Didn't We Escape Poverty?

  With nothing but the clothes on their backs refugees flee their countries, leaving all their belongings, escaping and immigrating to a world  in hopes of finding  more opportunities, a war free zone and of course no poverty.  But what they are about to encounter is what they least likely thought to see and witness.

  Coming from an immigrant family household I can to some extent relate, my parents had to flee a civil war that was happening in Somalia, they had to basically run for their lives. Sadly still today Somalia is struggling, with famine and war; many other countries similar are as well.  And from the tragic stories I hear from the media and my parents I couldn’t bear to imagine someone going through.  Like my parents and many thousands of immigrants who fled their countries to come to Canada for a better life, a life of nonviolence and freedom, they are faced with numerous struggles and problems. One of the biggest problems I consider they face is the lack of communication from opposite sides, not knowing the language puts them into a disadvantage among non-immigrants. Canada has become a tougher place for immigrants who come here to improve their lot. Most are probably better off than they would have been had they stayed put, but relative to other Canadians, the trend of the past two decades is unmistakable: Poverty rates have risen substantially for most new immigrants (Little, 2003).

             

 Like the saying goes, “with happiness comes sadness”.  I feel as though this saying describes the situation these individuals are going through. With all these “perks” given to them, there’s a slight catch in the end. A January 2007 Statistics Canada study found a high proportion of recent immigrants faced chronic low income, even though more immigrants are arriving in Canada with high professional skill levels. Refugees face particular burdens.  For example, the Canadian government expects resettled refugee families to pay for their transportation to Canada, with the result that these families spend their first years in Canada trying to pay off of debt of up to $10,000 (“Canada ”, 2009). These immigrants already face enough struggles as it is by fleeing and entering a foreign country, and now they have the burden to pay off this financial debt.  It’s been said that the immigrant poverty is most obvious among the most recent arrivals, those who have been in Canada for five years or less (Little, 2003). So with nothing and no job these new immigrants are left in a dilemma to frantically pay it off.  Some say it’s absolutely unconscionable and shameful, it makes them shameful to be a Canadian (Rollason, 2009). Reading this just makes me surprise and sad, to think one would be ashamed to call themselves a Canadian.  We’d always hear that Canada gives out hope and opportunities to newcomers, welcoming them with big open arms, yet... When they do come, there left fallen through the cracks. The policy of the government of Canada ensures refugees will be in poverty for their first year (Rollason, 2009). Ensures? So instead of helping them get out their ensuring them to poverty... This just throws me off, to think the government allows refugees to live in poverty, no wonder why these individuals feel like they are better off not even leaving, to run away from a lifestyle and later on join it, is quite unspeakable.

  Therefore the question that lies is how do we put an end to poverty on immigrants and refugees? To that I believe would be to provide them with more resources and guidance, helping in learning the language and finding a job, because if the Canadian government expects these individuals to pay off their transportation fees they acquired then there should be more  of an effort in assisting them. Making sure that the lifestyle they left is indeed what they left, not something they shouldn’t be experiencing again. And lastly comforting and guiding these individuals on opening a new chapter in their lives.

- Hannah

References:

Canada, the rights of the child and refugee and immigrant children. ( 2009, March). Retrieved November 13, 2011, from http://ccrweb.ca/en/canada-rights-child-and-refugee-and-immigrant-children.

Immigrants by Regional Source as Percentage of Total Immigration. (2010, June 14). Retrieved November 13, 2011, from http://www.asiapacific.ca/statistics/immigration/immigration-arrivals/immigrants-regional-source-percentage-total-immigration.

