With all the hullabaloo surrounding this past weekend's Live 8 concerts and their aim at bringing awareness to the richest in the world (the G8 nations: Canada, U.S., Britain, France, Italy, Russia, Japan, Germany) concerning the plight of those who are the poorest in the world (Haiti, Chad, Moldova, Liberia, Guatemala, Madagascar, Bolivia, Angola, Mozambique, Burundi) I thought that I would toss my 2 cents into the collective hat of useless opinion.
First off I truly don't think that the Live 8 event will have much impact upon the G8 nations who are presently meeting in Scotland, nor do I believe that they will truly have a lasting impact upon the consciousness of us who live in rich countries.
Second, I'd like to discuss the issue of poverty in 2 ways. Firstly concerning "3rd world" poverty and what "1st world" nations can do to help and secondly I'd like to talk a little about poverty here in Canada.
There is a call amongst rich nations to committ to giving 0.7% of their GDP to foreign aid. Here are some numbers using the CIA World Fact Book.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
Country - (2004) GDP - Foreign Aid(0.7% GDP)
Canada: $1.023 trillion - $7.161 billion
U.S.: $11.75 trillion - $82.25 billion
Britain: $1.782 trillion - $12.474 billion
France: $1.737 trillion - $12.159 billion
Italy: $1.609 trillion - $11.263 billion
Germany: $2.362 trillion - $16.534 billion
Japan: $3.745 trillion - $26.215 billion
Russia: $1.408 trillion - $9.856 billion
Total: $25.146 trillion - $177.912 billion
That is a lot of money! Just as a point of interest the estimated wealth of the world is $55.5 trillion! With over 200 seperate nations in the world its stagering to consider that only 8 countries control 45.3% of all the money in the world! In other words 13.4% of the world's population (G8 nations population approximately 861 008 786 - the world's approximate population 6 446 131 400) controls 45.3% of the world's wealth.
Now if we were to give that much money (and that is a big if) it would be imperative that that money made it to those in the most need. Here are some more numbers for you from another informative site (Nation Master: http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php). The following is a list of the G8 nations and the percentage of their foreign aid/development money that actually goes to the poorest nations.
Canada: 37%
U.S.: 30%
France: 30%
Britain: 41%
Germany: 31%
Italy: 41%
Japan: 20%
Russia: ?
So for actual change to occur in these poor countries the rich nations need to meet this call for 0.7% GDP aid and to increase the actual amount that goes to the countries that need it the most. The question I have then is would you be willing to pay more in taxes to ensure that these goals are met? If you are I encourage you to contact your representative politician and tell them so.
Now for something closer to home.
I was crunching some numbers the other day and wanted to share what I found out with others. In 1993 Canada set the minimum wage at $6.85/hr. If you worked a full time job (2000 hours a year) you would gross $13, 700. This I believe to be a fairly good estimate of the poverty line in Canada. Given that inflation averages about 3% a year the poverty line has increased as follows during the previous 12 years.
Year - Poverty Line - Minimum Wage - Difference
1993 - $13,700 - $13,700 - $0
1994 - $14,111 - $13,700 - ($411)
1995 - $14,534.33 - $13,700 - ($834.33)
1996 - $14970.36 - $13,700 - ($1270.36)
1997 - $15419.47 - $13,700 - ($1,719.47)
1998 - $15,882.05 - $13,700 - ($2,182.05)
1999 - $16358.51 - $13,700 - ($2,658.51)
2000 - $16,849.27 - $13,700 - ($3,149.27)
2001 - $17,354.75 - $13,700 - ($3,654.75)
2002 - $17,875.39 - $13,700 - ($4,175.39)
2003 - $18411.65 - $13,700 - ($4,711.65)
2004 - $18,964 - $14,200 - ($4,764)
2005 - $19,532.92 - $14,200 - ($5332.92)
So as one can see until the minimum wage was raised to $7.10/hr in 2004 if you worked a full-time job in Ontario and made minimum wage you dropped approximately $500 below the poverty line each year. So now we have a system where a person can work a full time job and it is legal to pay a person a wage which will place them in poverty. This is shamefull considering we are one of the richest countries in the world.
If we were to start back in 1993 and had tied the minimum wage to inflation, so that the minimum wage would increase each year in relation to the raise in the cost of living, the minimum wage would have increased as follows (assuming an average inflation of 3% as above).
