in the previous month.

    Secondly, those who are struggling to access food, including those who may have sought help within the last month with access to food, have cut back on meals and healthy foods to stretch tight budgets, or indicated that they struggled to access food in some way.

    Data showed that in some places, 28% of adults were struggling.

    And thirdly, those who worry about food insecurity or being able to continue to supply adequate food for their household.

    Highest and lowest areas of food insecurity

    The map shows it is England where the areas with the highest and lowest rates of food insecurity are located.

    At one end of the scale, the majority of local authorities in Yorkshire and the Humber are in the top 20% of local authorities with the greatest percentages of adults going hungry, while in the East of England, the majority of local authorities are in the 20% that have the lowest percentages.

    The areas worst hit by food insecurity are Wycombe, in Buckinghamshire, with 14% of people estimated to be hungry and nearly 30% of people struggling to access food.

    The area also has high estimates for numbers of people who are worried about having enough food (22%).

    This is followed closely by Hull, with 13% of people being hungry and more than one in five adults who struggled to access food.

    The locality with least hunger, struggle or worry was St Albans.

    The research found that in one out of every six local authorities, rates of hunger were more than 150% (one-and-a-half times) the national average.

    And in one in 10 local authorities, the rate was almost double.

    “We must address this problem”

    Dr Megan Blake, from the University of Sheffield Institute for Sustainable Food, said:

    This new map, for the first time, makes visible the patterns of food insecurity across the UK.

    While no-one should have to go hungry, struggle to get or worry about having enough food, in some places it is at proportions that are especially shocking, particularly as we are a wealthy country.

    If we are going to recover from Covid-19 we must address this problem.

    She added:

    We hope this clear breakdown of the data will be a useful resource for local authorities and the Government to use to address the challenges facing all people living with food insecurity, and that help can be tailored and targeted to those communities who need it, as the answer is not as simple as opening more food banks.

    Food insecurity is undermining our chances of recovery after Covid-19. We need to urgently address this issue that pervades so many of our communities. No-one should have to be hungry.

    According to data from the Food Foundation, in January 2021, 4.2% of adults across the UK reported that during the previous month they had been hungry but unable to eat at least once.

    Almost half of local areas in the north of Ireland and in Yorkshire and the Humber had very high percentages of people who were hungry in January.

    The data from the Food Foundation was from an online survey of 4,231 adults in the UK conducted on January 29 to February 2 this year.

    A Government spokesperson said:

    We have spent billions to help those most in need and combat food insecurity throughout the pandemic.

    This includes the £429.1 million Covid Local Support Grant, which was created to help families with food and fuel bills.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • MPs have “blood on their hands” over their vote to cut foreign aid. That’s the view of one campaign group, as the impact of the decision becomes clear. But is the budget all that it seems in the first place?

    Foreign aid: MPs revolt

    As PA reported, chancellor Rishi Sunak put forward a plan that will see a reduction in aid funding from 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.5%. It’s a cut of around £4.4bn this year. The government wrote the commitment to 0.7% into law. The Tories then restated it in their 2019 manifesto. But the government has now ditched it in a supposed attempt to save money in response to the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.

    So, on Tuesday 13 July, the change came to parliament. MPs voted by 333 to 298, a majority of 35, to cut foreign aid. But it wasn’t entirely smooth sailing for the government. 24 Tory MPs joined opposition parties to vote against the plan. Both Boris Johnson and Sunak said that the cut was only temporary. Under the new system, funding will only return to 0.7% if the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) believes the UK is not borrowing to finance day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling. The chancellor noted that:

    Whilst not every member felt able to vote for the Government’s compromise, the substantive matter of whether we remain committed to the 0.7% target – not just now but for decades to come – is clearly a point of significant unity in this House.

    Today’s vote has made that commitment more secure for the long term whilst helping the Government to fix the problems with our public finances and continue to deliver for our constituents today.

    But Sunak may well be performing an economic sleight of hand.

    The devil is in the detail

    As PA noted, foreign aid will only return to 0.7% if the OBR allows it. The existing OBR forecasts run to 2025/26. In no year does the OBR forecast that the current budget will be in surplus. Moreover, it says net debt will not start to fall until 2024/25. In other words – the government will not return foreign aid to 0.7% any time soon.

    It’s important to note that for many of the MPs who rebelled, foreign aid may not necessarily be about supporting the world’s poorest people. Some people believe that the government uses aid as ‘soft power’; that is, pushing British imperialist aims abroad. Socialist Appeal called foreign aid “the smiling face of imperialism”. Anthony Oakland noted that governments do not always use the budget to support the world’s poorest people. Instead, they said that foreign aid was:

    used as a lever to encourage ‘trade liberalisation’. This of course means better access to profitable markets for corporations.

    Sticking to the capitalist rules

    Oakland also noted that:

    those defending the aid budget don’t care a single jot about the world’s poor either. For them, foreign aid is merely a tool for exerting the ‘soft power’ of British imperialism.

    This fact was revealed in a letter to the Financial Times, signed by big business groups… In it they stated that reducing the aid budget would “reduce the UK’s credibility” (on the world stage), and “hamper gains made on social and economic development, which are prerequisites for businesses to trade”…

    In other words, if Britain’s diplomatic standing on the world stage declines further, these gentlemen’s bottom lines stand to suffer!

    Even the archbishop of Canterbury said of foreign aid:

    British aid efforts increase the UK’s soft power. They stabilise and support people in areas of instability. They strengthen the rules-based international order.

    Soft power versus no power?

    Even through the prism of foreign aid being about the British exerting influence abroad, the cut still seems illogical by Tory capitalist standards. As the British Academy wrote, the government:

    should be aware that short-term gains in terms of improving a budget deficit will create long-term damage by withering the very assets on which soft power rests, whether at home or inside international organisations. International cultural relations are a long game and a matter of strategic relationship-building rather than short-term tactical advantage. There is thus the world of difference between using foreign aid, say, to buy influence or win contracts – both of which are dubious practices from all points of view – and investing in the institutions and practices which provide a platform for intelligent, constructive diplomacy.

    “Blood on their hands”

    Daniel Willis, campaigns and policy manager at Global Justice Now, noted the use of foreign aid as soft power. He said in a press release:

    When the inevitable death and suffering from aid cuts hits the news, each and every MP who has voted to sever the UK’s 0.7% commitment should know that blood is on their hands.

    The kind of chicanery this government has used to dodge its international responsibilities lays bare the myth that these cuts are needed to balance public spending during the pandemic. 0.7% was already proportional. This bill only commits the government to deeper cuts…[t]oday, claims of Global Britain ring hollow.

    Charities previously warned that the funding reduction meant they were stripping back services. Now, we wait to see how the government’s cut of billions of pounds will further affect people globally. Moreover, it will be interesting to see how the changes will effect Britain’s capitalist soft power.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson’s latest video about England’s Euro 2020 journey is short and to the point – to the point of making you feel nauseous, that is. But it also hints at a broader issue in our society.

    Johnson: England flag-shagger-in-chief

    The PM has once more indulged in nationalistic flag-shaggery over the England team’s performance in the Euros. As many people prepare to watch them take on Italy in the final on Sunday 11 July, Johnson made his own contribution to the nation’s excitement. It was enough to put you off football (and the English flag) for life.

    Johnson spouted:

    Best of luck to England tonight. It’s been an incredible journey so far. But we’re all hoping you can go one better and bring it home tonight.

    Of course, much of Twitter wasn’t having any of Johnson’s bandwagon-jumping bullshit.