Little, B. (2003, Jun 23). Immigrant poverty growing in Canada. The Globe and Mail, pp. B.2-B.2. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/383876812?accountid=14569

Rollason, K. (2009, Oct 22). Refugees, immigrants in poverty: Report. Winnipeg Free Press, pp. A.8. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/752218450?accountid=14569

Inequalities Between Women and Men Regarding Poverty

     Even though the power of females is increasing in our country today, women’s poverty is still a relevant issue that Canadian women are constantly facing. The 2001 census shows that overall women have a lower income than men, and that 16% of the Canadian female population lived in poverty before taxes compared to the 13% of men that lived in poverty before taxes (CASW, 2004). Some feminists would critique this issue as being part of the reason that males dominate, and women sub-dominate in our current society.

     According to the Canadian Association of Social Work (2004), the major reason for women’s lower income is not related to the occupation itself, but the hours worked. In my opinion, this is a logical explanation because women play many roles when it comes to family. This restricts women from being at the workplace for great periods of time.  I agree with Mullaly’s (2007) conception of women being ‘cradle-to-grave’ caregivers. Ladies really do not have an option once they have children. The socialist feminists have a good point when they say that women produce the next generation and care for our current generation (Mullaly, 2007). Part of the responsibility of being a parent is to stay with their baby until they are ready to go to daycare or school. When a woman’s parent retires or needs extra elder care, parents tend to rely more on the daughter’s care more than the son’s. Perhaps it’s a natural habit that we have constructed as a society. Women are mostly expected to stay home and care for kids and do the housework while the male goes into the labor force to provide for his dependant family. According to the radical feminists male domination is caused by a woman and the children’s dependency on him (Mullaly, 2007). If the woman does not bring income to the household I agree with this view because the family needs to eat and live out of someone’s pocket. 

     Statistics have shown that family status plays a big role when it comes to women living in poverty. The 2001 census found that 42% of unattached women aged 18 to 64 lived in poverty, compared to the 12% that lived in families (CASW, 2004). In my opinion, this finding is not at all astonishing as I can imagine how difficult it is to live a preferred lifestyle with only one income coming in.  It is also more of a struggle if the female has children. Single parent mothers have the lowest average total income among all families in Canada (CASW, 2004). This does not go to mean that women must rely on another partner for financial purposes, but it goes to show how helpful it could be at times. Elderly women come to mind as another example of how helpful it is to have extra income. Elderly women overall have a lower income than elderly men (CASW, 2004) and they constitute nearly 60% of the senior population and 70% of any person aged 85+ (Mullaly, 2004). Death is a biological factor that is nobody’s fault; however it is still horrible that the female is left behind suffering alone in poverty. Women of visible minority groups are also a targeted group whose average employment income is lower than men’s (CASW, 2004). Anti-racist feminists would say this is discrimination to both race and women. Black feminists would comply that it is already their duty to identify and fight for racial rights, and on top of that they have to stand up for women’s rights so that the income is fair (Mullaly, 2004).

     In my opinion, gender should not be considered a factor that determines your income. I do not agree with the liberal feminists who deny any differences whatsoever between men and women (Mullaly, 2004), because there are certainly unique aspects that each gender has, which does prohibit women from doing certain work that is particular to men. However, I do believe that women should be treated fairly and that their skills, experiences, and knowledge should determine their future or incomes. Men and women both have brains filled with knowledge and personality, and everybody is unique in their own way. I think that this is what should identify a person’s future and current life; regardless of being a woman or man.

     Therefore, I believe the government should take feminist perspective into account to make a policy exclusively for women who are by all means cradle-to-grave caregivers. These women are giving up so much of their own time and effort, which comes out of their freedom and income. In our society today care giving professions are perceived as mainly a woman's job. I think that by changing the view society has on care giving professions, we would not be as dependent on women to leave their personal jobs to care especially for the young or aging. We cannot simply change the view of society though as it is a long and not so stable task. The government should use sources such as the media and campaigning strategies to normalize men also doing care giving jobs like teachers, nurses or health care aids at personal care homes.  So in the meantime that our generation changes the outlook, I think the government should be paying women for taking time off their own work to give care to others. It is wonderful that our government offers a maternity leave and child tax benefits. I believe that by adding a leave of absence policy to care for a sick parent or grand-parent perhaps, women should also receive a benefit for this. Obviously not anything you could get rich off, but enough for daily necessities. Women deserve to have time to themselves, and since most women cannot do this at least we should be rewarding them for all the extra time and effort they have put into society. 

