|
stellauk -> RE: Poverty programs (8/22/2012 6:43:38 PM)
|
i read the article and being honest the one thing which jumped out at me was the conflict between the people featured in the article and the gas company. What was especially illuminating for me was that this was given as a statement of fact. No explanation as to how the conflict came about, how long it had been a conflict, or anything further as to how the conflict would cease to be one.
Therefore I take a middle path here and see this as six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Let's start with the people with the hole in the window and no gas. Poverty is no excuse here. I don't care how poor or destitute someone is, it doesn't justify not paying or not attempting to pay a utility bill. I've worked with the homeless here and those lucky enough to get a hostel place usually have to pay a service charge. Payment of the service charge, or non-payment, directly influences one's resettlement process, which can either take its natural course and one moves up the list, or it can delay it weeks, months, and in some cases years.
However nothing was mentioned as to what steps, if any, the gas company had taken to resolve the conflict. We weren't told whether the gas was affordable or not. Gas is a natural resource, therefore a utility company which supplies gas, or water or electricity cannot operate quite in the same manner as say a food supplier.
But this leads us to the bigger issue - poverty is a social issue, like other related social issues, crime, unemployment, disability, and so on. Poverty affects people, but poverty has got far more to do with opportunity than it has to do with people. Blaming the victim, i.e. the person affected by poverty isn't a solution, nor does it lead to any sort of solution.
London is about to host the Paralympics - or the Olympics for the disabled. The main sponsor for the event is ATOS Healthcare, a private healthcare company commissioned by the government to reform the welfare system by carrying out Work Capability Assessments on the long term sick and disabled.
Now there is a concerted media campaign against benefit 'cheats' and 'scroungers' which includes the sick and disabled, and there are those who claim that the sick and disabled are too dependent on welfare benefits.
The Government admits through its own figures that benefit fraud currently stands at 0.5% of all claimants. Yet ATOS Healthcare instructs its healthcare professionals to find a minimum of 87% per cent of all those assessed fit for work.
This leads to the situation where many people who are genuinely sick and disabled are being declared fit for work and they have their benefits stopped and are forced back into work, some are forced to work unpaid for a minimum six months for someone such as a High Street retailer. This scheme is called Workfare, and quite a lot of retailers, including half the major supermarket chains have signed up for it.
People who are being declared fit for work include the terminally ill, people who have lost limbs, people who need chemotherapy and dialysis, and the mentally ill who pose a significant risk to themselves and other people.
Furthermore on average 32 people are dying every week as a result of being declared fit for work and having their welfare benefits taken away. To put this into some sort of context this is higher than the number of executions carried out by any country with the death penalty (with the possible exception of China). This is two and a half times the number of victims of the recent Aurora shootings.
This figure only takes into account a small number of those committing suicide as a result of having their benefits taken away. It's important to bear in mind that once you have your benefits stopped you are out of the system. Many of these people are socially excluded. Furthermore people who commit suicide don't often leave behind an explanation as to why they took their own lives.
These welfare benefit reforms are destroying and dismantling a system which has taken decades of campaigning, lobbying and struggling to create. Nearly half of people who are registered disabled in the UK are gainfully employed.
Disability is also a social issue, and one which takes in not just people who are genuinely disabled, but many people who suffer from some sort of physical or mental impairment. Some people are born with conditions which impact on their mental or physical health, and others develop such conditions later in life, especially as they get closer to retirement age. Actually when you think about it the vast majority of people fall between the two categories of disabled and 'able-bodied'.
However as we live in a society based on free market values, disability has taken on a second meaning to describe the discrimination faced by people who are genuinely disabled and also many people who are mentally or physically impaired. There are people who live with their physical or mental impairment just fine, they cope, but they are disabled by the attitudes of other people. Therefore the UK system of disability isn't necessarily just one entitling people for payments because they are out of work, it's also a system which enables people to either recover from long term illnesses and find their way back into employment or to cope with the additional expenses of living independently.
