I just got back from seeing an awesome production of Carmen at the Kennedy Center and I am STILL putting up a blog post. That's right, commitment. And Toblerone = slight sugar rush.
Anywho.
People might say I am ridiculously naive when it comes to international development. I don't know who, but if you search long enough you can find someone who'll say anything about you. However, I'm not. Impoverished nations, regardless if they are in Africa, Asia, Europe or Latin America, are screwed. Whether new economic systems are given, free aid is doled out, subsidized aid is passed around or Barack Obama is president, countries where the majority of the population is labeled as "living in extreme poverty" are up shitake mushroom creek.
So what do we do, what do we address, when even if we do everything we can't guarantee an eradication of poverty and all the symptoms and causes (which may be the same thing, creating a cycle-o-vicious) of it? As much as I realize the need for structural stability, for roads and such...I remain firm in my statement that we must address basic needs of humanity first and foremost. A strong infrastructure in a nation means nothing if there are not people to utlitze it or even build it. Infrastructure, as important as it is, doesn't matter when people are too sick and too weak to use these services and structures.
A majority of people in extreme poverty live in rural areas (because it is pretty difficult to build up when you have nothing to build up upon). Within the broad affirmation that basic needs are the base of aid, perhaps it is easier to look at those in rural poverty. Afterall, even on a minimum level, urban dwellers have some sort of, at least, physical infrastructure. Ok, now that we've gotten all of that Lake Titicaca out of the way, what are basic needs?
....What do people need to survive?
Water, food, basic health care, shelter.
In order to make this blog not a KAJILLION bytes long, I'll just talk about water: Perhaps more than anything, water is the most basic of needs and one of the hardest needs to satisfy. Despite most of this planet being covered in the big blue wet thing, getting clean water for most of the human race isn't as simple as turning on the tap. Water-related illnesses are numerous (short list: cholera, malaria, ringworm, anaemia) and untold numbers of people die each year because they didn't have access to clean water, whether it was for drinking or sanitation. As the WHO tells us: In 2002, 1.1 billion people lacked access to improved water sources, which represented 17% of the global population (and just so ya know, 2/3 of that are people in southeast Asia). If wells, or as I mentioned in class, LifeStraws that filter water are provided, then, not only is the ability to get clean drinking water increased, the likelihood of getting water-related diseases decrased, but the time spent going to a water source (which could be 11 miles away in some regions) is drastically reduced.
Water = essential. No water = not really healthy. Not really healthy = DALY (not you Bovice.) is drastically decreased (or is it increased...whatever, you're gonna die sooner). Dead = not really useful to anyone. Not productive = kinda hard to build an infrastructure outta dead people. Yeah, they did it for the Great Wall, but how great was it, really? Didn't stop anyone from climbing it.
And I'm done. Opera high has worn off.
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Opportunities
I'll be honest, this past Wednesday's visit to Bread for the City was my favorite lab excursion so far.
For those of you who didn't sign up to get their RSS feed for the blog, Beyond Bread, they just put up a post giving a shout out to us, and to Amanda, B.A. Baracus and Ziggy for putting up posts dealing with our visit. So, congrats to those three for getting a nod and even comments from Matt. It's exciting to think that our little blogs are attracting outsiders.
To get back to what I wanted to discuss....
I realize that this upcoming week is "poverty week" in our class, but since this week's visit was obviously dealing with the relationship between poverty and prosperity, I'm jumping in on the issue a little early (besides, they are two ends of the same wealth spectrum...you can't discuss one without the other, really).
As I mentioned in my last post, I've begun reading Jeffrey Sachs's The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. I haven't gotten too far into it, since other readings have gotten in my way (Regarding the Pain of Others is the most pointless book. It makes schaudenfreude no fun.) but of what I have read, it is going to be an interesting read. Immediately within the book there is a distinction made. Sachs is discussing an end to extreme poverty. Bread for the City isn't an institution meant to alleviate what Sachs and the U.N. determine as extreme poverty, or living on less than $1 a day. There is even moderate poverty, where people living on only $1-2 a day (that's moderately poor?). Finally, there is relative poverty. Relative poverty is "a household income level below a given proportion of average national income. The relatively poor, in high income countries, lack access to cultural goods, entertainment, recreation, and to quality health care, education, and other perquisites for upward social mobility." Simple as that, almost 40 million people's lives in the United States is summed up in that one definition.