-Dora

References:

Canadian Association of Social Workers.  (2004). Women’s income and poverty in Canada revisited. Retrieved from http://www.rebelles.org/files/womenpoverty_e.pdf

Mullaly, B. (2007). Feminist, Anti-Racist, and Postmodern Critique. In The New Structural Social Work (3^rd ed., pp. 159-186). Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.  

Poverty and Aboriginal Street Gangs

Poverty is a sad reality that has impacted Aboriginal peoples for many generations. One cause of poverty for the Indigenous peoples is colonization. The arrival of the European settlers disturbed the way of life for the Aboriginal peoples (Brown, Higgitt, Wingert, Miller, Williams, & Morrissette, 2004). The Canadian social policy created institutions attempting to eliminate and destroy the Aboriginal worldview and values (Menzies, 2008). As a result their culture was destroyed. The Indian Act of 1876 caused segregation of the Aboriginal peoples on reserves outside of their community. There was hierarchy and decisions made by authorities not reflecting Aboriginal values and practices. A second key element in the Aboriginal ideology was residential schools. Many Aboriginal children were removed from their homes and were placed in a boarding school situation with the goal of assimilation, segregation, and integration into the Canadian way of life attempting to eliminate their culture. The children experienced abuse and lost their language, culture, customs, and spiritual beliefs becoming like the dominant society. They lost a feeling of belonging to their family, community and nation. When the schools started to close child welfare removed children from their homes and placed them in foster care. Residential schools played an important role in the cycle of trauma for Indigenous peoples. The impact experienced had consequences for future generations as there was a cycle of abuse and dysfunction that is still continuing today (Menzies, 2008).

The Aboriginal medicine wheel contains the four elements of Aboriginal life. They are the individual, family, community and nation. The influence of the public policies (i.e. residential schools) disrupted the interaction of the system which resulted in trauma and disruption. As a consequence of the intergenerational trauma the four elements are not able to support each other and there is disconnect from their cultural group. This policy destroyed the connections of the Aboriginal peoples and had implications for the other elements. Healing requires a holistic approach that rebuilds the connections between the individual, family, community and nation (Menzies, 2008).

Policies and programs are needed to lessen poverty and help Aboriginal peoples. They need to be made to include specific subgroups such as Aboriginal peoples (Hay, 2009). The government needs to implement policies and programs that work from an Indigenous perspective and consider the impact of the policy on them. The effect of colonization needs to be considered when making future policies. The programs must include healing as illustrated by the medicine wheel at the levels of the individual, community, family and nation.

In Winnipeg’s inner city some Aboriginal youth have been involved in street gangs and violence which is a result of poverty and racism (Comack, Deane, Morrissette, & Silver, 2010). Many of them have been in jail. They are victims of the intergenerational violence growing up in circumstances of neglect, abuse and violence. This is a collective community problem because gangs are a consequence of the problem of poverty and other negative circumstances in which the youth grew up. Therefore, change must come from the knowledge and insight of those within the community (Comack, Deane, Morrissette, & Silver, 2009). This is consistent with the Aboriginal view of social change. It depends on dialogue with others in the community to see its effect on future generations and the change should contribute to social and environmental well being. Balance and harmony need to occur (Morrissette, 2006). There were a variety of programs implemented for the youth with an Aboriginal perspective. One of the alternatives used to bring about change are the programs that provided the youth with job experience and helped them re-enter into society. This gave the youth an opportunity, increased self esteem and a chance to help rebuild the community (Comack et al., 2009). The Ogijita Pimatiswin Kinamatwin is a community program in the North End which worked with Aboriginal gang members to teach construction skills by renovating houses. This gives the participants a sense of dignity as they are able to give back to others in the community. Other skills include immersion in Aboriginal culture to learn about their identity and culture. In order for there to be change in the community an investment in the inner city must be important to the government. Therefore, they need to invest in ways to help solve the problem of street gangs by creating more community recreation centers or drop in centers. A primary and pivotal alternative that needs to be made is the family and community needs to be strengthened and rebuilt in order to prevent gang activity. This would include strengthening extended family ties, promoting collective sharing and encouraging them to work to contribute to the wellbeing of the community (Comack et al., 2009). In order for change and healing to happen holistic healing needs to take place. The programs used to assist inner city youth involved in gangs represented the Aboriginal perspective because each person works to support the survival of the community. People live together and there is a collective responsibility for the health and wellbeing of society (Morrissette, 2006). This program is working towards the healing of the individual, family, community and Aboriginal nation which are the elements of the medicine wheel.