    As several users pointed out, Johnson initially didn’t call out fans who booed the team when some of them took the knee. Nor did he endorse the players’ stand against racism:

    Meanwhile Barbara thought Johnson may be trying to distract us from other issues:

    Others questioned whether the PM was really a footie fan, while doing some neat photoshopping:

    One person made a point about the cost of Johnson’s flag-shaggery:

    Former Labour Party general secretary Jennie Formby cut through the bluster of football. She highlighted that:

    An inflatable ball: uniting us more than dead disabled people ever could

    Rachael Swindon also pointed to another, broader point about the Euros:

    This is the bittersweet reality of national pride in football. The establishment pushes the narrative that the country is all behind the England team. For many of us, it is a source of pride, excitement, and pleasure. A lot of the time, the country does appear to rally behind a unifying cause in football. But it’s a shame that that’s all we tend to unite over.

    Tory policy killing sick and disabled people in their tens of thousands; homelessness skyrocketing; millions of children going hungry; over 150,000 possibly preventable deaths from coronavirus; and older people not being able to heat their homes in winter. The list of things that should unify us as a society goes on and on. Yet, none of it ever cuts through.

    If we could channel that common passion for football into changing society for the better, then maybe many of the issues that blight England, and the rest of the world, could be solved. Sadly, unless there’s a ball and a flag involved, that seems unlikely to happen.

    Featured image via BeanymanNews – YouTube and Listed  – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Labour MP Richard Burgon is asking people to sign a petition, which he’ll later present to parliament. And given the subject matter, there’s no reason for most people not to get involved. Because Burgon wants to properly tax the “super-rich”.

    Burgon is back

    The former shadow justice minister under Jeremy Corbyn is not messing about. As he tweeted:

     

    He’s doing it with the group Labour Assembly Against Austerity. The petition says on its website:

    We call on the House of Commons to introduce higher taxes on the super-rich as a step to tackling the widespread poverty and inequality that scar our society.

    This crisis has not only shone a spotlight on the huge inequalities in our society – it has deepened them.

    Indeed. Because since the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, the situation for millions of people in the UK has become even more desperate.

    The pandemic: chaos for some, a money-spinner for others

    As The Canary has documented, inequality and poverty have got worse since March last year. For example:

    • The number of households living in destitution more than doubled in 2020.
    • A parliamentary report suggested more people died of coronavirus and suffered unnecessarily during the pandemic due to historical Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) cuts.
    • People using foodbanks rose even more; 33% for the Trussell Trust alone.

    But the story wasn’t the same for everyone. For example:

    • The number of UK billionaires increased by 24%. Their wealth increased by 21% – collectively to over half a trillion pounds.
    • House prices increased by 13.4% – the largest rise since 2004.
    • Average FTSE 100 CEOs had already earned the median UK wage within the first 34 hours of the working year.

    The chasm between the lives of the rich and the poor was already wide. Now, the pandemic has created a gulf. So, Burgon has three ways to begin addressing this.

    Starting conversations

    As the petition states, he’s calling for:

    A Wealth Tax that would raise tens of billions from the wealthiest in our society.

    A Windfall Tax on those corporations that have made super-profits during this crisis.

    A More progressive income tax system including a new 55% income tax rate on all income over £200,000 per year; a 50% income tax rate for those on over £123,000 and 45% rate for income over £80,000.

    It remains to be seen how far Burgon’s plans will go in parliament. The Labour Party is unlikely to support them. The Tories certainly won’t. What Burgon is doing, however, is starting a conversation around the gaping inequality that plagues our society. And any increase in awareness and conversations around this issue can only be a good thing. So, get involved – you can sign the petition here.

    Featured image via Rwendland – Wikimedia

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • China’ overwhelming objective is clearly economic development, a policy to which it has hewed closely and which it declares for its future. That is no surprise; it is the dream of every developing nation. It is “The Chinese Dream.”

    If such goals were no more than words on paper, there would be no problem.  But China is succeeding as is widely acknowledged now.  Its economy surpassed the U.S. in terms of GDP (PPP) in November of 2014 according to the IMF and is growing faster.  Over 700 million have been brought out of poverty, with extreme poverty eliminated in 2020. The middle class now comprises over 400 million people.  The retail market is enormous and the ecommerce market by far the world’s largest.  China is the world’s largest manufacturer and trader.

    The post A Deadly Contradiction: The Root Of The US- China Conflict appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Inflation is on course to increase above 4% in the coming months. This would reduce average household incomes by £700, research suggests.

    The Resolution Foundation said higher than expected inflation poses more of a challenge to household incomes than to the Bank of England.

    Findings

    The think tank said UK inflation has mirrored trends in the United States when the rate is increasing.

    It added that near-term inflationary pressures in the UK are less stark than the US.

    The Foundation’s analysis showed that while the UK is unlikely to experience the same inflation peaks seen in the US, if commodity prices remain at their current levels, inflation could rise above 4% later in 2021. This is more than double the rate of inflation forecast by the Bank of England for the third quarter.

    ‘The Government cannot afford to ignore it’

    James Smith, research director at the Resolution Foundation, said:

    With the US experiencing the fastest rise in inflation in nearly half a century, and the UK also experiencing sharp increases, many people are getting increasingly worried about a possible price spiral.

    While UK inflationary pressures are nothing like as stark as the US, we could still see inflation breaching 4% this summer, a figure well in excess of the OBR and Bank’s expectations.

    The temporary nature of this inflation spike means the Bank can look through it and avoid premature rate rises, but the £700 hit to living standards it will bring means households and the Government cannot afford to ignore it.

    ‘Squeeze on household incomes’

    Smith went on to add:

    The Chancellor can start by cancelling the planned cut to Universal Credit this autumn, which will only add to families’ financial pressures.

    A squeeze on household incomes later this year, even if temporary, is a significant threat to the strength of our current recovery.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Kids of Colour and the Northern Police Monitoring Project (NPMP) have launched a petition calling on the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) to halt plans to place more police officers in local schools. The No Police in Schools campaign is also calling for the local authority to remove existing school-based police officers (SBPOs).

    Police in Manchester schools

    Kids of Colour and NPMP are calling on GMCA to halt plans to introduce more SBPOs into Manchester schools, and to remove existing officers. This is based on concerns that police in schools will disproportionately impact working class children of colour, “create a climate of hostility and suspicion”, and bring more children into contact with the criminal justice system.

    Speaking to The Canary in February, co-author of Decriminalise the Classroom and NPMP member Dr Laura Connelly said:

    As our No Police In Schools Campaign makes clear, teachers, parents, young people and community members have grave concerns about school-based police officers. Our own community consultation of over 500 people in Greater Manchester shows that SBPOs have a range of negative consequences that are felt most acutely by those from working-class and Black and ethnic minority communities.

    She added:

    We are deeply concerned that police will bring into the school setting the institutional racism and police violence already experienced in over-policed communities. They will foster a culture of low expectations.

    Calling on the local authority to invest in supportive rather than punitive measures, Kids of Colour and NPMP said:

    If GMCA is truly interested in keeping young people safe, instead of investing in police in schools, it should invest in school counsellors, youth workers, teachers, and community infrastructure.

    The UK’s school-to-prison pipeline

    As set out by NEU vice-president Vik Chechi-Ribeiro, the “school-to-prison pipeline” refers to the systematic direction of pupils towards incarceration through educational exclusion and criminalisation. This is a product of harsh disciplinary policies that confront routine school-based behavioural issues with ‘zero tolerance’, and the presence of police, security, and surveillance in schools. This contributes to greater suspensions, expulsions, referrals to law enforcement, and arrests for violations of school rules. The presence of police in schools disproportionately impacts working-class pupils from Black and ethnic minority backgrounds, groups which already experience over-policing.