Extreme poverty is just a strange term to me. For someone living below the poverty threshold in the U.S...isn't that poverty extreme in its own way? The fact that we classify people's suffering into extreme, moderate and relative takes out the humanity, in my opinion. And, though I may be in the wrong here, in some ways it may be more extreme, more psychologically frustrating, to be living in poverty in America. Even looking at it from a "relative" level, it isn't hard to see someone and say, "Yes, that person is definitely wealthier than me." Even though we can move upwards in society, to be one of those who lack "perquisites for upward social mobility" and living amongst it on a day-to-day basis...to be one of the "invisible working poor" in America...yeah, not so great.
Even though you can't help but take a step back at that point and say, "I'd rather be poor in America than poor in Kenya."
I'd rather not have to be in a situation where relative poverty is an issue.
Yet, it is. Poverty can't be eradicated. Not when there is risk in society. And you can't get rid of risk, just like you can't get rid of chaos.
...One last thing to this long post (which is usual). I admire what Bread for the City is doing. They are taking a direct, head on approach to fighting poverty, offering services to help the vulnerable in DC. Even though I'm not sure where I want to go with my international studies major, for some reason, poverty, regardless of the adjective attached to it, compels me. It makes me want to do something, because I have those "perquisites for social mobility."
Because I'm a bit lame, I come up with aphorisms in my free time (really, I just want to be someone who people quote). One of my favorites is "I want to make a difference in the world; maybe not to mankind, but of somekind."
Maybe I'm looking that somekind in the face.
Hey, BFTC, you'll be hearing from me.
For those of you who didn't sign up to get their RSS feed for the blog, Beyond Bread, they just put up a post giving a shout out to us, and to Amanda, B.A. Baracus and Ziggy for putting up posts dealing with our visit. So, congrats to those three for getting a nod and even comments from Matt. It's exciting to think that our little blogs are attracting outsiders.
To get back to what I wanted to discuss....
I realize that this upcoming week is "poverty week" in our class, but since this week's visit was obviously dealing with the relationship between poverty and prosperity, I'm jumping in on the issue a little early (besides, they are two ends of the same wealth spectrum...you can't discuss one without the other, really).
As I mentioned in my last post, I've begun reading Jeffrey Sachs's The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. I haven't gotten too far into it, since other readings have gotten in my way (Regarding the Pain of Others is the most pointless book. It makes schaudenfreude no fun.) but of what I have read, it is going to be an interesting read. Immediately within the book there is a distinction made. Sachs is discussing an end to extreme poverty. Bread for the City isn't an institution meant to alleviate what Sachs and the U.N. determine as extreme poverty, or living on less than $1 a day. There is even moderate poverty, where people living on only $1-2 a day (that's moderately poor?). Finally, there is relative poverty. Relative poverty is "a household income level below a given proportion of average national income. The relatively poor, in high income countries, lack access to cultural goods, entertainment, recreation, and to quality health care, education, and other perquisites for upward social mobility." Simple as that, almost 40 million people's lives in the United States is summed up in that one definition.
Extreme poverty is just a strange term to me. For someone living below the poverty threshold in the U.S...isn't that poverty extreme in its own way? The fact that we classify people's suffering into extreme, moderate and relative takes out the humanity, in my opinion. And, though I may be in the wrong here, in some ways it may be more extreme, more psychologically frustrating, to be living in poverty in America. Even looking at it from a "relative" level, it isn't hard to see someone and say, "Yes, that person is definitely wealthier than me." Even though we can move upwards in society, to be one of those who lack "perquisites for upward social mobility" and living amongst it on a day-to-day basis...to be one of the "invisible working poor" in America...yeah, not so great.