The events in the Indigenous peoples past that led to poverty are tragic and disheartening. The Aboriginal perspective is a holistic ideology that focuses on community building and holistic healing. I agree with the idea of working together in a collective manner to create social change and the importance of how the community is responsible as a whole for the wellbeing of society. I think it is important to include the individual, family, community and Aboriginal nation in the process of healing for a healthy environment. I like how they view the problem as one that is seen in the community and not just the individual. In order for change and healing to occur you need to change and promote healing in all four elements of the medicine wheel. One way to do this is to implement programs and policies that are from an Aboriginal perspective.

Lori

References

Brown, J., Higgitt, N., Wingert, S., Miller, C., Williams, M., & Morrissette, L. (2004). Shared

responsibility: building healthy communities in Winnipeg’s north end. Social Sciences and Hummanities Research Council of Canada. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://ius.uwinnipeg.ca/pdf/wira_healthy_communities.pdf

Comack, E., Deane, L., Morrissette, L., & Silver, J. (2009). If you want to change violence in the hood,

you have to change the hood: violence and street gangs in Winnipeg’s inner city. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives-Manitoba. Retrieved November 4, 2011, from

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Manitoba_Pubs/2009/Violence_and_Street_Gangs_091009.pdf

Comack, E., Deane, L., Morrissette, L., & Silver, J. (2010). If you want to change violence in the hood

you have to change the hood. Retrieved from http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2817/

Hay, D. (2009). Poverty reduction policies and programs. Canadian Council on Social Development.

Retrieved November 4, 2011, from http://www.ccsd.ca/Reports/Canada_Report_FINAL.pdf

Menzies, P. (2008). Developing an aboriginal healing model for intergenerational trauma. International

Journal of Health Promotion & Education, 46, 41-48.

Morrissette, V. (2006). Towards an Aboriginal perspective that addresses ideological domination in

social policy analysis. Implications for social work p. 162-189. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Indigenous Children within Child Welfare

Poverty is a continuous struggle for Aboriginal peoples on and off the reserves (Bennett, Blackstock, & De La Ronde, 2005).  Pawlick (2004) suggests that Indigenous people living in Canadian cities are more than twice as likely to live in poverty compared with the urban non-Aboriginal population.  Pawlick (2004) also gives details about when Aboriginal people moved from reserves to the urban cities, their normal fishing and hunting economy was hard to maintain. Not being able to adapt to our modern capitalist economy in major Canadian cities, the Indigenous people were left dependant on government support and programs. Families coming from these backgrounds are left in poverty and find the cycle hard to break. Statistics show that 50% of Aboriginal children live in this kind of poverty which makes them the poorest in Canada (Pawlick, 2004). Along with the issue of poverty come problems with education, health, housing, and an overall state of well-being. According to Taiakiake (n.d), Aboriginal youth are being portrayed as angry and inherently violent, prone to drug abuse, drunkenness, suicide, shootings, gang fights, assault and murder by the media; sadly, this issues arise from child welfare.