    Police in schools is a growing issue nationwide. More than 650 police officers are working in British schools, with many assigned to sites in areas of high deprivation. We have seen the devastating and disproportionate impact of police in US schools on Children of Colour, particularly those with disabilities. In spite of fears that police in schools will criminalise vulnerable pupils, authorities increased the number of police working in London schools by 19% between 2016/17 and 2019/20. In February, London mayor Sadiq Khan suggested further funding for SBPOs.

    Responding to this, Connelly said:

    The additional funding would be better invested in mental health support in schools, counsellors, teaching and support staff, and community infrastructure. It is this investment, rather than more policing, that will help to keep our young people safe.

    Towards an education system that supports pupils

    Police in schools will not solve the complex issues that impact young people’s lives. In most cases, they will exacerbate them. Schools and communities need solutions that actively challenge the root causes and consequences of social problems. As Kids of Colour and NPMP have highlighted, “young people need support, not suspicion”. This begins with investment in communities, and in education, youth, social, and mental health services. The coalition is calling on supporters to sign and share their petition, and for people to join the No Police in Schools campaign to help build an education system that supports pupils rather than traumatises them.

    Featured image via NeONBRAND/Unsplash

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • 3 Mins Read Global food prices have risen to decade-high levels, with low-income countries to be most vulnerable, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned. Predominantly in Asia-Pacific and Africa, many of these economies have already been ravaged by the impacts of the pandemic, and will now be under additional food insecurity threats from rising costs.  […]

    The post Low-Income Countries To Be Hardest Hit As Global Food Prices Make Biggest Spike In Decade, U.N. Warns appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Shattered piggy bank, debt

    Massive debt levels are a feature of contemporary capitalism that cannot be eradicated without radical change, says political scientist Éric Toussaint.

    “The indebtedness of the working classes is directly connected to the widening poverty gap and increasing inequality, and to the demolition of the welfare state that most governments have been working at since the 1980s,” says Toussaint in this exclusive interview for Truthout.

    Toussaint — a historian and international spokesperson for the Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM), and author of several books on debt, development and globalization — shares his thoughts on debt, inequality and contemporary socialist movements in the conversation that follows.

    C.J. Polychroniou: Over the past few decades, inequality is rising in many countries around the world, both across the Global North and the Global South, creating what UN Chief António Guterres called in his foreword to the World Social Report 2020 “a deeply unequal global landscape.” Moreover, the top 1 percent of the population are the big winners in the globalized capitalist economy of the 21st century. Is inequality an inevitable development in the face of globalization, or the outcome of politics and policies at the level of individual countries?

    Éric Toussaint: Rising inequality is not inevitable. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the explosion of inequality is consubstantial with the phase that the world capitalist system entered into in the 1970s. The evolution of inequality in the capitalist system is directly related to the balance of power between the fundamental social classes, between capital and labor. When I use the term “labor,” that means urban wage-earners as well as rural workers and small-scale farming producers.

    The evolution of capitalism can be divided into broad periods according to the evolution of inequality and the social balance of power. Inequality increased between the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the first half of the 19th century and the policies implemented by the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States in the 1930s, and then decreased up to the early 1980s. In Europe, the turn towards lower inequality lagged 10 years behind the United States. It was not until the end of World War II and the final defeat of Nazism that inequality-reducing policies were put in place, whether in Western Europe or Moscow-led Eastern Europe. In the major economies of Latin America, there was a reduction in inequality from the 1930s to the 1970s, notably during the presidencies of Lázaro Cárdenas in Mexico and Juan D. Perón in Argentina. In the period from the 1930s to the 1970s, there were massive social struggles. In many capitalist countries, capital had to make concessions to labor in order to stabilize the system. In some cases, the radical nature of social struggles led to revolutions, as in China in 1949 and Cuba in 1959.

    The return to policies that strongly aggravated inequality began in the 1970s in Latin America and part of Asia. From 1973 onward, the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet (advised by the “Chicago Boys,” the Chilean economists who had studied laissez-faire economics at the University of Chicago with Milton Friedman), the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, and the dictatorships in Argentina and Uruguay are just a few examples of countries where neoliberal policies were first put into practice.

    These neoliberal policies, which produced a sharp increase in inequality, became widespread from 1979 in Great Britain under Margaret Thatcher, from 1980 in the United States under the Reagan administration, from 1982 in Germany under the Kohl government, and in 1982-1983 in France after François Mitterrand’s turn to the right.

    Inequality increased sharply with the capitalist restoration in the countries of the former Soviet bloc in Central and Eastern Europe. In China from the second half of the 1980s onward, the policies dictated by Deng Xiaoping also led to a gradual restoration of capitalism and a rise in inequality.

    It is also quite clear that for the ideologues of the capitalist system and for many international organizations, a rise in inequality is a necessary condition for economic growth.

    It should be noted that the World Bank does not consider a rising level of inequality as negative. Indeed, it adopts the theory developed in the 1950s by the economist Simon Kuznets, according to which a country whose economy takes off and progresses must necessarily go through a phase of increasing inequality. According to this dogma, inequality will start to fall as soon as the country has reached a higher threshold of development. It is a version of pie in the sky used by the ruling classes to placate the oppressed on whom they impose a life of suffering.

    The need for rising inequalities is well rooted into World Bank philosophy. Eugene Black, World Bank president in April 1961, said: “Income inequalities are the natural result of the economic growth which is the people’s escape route from an existence of poverty.” However, empirical studies by the World Bank in the 1970s at the time when Hollis Chenery was chief economist contradict the Kuznets theory.

    In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty presents a very interesting analysis of the Kuznets curve. Piketty mentions that at first, Kuznets himself doubted the real interest of the curve. That did not stop him from developing an economic theory that keeps bouncing back and, like all economists who serve orthodoxy well, receiving the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (1971). Since then, inequalities have reached levels never before seen in the history of humanity. This is the result of the dynamism of global capitalism and the support it receives from international institutions that are charged with “development” and governments that favor the interests of the 1 percent over those of the enormous mass of the population, as much in the developed countries as in the rest of the world.

    In 2021, the World Bank reviewed the Arab Spring of 2011 by claiming, against all evidence, that the level of inequality was low in the entire Arab region, and this worried them greatly as it was symptomatic of faults in the region’s supposed economic success. As faithful followers of Kuznets’ theory, Vladimir Hlasny and Paolo Verme argue in a paper published by the World Bank that “low inequality is not an indicator of a healthy economy.”

    Gilbert Achcar summarizes the position taken by Paolo Verme of the World Bank as follows: “in the view of the 2014 World Bank study, it is inequality aversion, not inequality per se, that should be deplored, since inequality must inevitably rise with development from a Kuznetsian perspective.”

    Finally, the coronavirus pandemic has further increased the inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. Inequality in the face of disease and death has also increased dramatically.

    Neoliberal policies have created massive debt levels for so-called emerging markets and developing countries, with debt threatening to create a global development emergency. What’s the most realistic solution to the debt crisis in developing countries?

    The solution is obvious. Debt payments must be suspended without any penalty payments being paid for the delay. Beyond suspension of payment, each country must carry out debt audits with the active participation of citizens, in order to determine the illegitimate, odious, illegal and/or unsustainable parts, which must be canceled. After a crisis of the size of the present one, the slates must be wiped clean, as has happened many times before throughout human history. David Graeber reminded us of this in his important book, Debt: The First 5,000 Years.

    From the point of view of the CADTM, a global network mainly active in the Global South but also in the North, the need to suspend payments and cancel debt does not only concern developing countries, whether they are emerging or not. It also concerns peripheral countries in the North like Greece and semi-colonies like Puerto Rico.