Poverty is about opportunity, not people. Sure, some people are unable to perceive opportunities available to them, some can perceive the opportunities but are unable to make use of them, and also it's true in a lot of cases the opportunities just don't exist to begin with. In many cases of poverty either one, two or even all of the above statements may be true. Finding out which is true requires a careful examination of one's circumstances, background, history and medical history, and I don't think any of us is qualified to make a judgement call as to who is deserving and who isn't. Much less the media.
You will observe that poverty often goes hand in hand with crime. Contrary to what some politicians think there isn't a direct relationship between the two. Committing a crime requires a certain amount of creativity and also the making of a conscious moral decision which some people will feel is worth the risk of getting caught. However the vast majority of poor people don't resort to crime.
However if someone is creative enough and makes that moral decision, then opportunity will find itself. Crime doesn't need government funding or any external investment. I've yet to come across a drug dealer complaining that he hasn't got any dope to sell or a thief complaining that he's got nothing to steal. Crime is about opportunity, so too is poverty, but the only relationship between the two is the individual forming the relationship through their own creativity and conscious moral decision. However when we as a society leave those affected by poverty to fend for themselves - especially those who are unable to make use of the same opportunities as many others - are we not pushing these people in the wrong direction, i.e. towards crime?
I think not. Furthermore I have a theory in that poverty isn't being resolved because we are entrusting the task to people who lack the necessary understanding and knowledge about what poverty is, for example politicians, and 'experts' who haven't spent a single day in social housing and who don't really know what it's like to struggle just to get through to the next day.
This is compounded by the fact that we don't really give too much of a platform to the people at the bottom of society, we're not really that interested in their problems, and we're far more comfortable with our own preconceived notions and prejudices about people who are poor and too busy seeking the evidence to prove that we are right.
Add to this that many poverty and welfare programs aren't that effective at creating opportunities for those at the bottom other than perhaps providing subsistence levels of income to keep them from starving. There's too much emphasis on finding jobs, on training when there are other routes also possible when it comes to getting people to support themselves.
Then there's the uncomfortable truth about poverty - tackling poverty is about making the effort and to keep on making the effort. Why does poverty exist? Why does it seem to be growing? It's not rocket science, or voodoo or black magic. It's because we're not facing up to the issues and we're not making enough effort.
The short term objective of work is also insufficient. What is the point of forcing jobless people to work unpaid for six months if there's not going to be a job at the end of it? Furthermore what is the point of forcing sick and disabled people into work prematurely? Isn't this only shifting the social responsibility elsewhere? As an employer my sole concern is to find someone who can do the job. I don't see why I have to also take on the drama and the issues or play the role of occupational therapist or social worker.
There is a growing awareness that being without any work is detrimental in the long term and I genuinely believe that being without work makes someone less employable or even unemployable in a short space of time. However I see a distinction between work which is meaningful and fulfilling, and work which is more menial, and I don't quite understand why being poor necessarily excludes someone from the right to seek out opportunities of work which is meaningful or fulfilling. Being without work places someone at greater risk of mental and physical illness, but being forced into menial work doesn't really diminish that risk.
I see a necessity of change in the attitudes on both sides. In less than a decade we are going to start having baby boomers reach retirement age, for which they will expect to retire and receive some sort of pension. We cannot afford to be giving people money because they are without work and not expect something back in return. However I feel that expecting everyone to find jobs is unrealistic, therefore there needs to be greater emphasis on meaningful occupation.
However we as a society also need to start taking responsibility for some of the problems in society. We cannot continue by shutting people out of society because they are poor, impaired, or just different and trying to carry on without them. However this means we also need to find new economic strategies where we produce things on the basis of need and not for profit and on the principle 'each according to his own ability, to each according to his need'.
However given that we are a society with English language based culture we are at a distinct advantage to others, in that we have a popular culture that the whole world wants to share and be a part of. We could start by investing more in culture, especially in poorer areas and giving people in those areas a socially acceptable alternative to crime in order to stimulate and encourage creativity. It's important to remember that English language culture develops just as easily out of poverty as it does out of any other social background.
|
|
|
|