According to Bennett et al. (2005), the Chiefs and councils are in charge of where the money goes in the community. They decide which families or individuals get certain housing, job opportunities, and who else can be a part of the community's economic and social order. Children are too young to play any part in this decision making process, therefore their poverty circumstances are not to be blamed on themselves. Without a voice, kids have no choice but to accept the situation that they are in. It's no doubt that with this on-going struggle, Indigenous kids do not have an opportunity of living a stable life that other privileged kids have because poor children suffer more health problems and could die from third world conditions that are rare in non-Aboriginal Canadians (Bennett et al., 2005).  Indigenous children are among the poorest in Canada, still suffering from "substandard housing conditions, unsafe drinking water, and inadequate sewage treatment" (Bennett et al., 2005, pp. 34).  Being raised in this way, they have less of a chance of progressing positive change if there is no motivation. In my opinion, if given the right resources and environment, children can accelerate and make a very successful change in their lives and the lives surrounding them.

 

Suicide is a significant concern that continues to wander the minds of many adolescents in Canada. This issue has impacted many lives of Aboriginal teens, as survey shows that 64% of Indigenous youth know someone personally that has committed suicide or attempted it (Bennett et al., 2005). An example of how negatively poverty can affect the life of a child is discussed by Blackstock, C., Clouston Carlons,J., Fine, M., & Mandell, D. (2003). This document portrays kids living under child welfare. One aboriginal teen committed suicide in result of the harsh circumstances that child welfare situates them in. This teen was removed from his home because of extreme poverty (i.e. neglect). With the parents no longer able to give care to the child, the social worker placed the child in a foster home. The child circulated many homes. Seeing the condition he was in, he was assessed by a psychiatrist who made no recommendation for any type of treatment (Blackstock et al., 2003). In receiving this poor care from the child welfare system, the adolescent decided to take his life. It was later claimed that the social worker did not make an effort to contact extended family that could have taken care of the child before sending him off to a foster home. This adolescent is not alone, as 20% of Indigenous children in child welfare are considered to be suicidal (Blackstock et al., 2003). This statistic frightens me, as our economy continues to be unstable. For a child to even think about taking his/her life, I imagine the condition has to be extreme to the point that they cannot deal with it anymore. Kids should not have to be put through this state. Social workers need to make more effort to help the child's situation improve so that severe measures such as suicide do not have to be considered. 

Taking the Indigenous perspective into consideration, they would most likely make a huge connection with colonization. The core of the problem would be the "white" social workers taking the Aboriginal children away from their own culture and families to put them in a white society. In a way, it is similar to the residential schools argument because Aboriginal kids that are taken away from their families are being put into the dominant society's race which habituates these children to the white customs. The children are being taken into the homes of strangers and expected to accommodate to the white culture- leaving their own familiar customs. In other words, colonization is taking place again when the kids are being put into white families. Even though the child welfare system is attempting to make children safe-in which some cases they are- they are also isolating these children from their home culture and assimilating them to the whiter society. This could negatively affect the kids because when they go back to their families, some can be completely transformed and may have relationship issues within their own families. In my opinion, some of the suicides could be related to the very issue that the child feels like they do not belong and may be confused. This is very sad to hear and the Indigenous perspective would not accept suicide as a solution. Indigenous perspectives see humans as inherently spiritual and essentially good, and would say that the child's spirituality was out of context seeing as they are being destructed spiritually in foster homes because they are not at their own familiar culture.

If social workers are taking Indigenous children and disconnecting them from their homes, families, and cultures, how is this helping end the colonization issue? (Taiaiake, n.d). A solution to this issue would be for the child welfare system to make a policy of priority. First, make sure that is it absolutely necessary for the child to leave the home; perhaps the problem can be helped working within the family so that nobody has to leave. Otherwise, make sure that there is no other family member/close family friend available to take care of the child. This would be the best solution as the child would still be in their own Indigenous culture and would not be seen as colonizing. Lastly, if all else fails in the worst cases look for another foster home. Social workers need to abide to these kinds of policies so that the life and future of the child is not in jeopardy of losing their natural customs and spirituality.