    It is time to dare to speak out about canceling the abusive debts demanded of the working classes. Private banks and other private bodies have put great energy into developing policy of lending to ordinary people who turn to borrowing because their incomes are insufficient to pay for higher education or health care. In the U.S., student debt has reached over $1.7 trillion, with $165 billion worth of student loans in default, while a large part of mortgages are subjected to abusive conditions (as the subprime crisis clearly showed from 2007). The terms of certain consumer debts are also abusive, as are most debts linked to micro-credit in the South.

    Indebtedness of the working classes is directly connected to the widening poverty gap and increasing inequality, and to the demolition of the welfare state that most governments have been working at since the 1980s. This is true all over the world: whether in Chile, Colombia, the Arabic-speaking region, Japan, Europe or the United States. As neoliberal policies dismantle their systems of protection, people are obliged, in turn, to incur debt as individuals to compensate for the fact that the states no longer fulfil the obligation incumbent upon them to protect, promote and enact human rights. Cinzia Arruzza, Tithi Bhattacharya and Nancy Fraser emphasized this in their book, Feminism for the 99%: A Manifesto.

    What are the alternatives for a sustainable model of development?

    As stated in the manifesto, “End the system of private patents!”:

    The health crisis is far from being resolved. The capitalist system and neoliberal policies have been at the helm at all stages. At the root of this virus is the unbridled transformation of the relationship between the human species and nature. The ecological and health crises are intimately intertwined.

    Governments and big capital will not be deterred from their offensive against the populations unless a vast and determined movement forces them to make concessions.

    Among new attacks that must be resisted are the acceleration of automation/robotization of work; the generalization of working from home, where employees are isolated, have even less control of their time and must themselves assume many more of the costs related to their work tools than if they worked physically in their offices; a development of distance learning that deepens cultural and social inequality; the reinforcement of control over private life and over private data; the reinforcement of repression, etc.

    The question of public debt remains a central element of social and political struggles. Public debt continues to explode in volume because governments are borrowing massively in order to avoid taxing the rich to pay for the measures taken to resist the COVID-19 pandemic, and it will not be long before they resume their austerity offensive. Illegitimate private debt will become an ever-greater daily burden for working people. Consequently, the struggle for the abolition of illegitimate debt must gain renewed vigor.

    The struggles that [arose] on several continents during June 2020, notably massive anti-racist struggles around the Black Lives Matter movement, show that youth and the working classes do not accept the status quo. In 2021, huge popular mobilizations in Colombia and more recently in Brazil have provided new evidence of massive resistance among Latin American peoples.

    We must contribute as much as possible to the rise of a new and powerful social and political movement capable of mustering the social struggles and elaborating a program that breaks away from capitalism and promotes anti-capitalist, anti-racist, ecological, feminist and socialist visions. It is fundamental to work toward a socialization of banks with expropriation of major shareholders; a moratorium of public debt repayment while an audit with citizens’ participation is carried out to repudiate its illegitimate part; the imposition of a high rate of taxation on the highest assets and incomes; the cancelation of unjust personal debts (student debt, abusive mortgage loans); the closure of stock markets, which are places of speculation; a radical reduction of working hours (without loss of pay) in order to create a large number of socially useful jobs; a radical increase in public expenditure, particularly in health care and education; the socialization of pharmaceutical companies and of the energy sector; the re-localization of as much manufacturing as possible and the development of short supply chains, as well as many other essential demands.

    A few years ago, you argued that the socialist project has been betrayed and needs to be reinvented in the 21st century. What should socialism look like in today’s world, and how can it be achieved?

    In the present day, the socialist project must be feminist, ecologist, anti-capitalist, anti-racist, internationalist and self-governing. In 2021, we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Paris Commune when people set up a form of democratic self-government. It was a combination of self-organization and forms of power delegation that could be questioned at any moment, since all mandates could be revoked at the behest of the people. It has to be clearly stated that the emancipation of the oppressed will be brought about by the oppressed themselves, or will not happen at all. Socialism will only be attained if the peoples of the world consciously set themselves the goal of constructing it, and if they give themselves the means to prevent authoritarian or dictatorial degradation and the bureaucratization of the new society.

    What Rosa Luxemburg said in 1918 is as valid today as it was then: “without a free and untrammeled press, without the unlimited right of association and assemblage, the rule of the broad masses of the people is entirely unthinkable.”

    She added:

    Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party — however numerous they may be — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of “justice” but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when “freedom” becomes a special privilege.”

    Faced with the multidimensional crisis of capitalism hurtling towards the abyss due to the environmental crisis, modifying capitalism is no longer a proper option. It would merely be a lesser evil which would not bring the radical solutions that the situation requires.

    This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The U.S. economy needs a sprawling labor force willing to work tough jobs at crummy wages to keep goods cheap and services plentiful.

    By: Ezra Klein

    I’m not going to pretend that I know how to interpret the jobs and inflation data of the past few months. My view is that this is still an economy warped by the pandemic, and that the dynamics are so strange and so unstable that it will be some time before we know its true state. But the reaction to the early numbers and anecdotes has revealed something deeper and more constant in our politics.

    The American economy runs on poverty, or at least the constant threat of it. Americans like their goods cheap and their services plentiful and the two of them, together, require a sprawling labor force willing to work tough jobs at crummy wages.

    On the right, the barest glimmer of worker power is treated as a policy emergency, and the whip of poverty, not the lure of higher wages, is the appropriate response.

    [Hear more from Ezra Klein by following his New York Times Opinion podcast, “The Ezra Klein Show.”]

    Reports that low-wage employers were having trouble filling open jobs sent Republican policymakers into a tizzy and led at least 25 Republican governors — and one Democratic governor — to announce plans to cut off expanded unemployment benefits early. Chipotle said that it would increase prices by about 4 percent to cover the cost of higher wages, prompting the National Republican Congressional Committee to issue a blistering response: “Democrats’ socialist stimulus bill caused a labor shortage, and now burrito lovers everywhere are footing the bill.” The Trumpist outlet The Federalist complained, “Restaurants have had to bribe current and prospective workers with fatter paychecks to lure them off their backsides and back to work.”

    But it’s not just the right. The financial press, the cable news squawkers and even many on the center-left greet news of labor shortages and price increases with an alarm they rarely bring to the ongoing agonies of poverty or low-wage toil.

    As it happened, just as I was watching Republican governors try to immiserate low-wage workers who weren’t yet jumping at the chance to return to poorly ventilated kitchens for $9 an hour, I was sent “A Guaranteed Income for the 21st Century,” a plan that seeks to make poverty a thing of the past.

    The proposal, developed by Naomi Zewde, Kyle Strickland, Kelly Capatosto, Ari Glogower and Darrick Hamilton for the New School’s Institute on Race and Political Economy, would guarantee a $12,500 annual income for every adult and a $4,500 allowance for every child. It’s what wonks call a “negative income tax” plan — unlike a universal basic income, it phases out as households rise into the middle class.

    “With poverty, to address it, you just eliminate it,” Hamilton told me. “You give people enough resources so they’re not poor.” Simple, but not cheap.

    The team estimates that its proposal would cost $876 billion annually. To give a sense of scale, total federal spending in 2019 was about $4.4 trillion, with $1 trillion of that financing Social Security payments and $1.1 trillion supporting Medicaid, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

    Beyond writing that the plan “would require new sources of revenue, additional borrowing or trade-offs with other government funding priorities,” Hamilton and his co-authors don’t say how they’d pay for it, and in our conversation, Hamilton was cagey. “There are many ways in which it can be paid for and deficit spending itself is not bad unless there are certain conditions,” he said. I’m less blasé about financing a program that would increase federal spending by almost 20 percent, but at the same time, it’s clearly possible. Even if the entire thing was funded by taxes, it would only bring America’s tax burden to roughly the average of our peer nations.