Even though you can't help but take a step back at that point and say, "I'd rather be poor in America than poor in Kenya."
I'd rather not have to be in a situation where relative poverty is an issue.
Yet, it is. Poverty can't be eradicated. Not when there is risk in society. And you can't get rid of risk, just like you can't get rid of chaos.
...One last thing to this long post (which is usual). I admire what Bread for the City is doing. They are taking a direct, head on approach to fighting poverty, offering services to help the vulnerable in DC. Even though I'm not sure where I want to go with my international studies major, for some reason, poverty, regardless of the adjective attached to it, compels me. It makes me want to do something, because I have those "perquisites for social mobility."
Because I'm a bit lame, I come up with aphorisms in my free time (really, I just want to be someone who people quote). One of my favorites is "I want to make a difference in the world; maybe not to mankind, but of somekind."
Maybe I'm looking that somekind in the face.
Hey, BFTC, you'll be hearing from me.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
AC/DC said it best: Money talks.
This week's question: Do you in fact agree that a wealthy country is a country with full employment? And that a wealthy individual is one with a job?
No.
Maybe.
Depends.
...No, it's back to no.
This question is basically asking: do you agree with this definition of wealth: in relation to countries, having full employment.
And, no, I don't agree with that definition. I reject your definition, good sir, and replace it with my own:
...
I don't have one yet. I'm working on it.
Besides, rarely are countries at "full employment", which doesn't mean there isn't unemployment. According to my WordWeb (since I'm too lazy to pull out my macroecon book), full employment is: "The economic condition when everyone who wishes to work at the going wage rate for their type of labor is employed." ...Hmm. That isn't what I remember from econ.
Ok! Got my macroecon book. The term "full employment" is also referred to as "natural rate of unemployment". My book defines this as: "The normal rate of unemployment, consisting of frictional unemployment plus structural unemployment." Frictional unemployment is "short-term unemployment that arises from the process of matching workers with jobs" and structural unemployment is "unemployment arising from the persistent mismatch between the skills and characteristics of workers and the requirements of jobs". It also lists the other type of unemployment, which is cyclical unemployment (cyclical is such a weird looking word). Cyclical (still weird) unemployment involves unemployment due to recession. Like now.
Alright! Combining all the information we've garnered thus far, let's look at what we've (meaning I, and thus you by association) have deduced: According to Ruggie, a wealthy country is a country with full employment. According toL. Ron R. Glenn Hubbard, author of my Macroecon book, full employment means no unemployment due to recession. ...So, a wealthy country is a country that is in expansion.
...Taking into account the current economic crisis (have fun with that one, Obama)...no country is wealthy all the time then.
Which brings us to the question of: do countries fluctuate in and out of being wealthy?
If America is in a recession (it is), then are we not wealthy anymore because people are unemployed due to the recession?
Conveniently, and I mean, really conveniently, I just started reading the book "The End of Poverty" by Jeffrey Sachs, who is becoming a hero of mine relatively quickly. And no, totally didn't go out and buy this book for World Politics. Went out and bought this book for College Writing. Since I wrote a research paper on Sachs.
And I was going to talk about it, but I realized I can do it next week when it is poverty week. Whoo!
In any case, I've come up with my definition of wealthy, on both an individual level (I'm all about the individuals) and country level (this class is all about the countries):
Individual level: Look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The closer you get to self-actualization, the wealthier you are. In order to achieve the most base of needs, someone, either you or someone you are dependent on, needs to have a job. So I don't agree with the "wealthy if you have a job". You could be considered wealthy if you have a job, but you do not need a job to be wealthy. Make sense?
Country level: As Jasmine just told me (she's going to be slightly pissed I stole this. ...Love ya?) "If you're giving out aid to other countries, you can be considered wealthy." Though...never mind, no, Jas, take that back. I don't like it. New definition: The population of a country is able to access the basic needs of survival on a day-to-day basis, and can accumulate durable goods (that means things like cars and houses), lending to better health, mental and physically, of life.