          The above articles have some startling statistics that all Canadians should become more aware of. Child poverty is an awful state that is hard to get out of without external help.  Kids do not know any better than what they have already been taught, so they should be getting the help that they deserve so that they will be able to triumph in the future. In order to do so, social workers must be properly trained in these specific areas so that they will be able to accommodate Indigenous people needs towards child poverty.

-Dora

References:

Bennett, M., Blackstock, C., & De La Rhonde, R. (2005). A Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography on Aspects of Aboriginal Child Welfare in Canada (2^nd ed.). Challenges to Aboriginal Child Welfare Agencies (pp. 32-47). Ottawa, ON: First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.

Blackstock, C., Clouston Carlson, J., Fine, M., & Mandell, D. (2003). Partnerships for Children and Families Project: Aboriginal Child Welfare. Retrieved from http://www.wlu.ca/documents/7179/Aboriginal_child_welfare.pdf

  

Pawlick, R. (2004). Aboriginal People-Rights and Poverty. Law Now, 29 (2), 27-29. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.lib.umanitoba.ca/docview/219905432?accountid=14569

Taiaiake, A. (n.d). Colonialism and racism: Canadian colonialism. Retrieved from http://www3.nfb.ca/enclasse/doclens/visau/index.php?mode=theme&language=english&theme=30662&film=16933&excerpt=612109&submode=about&expmode=1

Retired and broke?

     Within the interval of a year, seniors (people aged 65+) experienced the fastest rise in poverty rate more than any other age group between 2007 and 2008 (Yalnizyan, 2011). In 2007, poverty among seniors was 4.9% and jumped to 5.8% in 2008 (Friesen, 2010). This leap of nearly 1% was caused by many external factors. The economic crisis started to unravel as investments hammered and job loss was at its highest (Yalnizyan, 2011). The $920-million it cost the public treasury in 2010 to support the pension splitting ideal is not being split evenly, which leaves us with the senior poverty statistic of 5.8% today (Yalnizyan, 2011).

     The elder poverty rate was at 36.9% in 1971, prompting the Canadian in government to introduce the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) (Friesen, 2010). Along with these income sources is the Old Age Security Program (OAS) which a majority of Canadian seniors receive the income of $450 a month (National Advisory Council on Aging, 2005). With two-thirds of seniors relying only on an income of the OAS and CPP receiving extra money to enhance their lifestyle is nearly impossible (National Advisory Council on Aging, 2005). The money shortage is not only a struggle for the elder; it is also a problem for their children. When a senior struggles with money issues they have trouble turning to their own kids, but once reality strikes and seniors start falling shorter on cash, who else are they supposed to turn to? Already overwhelmed by family and economic problems, the kids of poor seniors must also deal with their parents' struggles as they have to support them to keep them alive. Whether it's paying for medication, groceries or bills, children of poor elders are certainly affected heavily by the extra cost of helping out their parents. Depending on family struggle, underlying poverty issues associated with seniors could cause the domino effect on their children. Friesen (2010) says this is quite true for immigrant elders and families in speciality because when elders are sponsored into Canada and the whole family starts immigrating to Canada, they do not get the full CPP benefits.

     According to the National Advisory Council on Aging (2005), headlines were made in 2001 when Canadians learned that approximately 300,000 seniors eligible for government support did not receive the benefits. They state that people were living under such conditions that left them in poverty. For example, once the rent was paid many elders only had a remaining $34.65 per week to spend until the next month of income came. Being on this kind of budget is ridiculous as seniors are human beings who still need food, water, transportation and medication. In 2004, 50 000 eligible elders did not apply for OAS and 300 000 did not apply for GIS (National Advisory Council on Aging, 2005). So why don’t people apply for the benefits they’re entitled to? The National Advisory Council on Aging (2005) declares that people who do not apply for GIS and OAS are usually immigrants who are not aware of such benefits they could be getting, elders living in remote areas, seniors with mental or physical disabilities, or homeless.