    I suspect the real political problem for a guaranteed income isn’t the costs, but the benefits. A policy like this would give workers the power to make real choices. They could say no to a job they didn’t want, or quit one that exploited them. They could, and would, demand better wages, or take time off to attend school or simply to rest. When we spoke, Hamilton tried to sell it to me as a truer form of capitalism. “People can’t reap the returns of their effort without some baseline level of resources,” he said. “If you lack basic necessities with regards to economic well-being, you have no agency. You’re dictated to by others or live in a miserable state.”

    But those in the economy with the power to do the dictating profit from the desperation of low-wage workers. One man’s misery is another man’s quick and affordable at-home lunch delivery. “It is a fact that when we pay workers less and don’t have social insurance programs that, say, cover Uber and Lyft drivers, we are able to consume goods and services at lower prices,” Hilary Hoynes, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley, where she also co-directs the Opportunity Lab, told me.

    This is the conversation about poverty that we don’t like to have: We discuss the poor as a pity or a blight, but we rarely admit that America’s high rate of poverty is a policy choice, and there are reasons we choose it over and over again.

    We typically frame those reasons as questions of fairness (“Why should I have to pay for someone else’s laziness?”) or tough-minded paternalism (“Work is good for people, and if they can live on the dole, they would”). But there’s more to it than that.

    It is true, of course, that some might use a guaranteed income to play video games or melt into Netflix. But why are they the center of this conversation? We know full well that America is full of hardworking people who are kept poor by very low wages and harsh circumstance. We know many who want a job can’t find one, and many of the jobs people can find are cruel in ways that would appall anyone sitting comfortably behind a desk. We know the absence of child care and affordable housing and decent public transit makes work, to say nothing of advancement, impossible for many. We know people lose jobs they value because of mental illness or physical disability or other factors beyond their control. We are not so naïve as to believe near-poverty and joblessness to be a comfortable condition or an attractive choice.

    Most Americans don’t think of themselves as benefiting from the poverty of others, and I don’t think objections to a guaranteed income would manifest as arguments in favor of impoverishment.

    Instead, we would see much of what we’re seeing now, only magnified: Fears of inflation, lectures about how the government is subsidizing indolence, paeans to the character-building qualities of low-wage labor, worries that the economy will be strangled by taxes or deficits, anger that Uber and Lyft rides have gotten more expensive, sympathy for the struggling employers who can’t fill open roles rather than for the workers who had good reason not to take those jobs. These would reflect not America’s love of poverty but opposition to the inconveniences that would accompany its elimination.

    Nor would these costs be merely imagined. Inflation would be a real risk, as prices often rise when wages rise, and some small businesses would shutter if they had to pay their workers more. There are services many of us enjoy now that would become rarer or costlier if workers had more bargaining power. We’d see more investments in automation and possibly in outsourcing.

    The truth of our politics lies in the risks we refuse to accept, and it is rising worker power, not continued poverty, that we treat as intolerable. You can see it happening right now, driven by policies far smaller and with effects far more modest than a guaranteed income.

    Hamilton, to his credit, was honest about these trade-offs. “Progressives don’t like to talk about this,” he told me. “They want this kumbaya moment. They want to say equity is great for everyone when it’s not. We need to shift our values. The capitalist class stands to lose from this policy, that’s unambiguous. They will have better resourced workers they can’t exploit through wages. Their consumer products and services would be more expensive.”

    For the most part, America finds the money to pay for the things it values. In recent decades, and despite deep gridlock in Washington, we have spent trillions of dollars on wars in the Middle East and tax cuts for the wealthy. We have also spent trillions of dollars on health insurance subsidies and coronavirus relief. It is in our power to wipe out poverty. It simply isn’t among our priorities.

    “Ultimately, it’s about us as a society saying these privileges and luxuries and comforts that folks in the middle class — or however we describe these economic classes — have, how much are they worth to us?” Jamila Michener, co-director of the Cornell Center for Health Equity, told me. “And are they worth certain levels of deprivation or suffering or even just inequality among people who are living often very different lives from us? That’s a question we often don’t even ask ourselves.”

    But we should.

    _______________________________________________________

    Originally appeared in New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/13/opinion/stimulus-unemployment-republicans-poverty.html

    The post What the Rich Don’t Want to Admit About the Poor appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • ANALYSIS: By Ella Henry, Auckland University of Technology

    While I am always happy to celebrate any accolades my country and city might garner on the international stage, seeing Auckland/Tāmaki Makaurau awarded the top ranking in a recent “most liveable cities” survey left me somewhat flummoxed.

    In particular, I would argue that many Māori whānau in Auckland do not enjoy the benefits of this supposed “liveability”.

    This is important, given Māori comprised 11.5 percent of the Auckland population in the 2018 Census. Roughly one in four Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand are living in the greater Auckland region.

    The survey was conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, sister company of The Economist, and looked at 140 world cities. Auckland was ranked 12th in 2019, but took top spot this year for one obvious reason:

    Auckland, in New Zealand, is at the top of The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Liveability rankings, owing to the city’s ability to contain the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic faster and thus lift restrictions earlier, unlike others around the world.

    Alternative liveability criteria
    Each city in the survey was rated on “relative comfort for over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors across five broad categories: stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education and infrastructure”.

    Overall rankings depended on how those factors were rated on a sliding scale: acceptable, tolerable, uncomfortable, undesirable, intolerable. Quantitative measurements relied on “external data points”, but the qualitative ratings were “based on the judgment of our team of expert analysts and in-city contributors”.

    The methodology, particularly around culture and environment, seems somewhat subjective. It’s predicated on the judgement of unnamed experts and contributors, and based on similarly undefined “cultural indicators”.

    To better understand the living conditions of Māori in Auckland, therefore, we might use more robust “liveability” criteria. The New Zealand Treasury’s Living Standards Framework offers a useful model.

    This sets out 12 domains of well-being: civic engagement and governance, cultural identity, environment, health, housing, income and consumption, jobs and earnings, knowledge and skills, time use, safety and security, social connections and subjective well-being.

    inner city houses in Auckland with Sky Tower in distance
    Inner-city housing in Auckland: an average price increase of NZ$140,000 in one year. Image: www.shutterstock.com

    The Māori experience
    Applying a small handful of these measures to Māori, we find the following.

    Housing: According to recent reports, Auckland house prices increased by about NZ$140,00 on average in the past year. That contributed to Auckland being the fourth-least-affordable housing market, across New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, the US, UK, Ireland, Canada and Hong Kong.

    Next to that sobering fact, we can point to estimates that Māori made up more than 40 percent of the homeless in Auckland in 2019. We can only assume this rapid increase in house prices has made homelessness worse.

    Poverty: Alongside housing affordability is the growing concern about poverty in New Zealand, and particularly child poverty. While there has been an overall decline in child poverty, Māori and Pacific poverty rates remain “profoundly disturbing”.

    Employment: As of March 2021, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment recorded a Māori unemployment rate of 10.8 percent, well above the national rate (4.9 percent). This is particularly high for Māori youth (20.4 percent) and women (12.0 percent).

    Health: Māori life expectancy is considerably lower than for non-Māori, and mortality rates are higher for Māori than non-Māori across nearly all age groups. Māori are also over-represented across a wide range of chronic and infectious diseases, injuries and suicide.

    The digital divide: The Digital Government initiative has found Māori and Pasifika are among those less likely to have internet access, thus creating a level of digital poverty that may affect jobs and earnings, knowledge and skills, safety and security, and social connections.