Because, hey, I don't care if you say "my family/friends are more important to me than money or material things"...having money, having the ability to buy food, shelter, whatever, for your friends/family, VASTLY increases your wealth on an emotional scale.
Personally, when my financial situation is secure (secure usually means I am making money, and have money saved away), I am less stressed. Overanxiety and stress can lead to actual physical ailments. When I'm less stressed, more endorphins are released in my brain, causing me to be happier. When I'm happier, I'm more social, when I'm more social, I'm more likely to create relationships that actually mean something.
Go money.
No.
Maybe.
Depends.
...No, it's back to no.
This question is basically asking: do you agree with this definition of wealth: in relation to countries, having full employment.
And, no, I don't agree with that definition. I reject your definition, good sir, and replace it with my own:
...
I don't have one yet. I'm working on it.
Besides, rarely are countries at "full employment", which doesn't mean there isn't unemployment. According to my WordWeb (since I'm too lazy to pull out my macroecon book), full employment is: "The economic condition when everyone who wishes to work at the going wage rate for their type of labor is employed." ...Hmm. That isn't what I remember from econ.
Ok! Got my macroecon book. The term "full employment" is also referred to as "natural rate of unemployment". My book defines this as: "The normal rate of unemployment, consisting of frictional unemployment plus structural unemployment." Frictional unemployment is "short-term unemployment that arises from the process of matching workers with jobs" and structural unemployment is "unemployment arising from the persistent mismatch between the skills and characteristics of workers and the requirements of jobs". It also lists the other type of unemployment, which is cyclical unemployment (cyclical is such a weird looking word). Cyclical (still weird) unemployment involves unemployment due to recession. Like now.
Alright! Combining all the information we've garnered thus far, let's look at what we've (meaning I, and thus you by association) have deduced: According to Ruggie, a wealthy country is a country with full employment. According to
...Taking into account the current economic crisis (have fun with that one, Obama)...no country is wealthy all the time then.
Which brings us to the question of: do countries fluctuate in and out of being wealthy?
If America is in a recession (it is), then are we not wealthy anymore because people are unemployed due to the recession?
Conveniently, and I mean, really conveniently, I just started reading the book "The End of Poverty" by Jeffrey Sachs, who is becoming a hero of mine relatively quickly. And no, totally didn't go out and buy this book for World Politics. Went out and bought this book for College Writing. Since I wrote a research paper on Sachs.
And I was going to talk about it, but I realized I can do it next week when it is poverty week. Whoo!
In any case, I've come up with my definition of wealthy, on both an individual level (I'm all about the individuals) and country level (this class is all about the countries):
Individual level: Look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The closer you get to self-actualization, the wealthier you are. In order to achieve the most base of needs, someone, either you or someone you are dependent on, needs to have a job. So I don't agree with the "wealthy if you have a job". You could be considered wealthy if you have a job, but you do not need a job to be wealthy. Make sense?
Country level: As Jasmine just told me (she's going to be slightly pissed I stole this. ...Love ya?) "If you're giving out aid to other countries, you can be considered wealthy." Though...never mind, no, Jas, take that back. I don't like it. New definition: The population of a country is able to access the basic needs of survival on a day-to-day basis, and can accumulate durable goods (that means things like cars and houses), lending to better health, mental and physically, of life.
Because, hey, I don't care if you say "my family/friends are more important to me than money or material things"...having money, having the ability to buy food, shelter, whatever, for your friends/family, VASTLY increases your wealth on an emotional scale.
Personally, when my financial situation is secure (secure usually means I am making money, and have money saved away), I am less stressed. Overanxiety and stress can lead to actual physical ailments. When I'm less stressed, more endorphins are released in my brain, causing me to be happier. When I'm happier, I'm more social, when I'm more social, I'm more likely to create relationships that actually mean something.
Go money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)