     After learning about these statistics how do we put an end to senior’s poverty or at least diminish it? Yalnizyan's (2011) response is that by taking the public treasury’s $920-million initiative and target it to Canada’s 634,000 poorest seniors, they would each get $1,450 more a year. This would be enough extra cash a month to possibly end senior poverty. Instead, the government is putting more money into the pockets of the more well-off seniors (Yalnizyan, 2011). Forty percent of seniors live in households with incomes lower than $30 000 and they only receive 5.8% of the benefits of the new tax treatment of pension splitting; the poorest seniors, usually single or widowed women get nothing of this $920-million proposal (Yalnizyan, 2011). I agree with Yalnizyan‘s (2011) suggestion because living in a wealthy country such as Canada, senior poverty should not exist. Elders should not have to work in their condition to keep themselves alive in an acceptable lifestyle. Depending on their income, taxes could increase or decrease which affects their benefits they obtain, so getting a job could not even be worth the extra effort. It is up to Canadian government and citizens to take care of our elders so they do not die from issues that should not be present.

-Dora


References

Friesen, Joe. (2010, November 24). Number of seniors living in poverty soars nearly 25%. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.deema.ca/financial/FA_10-11-25%20-%20G%20&%20M%20-%20Seniors%20living%20in%20poverty%20soars.pdf

National Advisory Council on Aging. (2005). Aging in poverty in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Retrieved from http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H88-5-3-2005E.pdf

Yalnizyan, Armine. (2011, April 2). How to wipe out seniors’ poverty, no extra charge. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/how-to-wipe-out-seniors-poverty-no-extra-charge/article1967092/

Marxism and the Working Poor

 

I find Marxism to be a very interesting and often overlooked paradigm and thought that focusing this post on the issue of the working poor in Canada seemed appropriate. The working poor are those who although they have jobs, still do not make enough money to live above the poverty line. Currently in Canada it is believed that the majority of people living in poverty are the working poor, not those who depend solely on welfare (Langille, 2010).

The Marxist paradigm is similar to that of the social democratic paradigm on many levels; however it also differs in many instances as well. Marxism views the world as being divided into two main classes, those who own the means of production (the ruling class) and the workers who produce the goods (the proletariat). Marxism therefore would view the current state as a capitalist state, in that it is a tool used by the ruling class to support the best interests of the ruling class; there exists a great deal of conflict then between the ruling class and the proletariats. It furthermore believes that the current welfare state is also used as a tool by the ruling class, in order to support and reinforce the institutions that create the problems that require the welfare state (Mullaly, 2007, p. 149). Essentially Marxists view the entire system as consisting of class struggles which ultimately harms the proletariats; the proletariats in this case consist of all those who do not find themselves owning the means of production.