    Making Auckland liveable for all
    Taken together, these factors show a different and darker picture for far too many Māori than “liveable city” headlines might suggest.

    I say this as someone who has lived in Auckland for the majority of the past 60 years. It is a city I love, and I acknowledge the grace and generosity of the mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau, with whom I share this beautiful whenua and moana.

    I am also part of a privileged group of Māori who enjoy job security, a decent income, a secure whānau and strong social networks.

    But, until we address and ameliorate the inequities and disadvantages some of our whānau face, we cannot truly celebrate being the “most liveable city in the world”.The Conversation

    Dr Ella Henry is an associate professor at Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Activists Demand G7 Take Urgent Action on Climate, Vaccine Apartheid and Poverty

    As world leaders gather for the first in-person G7 summit in two years, talks are set to focus heavily on ending the pandemic and the climate crisis, and climate activists are calling on them for more immediate action. “It’s not just one crisis,” says Asad Rehman, executive director of War on Want and spokesperson for the COP26 Climate Coalition. “What we’ve seen is simply rich countries doing too little too late and not taking up their responsibility, and unfortunately this G7 has not changed that at all.”

    TRANSCRIPT

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

    AMY GOODMAN: World leaders are gathered in Cornwall in the U.K. for the first in-person G7 summit in two years. Talks are set to focus heavily on ending the pandemic and the climate crisis. President Biden announced the U.S. would donate an additional half-billion COVID vaccine doses, quote, “with no strings attached.”

    PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: America will be the arsenal of vaccines in our fight against COVID-19, just as America was the arsenal of democracy during World War II. … This U.S. contribution is the foundation for additional coordinated efforts to help vaccine the world — vaccinate the world.

    AMY GOODMAN: While Biden announced there will be no strings attached, the vaccine doses will not go to Venezuela, which is under U.S. sanction. Leaders of the G7 nations are collectively pledging to donate a billion vaccine doses to poorer countries. Advocacy groups are continuing to apply pressure on governments to do more to end the global vaccine apartheid, including waiving intellectual property protections on vaccines.

    Protests are planned throughout the summit amidst a heavy police presence. Climate activists and groups including Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion are staging actions to urge more forceful and immediate action from G7 nations. Ahead of the summit, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres told NBC News the climate crisis is urgent.

    SECRETARYGENERAL ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: When you are at the verge of the abyss, you must be very careful about your next step, because if the next step is in the wrong direction, you will fall.

    ANNE THOMPSON: How much time is left to act?

    SECRETARYGENERAL ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: I think this year is the make-it-or-break-it year. If we fail in Glasgow, we’ll be in a very difficult situation. As I said, on the verge of the abyss, you must make sure that the next step is in the right direction.

    AMY GOODMAN: G7 members are expected today to endorse a minimum global tax rate of 15%.

    For more, we’re joined in London by Asad Rehman, executive director of War on Want, spokesperson for the COP26 Climate Coalition.

    So, it’s all happening in Cornwall, the first in-person meeting of the G7, Asad. What are climate activists around the world demanding? And what are the plans for this weekend?

    ASAD REHMAN: Well, as your intro said, the G7, the richest and the most powerful economies in the world, are meeting. But the people who are not around the table are, of course, those who are going to pay the price for their decisions: the poorer majority of the world. And the G7 meet at a critical moment, because it’s not just one crisis, but we face multiple and companion crises, so extreme that we’re not just at the crossroads in human history, we’re, of course, heading towards a point of no return. And unfortunately, from the pronouncements that we’ve already seen and from what we understand will come out of the G7 in terms of the summit, they can see that our house is on fire, yet, frankly, they’re still discussing what color to paint the door.

    So, let’s just take the climate crisis for example. Despite all the promises to act on the climate emergency and recognizing whilst no threshold is safe, and as we can see from the devastating impacts for millions of lives as we breach 1 degree, that we have to prevent temperatures breaching 1.5, what we’re seeing is carbon emissions in 2021 at the highest in a decade. Temperature levels are heading towards at least two-and-a-half degrees, if not more. The G7 is still pouring close to 189 billion to fossil fuel extraction. They’re not making the pledges that are needed to make sure that they’re doing their fair share. And they’re still not even meeting the broken promise of a decade ago of realizing 100 billion in much-needed climate finance, when every estimate says at least the minimum that is now needed is at least close to a trillion a year, for each and every year for the coming decade.

    This is no longer about climate denialism. What we’re seeing is, is mitigation denialism. It’s the hope that somehow — and John Kerry famously said this at the G7 finance ministers’ meeting — that our quality of life is not up for negotiation, but we’re going to rely on technologies that don’t exist currently and that, somewhere in the future, is going to suck out hundreds — and I say hundreds — of billions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere. I mean, that is just unprecedented, public policy being made on the hope of fingers being crossed and that something will rescue us in the future. And the poorest will pay the price.

    AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to another clip of U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres in an interview that originally appeared on NBC News and is broadcast here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global consortium of news outlets strengthening coverage of the climate story. He was interviewed by reporter Anne Thompson.

    ANNE THOMPSON: Can the world combat the worst of climate change without helping poor countries?

    SECRETARYGENERAL ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: It’s impossible. … You need to create the conditions for a transition from coal to renewable energy. And that, of course, requires financial investment, financial support and technological support to developing countries that still rely on coal for their own energy needs. … More and more countries are committing not to finance coal plants even abroad. Korea has done it. I hope the G7 will be able to do it.

    AMY GOODMAN: And so, Asad Rehman, talk more about this moment, where climate — it’s the first time ever it’s on the agenda of G7. And also, if you can talk specifically about Britain’s role on climate? The U.K. recently called for a climate Marshall Plan. And your assessment of President Biden’s plans?

    ASAD REHMAN: Well, the U.K. government takes the world stage and claims that it’s a climate leader and says, “We’ve cut our emissions by 50%.” But, actually, if you take out the — because none of those emissions include aviation or shipping or all the embedded emissions of the issues that — of the products that the U.K. consumes, we’re actually only talking about 15% emission reductions. That’s about half a percent of emission reduction. We’re nowhere near the scale of emission reductions. Rich countries are still talking about net-zero goals in 2050, when they should be talking about decarbonizing by 2030.

    And the COVID pandemic gives us a really good example of how these rich countries are, of course, responding, both to the COVID pandemic, but also to the climate crisis. We’ve all heard the words, “No one is safe until everyone is safe.” We can all see that millions of people are dying around in every corner of the world. And yet rich countries not just hoarded the vaccines, meaning that at the current rate it will be 57 years before everyone in the world is vaccinated, but they’re actively backing Big Pharma and protecting their profits. Now, if they won’t lift the intellectual property rights on COVID vaccines, what hope is there for poorer countries that they’re going to lift the intellectual property rights and provide the technology and the finance for them to be able to deal with the climate impacts, to be able to grow cleanly, to be able to transition away from the fossil fuel economy?

    And this is, of course, at the very same time as this incredible crisis of inequality, where 80% of the world faces poverty, half of it is still struggling on the equivalent of $5 a day, and not just facing that, but is rapidly getting worse. We’ve heard over the last year 500 million jobs have been lost. Hundreds of millions of people have been pushed into extreme poverty. The very tools that rich countries use to protect their economies are being denied to those in poorer countries. And what we’ve seen is simply rich countries doing too little too late and not taking up their responsibility, and unfortunately this G7 has not changed that at all.

    AMY GOODMAN: And finally, your organization, War on Want, a global anti-poverty organization, does more than focus on climate, so if you can make the link, and what you demand of the G7, not only around climate, but also in the midst of this pandemic? You have climate apartheid, what countries get hit the hardest, and also, of course, vaccine apartheid.

