The business of ending poverty

We may need some people to get out of the business of ending poverty. So, this is not a call for more volunteers to the cause, but less.

We do not need more magicians.

There are no magic solutions to poverty no matter how much one likes a trick. 

The basic income is not going to end all poverty. Nor is a job, economic growth, a wealth tax, a tax cut, the government, the individual, prayer, regulation, deregulation, hating the rich or loving the rich.

We do not need more DIY advocates.

Expecting the poor to get themselves out of poverty. When even DIY renovators need help. They rely on the tools provided by others.

We do not need more people who think just providing help is enough.

Just send in more social workers and that will fix it. Defund the police, provide counselling, or build a shelter. When even with good help, it is not always enough, or it is not accepted or known about.

We do not need more PR people. So, focused on an idea, a positive or negative stereotype.

Those in poverty are either lazy or hard working. Welfare is either bad or good. Low income earners either spend their money responsibly or irresponsibly.

There is no in-between position for them, it is good or bad, it is spin.  

We do not need more misinformed contributors.

The ones who think a full-time job means no poverty or a university degree means no poverty. The ones that do not know the extent of poverty, the cost to escape it, the difficulty of escaping or just how long it can take to escape.   

We do not need more Chief Executives.  The ones with a vision on how to end poverty. 

Poverty does not exist because there are not enough ideas, reports, or speeches on how to end it. What does not exist are effective actions on a large enough scale.

There may be enough ideas on how to end poverty, but there are concerns about some of the ideas that do exist.

The California Department of Social Services created a taskforce to end childhood poverty. One of the researchers noted that if existing programs were expanded, none of them would end childhood poverty.

The researcher noted a program that could end childhood poverty. It would be a targeted childcare tax credit. Basically, money to boost the incomes of low-income families.

This could virtually end poverty they tell us. Yet, could it be just in a theoretical sense. 

Only if the extra money is used to advance the welfare of the child, one assumes.  

The same can be noted about increasing welfare benefits in Australia. It only works to advance welfare of the person if the money is not consumed by debt repayments. By extended family members and friends demanding a share. By impulsive buying or bad investments or unexpected costs.

There may be another group of people that should get out of the business of ending poverty.

The ones who are not even aiming to end it, but simply reduce it.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a report on how to reduce childhood poverty in America, but not to end it.

Why release a report that merely reduces something that should not exist at all?

In Australia, things are not that different.

How many government programs exist to end poverty and not just reduce it?

Unemployment benefits certainly have not been created to end poverty. The rate is set at below the poverty line. The same can be noted about rent assistance. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare notes that many receiving it still live in rental stress.

We do have to define the poverty we want to see the end of.

The end of poverty at the very least, is the end of deep poverty. The extreme poverty found not just in low-income countries, but even countries like America.

The people who get by on dollars per day and not just the $1.90 a day metric used by the World Bank.

An amount the Bank was aware would be criticised for being set too low.

Just using the traditional number, however, 10% of the global population, more than 700 million people live in that poverty {2015}. The success at reducing extreme poverty {and there has been success} gets harder as one gets to the poorest in the most remote areas.

The World Bank also has a $3.20 a day metric, resulting in more than a quarter of the world’s population living in poverty. They also have a $5.50 a day metric, resulting in almost half of the world still living in poverty. 

So, the end of poverty in low-income countries defined here is where no soul is living below $5.50 per day.

In Australia, the definition can alter the numbers, depending on if one uses 50% of the median income or 60%. The 60% metric is used here.

This is not to make the number higher for effect. It is to ensure no one misses out on help because they are not deemed poor enough to get it. Just using the 50% metric, however, still means more than 3 million Australians in poverty.   

A bigger issue with the business of ending poverty is just how old that business really is.

The book about poverty, The Other America, by Michael Harrington, though published in 1962 contains familiar themes to audiences even now.

The concern of automation destroying jobs. Car companies closing factories. Not enough public housing and criticising the building of big public housing blocks that became slums. The wage gap between men and women, black and white. The clashes between poor communities and the police. The immigrant being exploited and unwanted by some of the locals. The endless government reports on social issues, but not the will or action to address those issues.

The book even mentions a pandemic, known as the Asian flu, that hit the world in the 1950’s. In the book, it notes that the poor in America were hit particularly hard, the case with COVID-19 as well.

So, there is another group that should get out of the business of ending poverty. The people that are not serious about ending that poverty as fast as possible.