When examining the issue of the working poor in Canada, I believe that those individuals who work hard for their pay are being exploited by the owners of the companies for which they work; individuals should be able to afford to support themselves and their families without living below the poverty line, and should therefore be paid a comfortable living wage for their work. The companies that hire these employees are not spreading the wealth with those that actually create the products, but rather they keep the excess money for themselves, whcih only furthers the divide between the two groups. Workers should receive a fair wage which should be comparable to the amount the owner recieves for selling the product; the workers and the owners should recieve a similar divide of the profits. How can the working poor ever get ahead if they continue to be held down by a capitalist system? Furthermore, when systems are in place to help the workers, who creates these systems and who's interests are kept in mind?
Take minimum wage for example, minimum wage is intended to protect workers and ensure they are being paid "fairly" for their work. However, the minimum wage in Manitoba is currently 10.00$/hour, and while it is intended to protect workers interests, it is barely a livable wage for  single individuals; a family could not be supported solely on this low income. Increases to the minimum wage are viewed by many as a strategy to combat poverty, however a fifty cent increase will not amount to enough for anyone to afford a proper home, or a substantial amount of food, or even raise themselves above the poverty line. Every individual should have their basic needs met and the minimum wage does not support this, nor does the current welfare system. The famous quote “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (Mullaly, 2007, p. 142), outlines Marx’s belief that every individual deserves to have similar basic needs and resources met, regardless of their individual contributions because every individual should be viewed as equal simply based on fact of being human (Mullaly, 2007, p. 142).The state and its policies therefore represent the primary interests of the wealthy class, ensuring that they are able to afford the labour of their workers, while still profiting enough so as to stay in control. 

Marxists are sceptical of the transformative potential of the state because the state itself serves the interests of the ruling class. Therefore, the entire system/state needs to be overthrown by the proletariats in order to achieve the abolition of capitalism. According to the Marxist paradigm, the distribution of resources based according to one’s need and public ownership, so that one may achieve pay representative of one’s work, will only be achieved by overthrowing the state; simple changes to the system would not achieve the desired outcomes. While I agree with the Marxist view of the current state and appreciate the socialist view on the current state of affairs, the only issue I have with this thinking is that an overthrowing of the current system seems unlikely. Overthrowing the entire capitalist system seems unrealistic at this point in time; I believe a social democratic view would be more achievable form of transformation.

Kirsten

References

Langille, D. (2010, January 11). Facts about the working poor in Canada. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from Poor No More: http://www.poornomore.ca/index.php?pagename=blogs

Mullaly, B. (2007). The marxist paradigm. In The new structural social work (3rd ed., pp. 138-158). Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Marxism and poverty.

I believe that a Marxist view on poverty has some positive outcomes, but I also believe that it has negative side as well.

A Marxist view on poverty says, poverty will never be fixed or reduced because capitalism needs poverty. Poverty helps keeps wages down and profits up. When people are poor, they will accept low wages to purchase basic necessities, and when there are many poor people; one of the ways they will compete for jobs is by working for lower wages then the other person. (Mullaly, 2007. Pg. 147)

In my opinion this is an example of one of the negative sides. I don’t really think that this is fair, I think poor people accept the low wages because that’s all they can get, and they don’t want to have to necessarily rely on the welfare state to provide for them.

With the rise of capitalism, Karl Marx saw the increasing degradation of industrial workers who had no control over their work process or product and who had to live in squalor, insecurity and poverty. (Mullaly, 2007. Pg. 138)

Marxists believe that people are creative producers, and that it changes in different social contexts, becoming competitive under capitalism and co-operative under socialism. Marxist’s believe the society needs to produce its basics (food, shelter, etc.) and people are entitled to social and economic goods based on their needs, not the worth of their work. (Mullaly, 2007. Pg. 140)

This is an example of a positive side, I think that is a good thing, it shouldn’t matter if you have tons of money, were able to achieve a higher level of education and have an amazing job; or if you don’t have very much money and just have a high school education; everyone needs the basics and everyone should be given an equal opportunity to receive these basics.

Marxist believe that by focusing on the victims of inequality, oppression and alienation and calling them criminals, drug addicts, or poor people, we are actually labelling them as troublemakers. Marxists would trace these problems back to the social problem, not the individual. (Mullaly, 2007. Pg. 148)

With that said, Marxists think that everyone should have a fair chance of making a standard of living and being able to provide for themselves and their families. It’s good that everyone is getting a chance, and I like that it says they would trace the problem back to the social problem, not the individual because it may not be there fault.

-Jessica

Mullaly, B. (2007). The new structural social work (3^rd Ed.) Toronto: Oxford University Press.