    ASAD REHMAN: Absolutely. We see these forms of apartheid being played out. As you rightly said, we see a COVID apartheid, we see climate apartheid, we see economic apartheid. We see inequality and injustice all around the world.

    Really, what the G7 should be announcing is a global Green New Deal. They should be announcing and saying, “We’re committed to making sure that everybody has the right to a living wage, to universal public services, health, education, housing.” We all have seen how critical they are, not only to dealing with the pandemic, but are critical in terms of dealing with the climate crisis. We need to make food and energy a public good, so that we can share them equitably. We have enough in the world, but, of course, much of it is concentrated in the hands of a small elite. Just the top 1%, their emissions currently are double those of the bottom three-and-a-half billion people. If they were just reducing their emissions, we’d begin to see a major step forward.

    We need a radical transformation of our broken economy. We need to fix our unjust fair trade — unjust trade rules. We need to cap the power of corporations. And even the announcement about taxation of multinationals, it’s, yes, a small step forward on the 15%, but we already can see that they are actively saying that that won’t apply to finance, that won’t apply to the big banks, that already there are going to be so many loopholes. What we really need is about 25% corporation tax around the world.

    We need to make sure that we’re not just canceling debt for the poorer countries, but actually we have a plan of reparations, of finance going from the Global North to the Global South. It’s no good talking about charity. And all of these countries talk about, you know, that their response has been greatly charitable. For every $1 that is going from the North to the South, $24 flows the other way and enriches our big multinationals and countries in the Global North.

    We can no longer tinker around the edges. We need a fundamental transition. And these coming years will determine, literally, the shape of the world. It will determine who dies, who lives, and what kind of economy that we’re going to have. There is incredible demands coming up from the bottom — you see it in every corner of the world — basically saying, “Our economy is no longer fit for purpose. It’s failing people. It doesn’t give people the quality of life that they need. It doesn’t give them dignity. We need a transformation.”

    AMY GOODMAN: Asad Rehman, I want to thank you for being with us, executive director of War on Want, global anti-poverty group, and the spokesperson for the COP26 Climate Coalition, speaking to us from London.

    Next up, the Biden administration continues to seek the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from Britain to the United States, where he faces up to 175 years in prison. We’ll speak to Julian’s father and half-brother. They’re touring the United States to advocate for his release from a high-security prison in Britain. Stay with us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The evidence is in: Sending out direct cash payments has been a full-blown success—and we can’t afford to stop.

    By: JIM PUGH 

    It’s become almost a cliché in the politics of Washington, D.C.: Every time someone proposes expanding a social program or creating a new one, scores of politicians, lobbyists and so-called economic ​“experts” will pop up to tell you that it will cost too much and we can’t afford it. Somehow, money is never an issue when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations or increasing our military budget, but programs that support everyday people are just too damn expensive.

    new analysis from the University of Michigan on the impact of recent stimulus payments adds to a growing body of evidence that shows when it comes to direct cash assistance programs, cost is not a prohibitive issue. In fact, for social programs like these, we may be unable to afford not to do them.

    According to the analysis, which looked at data from the Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey, in the weeks following the stimulus check payments in December 2020 and March 2021, households across the country saw a significant decrease in their material hardship. American families reported increased food security, a greater ability to pay for household expenses and less anxiety. This effect was particularly pronounced in low-income households and households with children — in the six weeks following the passage of the December 2020 Covid relief bill, amongst families with children, the rate of not having enough to eat fell by 21% and the rate of having difficulty paying for household expenses fell by 24%. These rates dropped again by 23% and 31%, respectively, following the passage of the American Rescue Plan in March 2021.

    These findings align with the results of a previous analysis in 2017 from the Roosevelt Institute which looked into various programs that provided direct, unconditional cash to individuals in the United States and Canada, such as the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend and the Eastern Band of Cherokees casino dividend program.

    Both of these analyses show the same dynamic: when people receive money with no strings attached, they spend it on the things they need, leading them to live healthier, less anxious lives.

    While these outcomes are certainly beneficial for recipients in the immediate term, the broader implications of these changes are just as important. When people don’t have food or are living in poverty, it’s not just a burden on them — it’s a burden on all of society. These conditions are directly tied to poorer health outcomes, which puts a drain on our nation’s healthcare system. Poor people are more likely to turn to crime as a means of supporting themselves. Those in poverty may require continued support from our inadequate existing social welfare programs, relying on programs like food stamps, housing assistance and disability insurance to barely make ends meet.

    The social implications of poverty are even more pronounced among children, where its impact on cognitive development and educational opportunities may alter their life trajectories. Living in a financially stable household and getting enough to eat could mean the difference between having opportunities later in life and getting trapped in a low-income job with no prospects for advancement.

    When considering the aggregate impact of poverty on our society, the results are staggering. A 2018 analysis in the Social Work Research journal found that childhood poverty alone costs our society more than $1 trillion every year from a combination of lost productivity, increased health and crime costs, and increased costs as a result of childhood homelessness and maltreatment.

    To accurately assess the cost of social programs, we should be comparing the required expenditures to the expected savings from poverty reduction.

    A good example is the recent expansion of the child tax credit — described as a ​“guaranteed income for families”—which is set to provide up to $300 per child per month for kids under the age of six and $250 per child per month for kids between six and seventeen starting in July.

    The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation expects this expansion to cost $110 billion for the year, while the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities projects that the program will decrease child poverty by more than 40%. Well, 40% of $1 trillion is $400 billion, which means the savings from this expansion are over three times the amount spent.

    There’s good reason to think that the latest round of stimulus checks will also yield positive long-term returns, as people teeter between regaining their financial footing and slipping into poverty. ​“This money is going towards all the bills that weren’t paid during the time we had to take off,” according to Sandy Lash, a single mother in Fort Wayne, Indiana who relied on the stimulus payments to make it through the pandemic. ​“Receiving these checks will enable [us] to make a difference and move up to where we don’t have to struggle anymore.”

    This presents our society with a clear choice: Do we allow increasing poverty and financial precarity to continue to drain away our society’s resources? Or do we make the investment now to create a secure and productive population through programs providing direct cash to families?

    An immediate first step would be to make the expanded child tax credit, which is set to expire after this year, a permanent, ongoing program. Beyond that, establishing a full, national guaranteed income program that provides monthly payments to all Americans — such as the one proposed by Rep. Rashida Tlaib through her Automatic BOOST to Communities Act—could pay massive dividends down the road by fully eliminating material poverty in the United States.

    It’s not hard to see which of these approaches is the more affordable one.

    The post Don’t Just Send People Money During a Pandemic—Do It All the Time appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    Learn enough about what’s happening in the world and you realize that most people in your society have worldviews that are completely and utterly wrong. This can seem bold, perhaps even arrogant, but if most people weren’t deluded about the world, the world wouldn’t be so fucked.

    And it’s not that people are dumb; intelligence has little to do with it. Some of the most intelligent people on earth promote the same deluded worldviews as everyone else. The problem isn’t intellect, it’s manipulation, and anyone can be manipulated no matter how smart they are. This mass-scale manipulation is the result of wealthy people buying up narrative influence in the form of media, political influence, think tanks, lobbying, NGOs, etc, in conjunction with the mass-scale manipulations of the powerful government agencies which are allied with them.

    The powerful work to manipulate the way the general public thinks, acts and votes to ensure that they remain in power. They pay special attention to who the most influential people in our society are, which is why the most prominent voices are so often the most delusional. There are filters in place designed to keep anyone from rising to positions of influence if they don’t support the consensus worldview promoted by the oligarchic empire, and once they do rise to influence they are actively herded into echo chambers which reinforce that worldview.