Year - Minimum wage / hr. - Annual income
1993 - $6.85 - $13,700
1994 - $7.06 - $14,120
1995 - $7.27 - $14,540
1996 - $7.49 - $14,980
1997 - $7.71 - $15,420
1998 - $7.94 - $15,880
1999 - $8.18 - $16,360
2000 - $8.43 - $16,860
2001 - $8.68 - $17,360
2002 - $8.94 - $17,880
2003 - $9.21 - $18,420
2004 - $9.49 - $18,980
2005 - $9.78 - $19,560
As you can see the difference between the minimum wage in 2005 and the poverty line in 2005 would actually be $27.08. A positive! In my opinion given such numbers the idea that the present minimum wage system in Ontario is criminal. As we all know money has a direct impact upon a person's quality of life. The fact that we allow a system that permits people to live a life of poverty when they work a full time job is absurd. We are a rich country and we should be looking after our own citizens far better than we currently are.
However there seems to be something of a silver lining in all of this. While we seem unwilling to put our money where our mouth is concerning the poorest in the world, those whom we don't see day in and day out, we seem just as unwilling to support those people living in poverty right here at home. People who pay their taxes and contribute to the vast wealth that is Canada. So you can see that its not a case of we don't care about foreign poor, its a case where we simply don't care about the poor period.
2 comments:
You are right, I've never thought about it that way. Not that I'm arguing with you, but what are the numbers of people who starve to death each year in Canada? Although I think its important to deal with our country as well, those living near or below the poverty line can usually feed themselves on a near daily basis. This is very different in Africa. I shouldn't go much further though as I do not know enough about it. Your research is very impressive.
I also agree with your point about the Live8 concerts. I don't believe they will be enough of an impact to change anything.
An interesting commercial played at the concert said something like this (I can't remember the exact wording):
What if 50,000 people died in Tokyo on Monday,
What if 50,000 people died in Moscow on Tuesday,
What if 50,000 people died in London on Wednesday,
What is 50,000 people died in Kansas City on Thursday,
What if 50,000 people died in Vancouver on Friday, etc., etc.
The G8 leaders would figure out a plan of response and action to fix the problem by the time they got to the reception desk at the summit.
I thought this was a good way to put it...because its extremely true. The entire concert made my very sad and guilty. However, I did not think of those in Canada who are also poor.
There are days I wish everyone could be helped.
I'm now rambling and seem to have forgotten my point. Good post regardless, and your research was very impressive.
Interesting, as far as it goes, except that the numbers don't speak of actual lives. As Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
While you take the numbers of GDP as truth, what of each of their balances of trade to each other country? The US has a trade deficit of roughly 1.98 billion each day, and Canada, while not as bad, is still hemoraging financially... What of their national debts? Where has all that money come from and gone to, and who really owns those governments? What of the distribution of wealth within each country? what of the "cost of living" within each country (which often differs wildly betweeen various locations, such as PEI or Toronto or NWT), and the distribution of the wealth - usually the top 1% of the weathy have or directly control 50-90+% of the wealth within their country, and that national borders have very little to do with who (or what) controls the wealth of nations.
Why is it that usually it is those of the lower end of the income scale who give the most proportionally to causes like this? Isn't this just another means of manipulating the good conscience of those folks in further removing the 'wealth' of the 'poor' to give to the impovrished (which reduces the 'necessity' of the contribution of the wealthy - and even this is a generalisation which misses the point).
So, what is the point? The point is to control the populace of the world by those who control the wealth of the world - to enslave all, and to exclude (or kill - it is getting to be less difference with each passing day and law) those who refuse to participate according to their rules. Just try to exist without a driver license or other official identification / permission to work for pay and buy and sell... Who really owns you and allows you to have shelter and eat (so long as you follow their rules within the limits they allow, and the circle keeps getting smaller)? Are you that much different from those in Somalia, except that you are of more profit to the powers that be as reasonably comfortably employed at the moment, and those in third world nations (which have coveted natural resources) are more profitable (and manipulatible) as starving refugees? At what point may it be just the other way around? When it is no longer profitable to keep post industrial nations going in the manner they've become accustomed? Labor most certainly cheaper (and the standard of living far lower) in other areas. Are you prepared to live as they do? It is coming.
Am I my brother's keeper? yes - those who are very literally placed before me whose lives i might directly impact, not just by what i might give, but the 'witness' that goes with it, not necessarily to those half way around the world to whom it is a 'fruit without substance' administered by the hands of 'sanctioned organizations' - they have no idea what my motivation is, and unfortunately, such aid is often a form of enslavement. Is the suffering an outrage? yes. Am I obligated to 'do something' about it? yes: by refusing to allow the fruits of my labour to enrich those who are making those circumstances. The 'lost' are not just those who are starving to death at the hands of very often man made circumstances. Each of us will have to answer for what our participation was in these crimes, for who we served, and that includes those we profited in the serving of ourselves.
I for one, purposly limit my income for consciencious reasons, so as to severely restrict what the Government / financial manipulators may claim of the work of my hands with which to carry out their agenda. Better my poverty and clarity in conscience than wealth (or even comfort), than buy into and complicitly support corruption / evil.
There are no easy (or comfortable) answers. "Noone can serve two masters".
Post a Comment