    This is further exacerbated by the fact that the most influential voices in a virulently capitalist society will be those who have profited and benefited from the status quo. Of course they’re going to believe the system is working fine; it treats them like royalty.

    This is why you can’t defer to recognized authorities when it comes to understanding your world; the system which selects and installs those authorities is designed to serve the powerful, not to tell the truth. The responsibility for understanding your world is yours, and yours alone.

    Poverty itself is a weapon of the powerful. Keep people too poor to fund political campaigns and you keep them powerless. Keep them too busy to research and they can’t see through your propaganda. Keep them desperate and you can get them hating each other instead of hating you. They’re not just robbing ordinary people so they can have more for themselves; the poverty itself actually benefits them. They would benefit from keeping you poor even if it gave them nothing else.

    It is not a coincidence that the most crucial nation in the oligarchic empire, the US, has the highest level of this kind of weaponized poverty. There’s a lot of power riding on what happens in America, so the powerful do everything they can to keep Americans under control.

    People who act like China lifting millions out of poverty is no big deal have never lived in poverty.

    If you don’t oppose western imperialist agendas against China then none of your other anti-imperialism matters. All of the western empire’s aggressions on the world stage are ultimately about smashing China; that’s checkmate on the global chessboard in the eyes of the empire. Preventing the rise of any other nation has been the foremost priority of the US empire since the fall of the Soviet Union. All the other little chess moves on the board have revolved around this ultimate goal. China is the only nation in a position to surpass the US.

    The western empire has been acutely aware that China would need to be smashed since before the empire had its headquarters in Washington. As Winston Churchill once put it:

    “I think we shall have to take the Chinese in hand and regulate them. I believe that as civilized nations become more powerful they will get more ruthless, and the time will come when the world will impatiently bear the existence of great barbaric nations who may at any time arm themselves and menace civilized nations. I believe in the ultimate partition of China—I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph.”

    Uh-oh, looks like Peru is going to need some help with its Freedom and Democracy. Anyone know any powerful governments who might be interested in helping Peru get some Freedom and Democracy?

    Still mad at Assad for arming Al Qaeda and ISIS against himself and then imposing starvation sanctions on Syrians to keep himself from rebuilding the country.

    I’m writing a horror movie about a group of psychopathic murderers inserting themselves into the world’s most powerful positions and terrorizing entire populations using the most deadly military force ever assembled.

    It’s weird how few of the people opposing specific aspects of the imperial war machine do so on the foundational principle that murdering people is wrong and trying to dominate the entire planet is bad.

    Electoral politics is decoy revolution. Don’t like the status quo? Elect Obama for Hope and Change! Still dislike the status quo? Elect Trump, he’ll fight the establishment! Oh no, Trump’s a fascist! Quick, fight fascism by electing Biden! And you elect the status quo each time.

    Trump may have permanently broken liberals’ ability to think about politics in a way that doesn’t revolve around Trump.

    Only infantile bootlickers want government-tied monopolistic internet platforms controlling what people can and cannot say about government Covid responses that affect everyone.

    Oligarchs using disasters to rob the people and siphon their wealth to themselves is a feature, not a bug, of capitalism. Covid isn’t an aberration but a continuation of a well-established pattern, one which will necessarily last as long as the exploitation of the working class.

    “The Covid scam is the most evil thing happening in the world!”

    No, you only think that because most of the time this well-established pattern doesn’t affect you personally in a concrete and observable way. This has been happening for a very long time, and it’s going to keep happening until the end of capitalism.

    It’s funny how people think AI is going to save humanity when the people who control the AI are the worst humans alive.

    FYI what divides the left is not leftists saying things that other leftists disagree with, it’s leftists being incapable of tolerating other leftists saying things they disagree with.

    Once you’re clear that human behavior is driving us into extinction via nuclear war or climate collapse, once you’ve really grokked into the reality of what this means, it’s hard to take the sectarian ideological stuff seriously. We’re fucking dying, people. Quit dicking around.

    ___________________________

    The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi or . If you want to read more you can buy my books. Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Since the Nixon era, the Supreme Court’s treatment of poverty and racial justice has made it a consistent enemy of society’s most marginalized.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • President Joe Biden boards Air Force One before departing from Tulsa International Airport in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on June 1, 2021.

    A new report finds that the direct relief checks that were sent out as part of the stimulus packages passed by the federal government significantly reduced hardship for families, particularly low-income families.

    The University of Michigan report, first reported on by The New York Times, used Census Bureau data to analyze hardships faced by families over the course of the pandemic. The report authors found that hardships like financial instability fell sharply from December 2020 to April 2021, during which time the federal government sent two stimulus checks to most Americans, totalling $2,000.

    The analysis found that food insecurity fell over 40 percent in that time, financial instability fell 45 percent and common symptoms of depression dropped by 20 percent. The sharpest declines happened right after the checks were passed in December and March.

    “Our analyses thus far have yielded a fairly simple story: throughout the crisis, the level of hardship faced by U.S. households can be directly linked to the federal government’s response,” writes the report authors. They find that, while the economy’s recovery may have helped ease hardships, the stimulus checks were likely a larger contributing factor.

    Levels of hardship remained relatively steady from spring into fall last year. “This was suggestive of the efficacy of CARES Act income support provisions in stabilizing U.S. households in the midst of a global pandemic and economic crisis,” reads the report. The CARES Act was passed in March of 2020, and in April of last year the Census Bureau began conducting the surveys that the study pulls data from.

    Part of the reason that hardships remained stable through that time was the $600 supplemental unemployment checks in the CARES Act that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) had lobbied for. Those checks helped the nearly 1 in 5 American workers who were receiving unemployment benefits by July of last year. The report states that the supplements helped millions of Americans hold back financial and mental challenges.

    “We see an immediate decline among multiple lines of hardship concentrated among the most disadvantaged families,” H. Luke Shaefer, study co-author and professor at the University of Michigan, told The New York Times.

    Declines in hardships were especially pronounced for adults with children and adults in households with annual incomes less than $25,000. Both groups were facing more food insufficiency, difficulty paying bills and financial instability than other groups, for instance, and both groups saw the sharpest declines in the same areas following the stimulus checks from last December and earlier this year.

    Shaefer also argues that direct aid like the stimulus checks are an efficient form of government aid because struggling families know the most about where to spend their money. “Cash aid offers families great flexibility to address their most pressing problems, and getting it out quickly is something the government knows how to do,” Shaefer told The New York Times.

    The report’s findings line up with previous studies that have found that household income rose by a record 21.1 percent after this March’s stimulus checks — checks that didn’t get a single Republican vote in Congress.

    Congressional Republicans have been against the stimulus checks since the first stimulus was passed, saying that the aid is too broad. But, as the University of Michigan report shows, the stimulus checks reduced hardships for not only the low-income earners but also the people who received checks at the higher end of the income scale. That is likely why Republicans were touting some of the benefits of the stimulus bill despite none of them having voted for it.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The world’s population was about 7.8 billion people in 2020. About 2.2 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water, and over 4 billion do not have safe sanitation.(1) About 800 million suffer from chronic undernourishment. A fifth of all children under 5 suffer from stunted growth.(2) Each year approximately 6 million children and many millions of adults die of easily preventable diseases(3) and 9 million people die of hunger.(4) Some progress has been made on some of these issues, particularly in China. However, things have been getting worse in other regions, such as Africa.(5) Since 1960, the income gap between rich countries and poor countries has roughly tripled in size.

    The post State Of The World: Poverty Is Widespread appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.