'Massive' rich-poor gap in German society

One of the major reasons for the increase in hatred towards refugees & immigrants in the Western world & the populism politics is that these Western countries are not taking care of their own citizens but their politicians are trying to pander to refugees & immigrants for their votes.

Charity begins at home & the rising poverty levels & joblessness is breeding more hatred towards those people who look different from the majority. Be it the Trump-led GOP or Afd in Germany or any number of political parties in Canada, US, or Europe, at the end of the day, those parties are increasing their popularity by going after these homeless, unemployed, poor people.

The social exclusion, economic inequality, unemployment, & poverty are increasing all over the Western world & will keep increasing until people come out on the streets & violently topple their respective sitting governments. Before the situation worsens to that point, governments need to tackle these social issues head on before it's too late (but, believe you me, they won't).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.dw.com/en/massive-rich-poor-gap-in-german-society/a-19067611

Germany's Paritätische federation, which represents 10,000 social welfare groups, warned ... that nearly one in six of Germany's residents remained at risk of being trapped in relative poverty.

The term used across the EU refers to anyone, child or adult, who lives on less than 60% of the medium income as measured statistically. In Germany, that threshold is 917 euros ($1,015) per month for a single person and 1,192 euros ($1,310) for a single parent with a child under six.

Experts said the results overall continued to point to massive inequality in German society, despite glowing data such as ... that export-driven Germany last year recorded its highest federal budget surplus since reunification, and despite its taking in 1 million refugees.

One in six below poverty line

In its latest summary, based on figures from 2014, the Paritätische said 15.4 of the population nationwide was stuck below the poverty line.

That was down a slight 0.1% on the level measured it 2013, but still up significantly on the 14% measured ten years ago, it said.

Highlighting child poverty, the federation said 19% of Germany's youngsters lived in relative poverty. Half of these were children living in a single-parent household.

And, at 15.6%, poverty among pensioners had for the first time risen above the nationwide average.

One in five Ruhr residents impoverished

Relative poverty had climbed to a record 20% in North Rhine-Westphalia's Ruhr district, once the motor of German heavy industry and now the scene of economic and urban redevelopment efforts.

Among Germany's 16 federal states or "Länder", poverty risk had declined in the city-state of Berlin and Mecklenburg-East Pomerania in northeastern Germany, the Baltic coast region that was once part of communist East Germany.

Despite record employment, poverty had not declined, said Dorothee Spannagel, a social expert who analyzed poverty trends for the trade union-affiliated Hans-Böckler Foundation.

She told the German news agency DPA that the gap in Germany between poor and rich continued to widen.

Spannegel said the so-called low wage sector involving menial jobs had become disconnected from overall economic gains. In addition, there had been a surge in individuals earning from their capital investments.

'Massive break" in equality

She pointed to 2013 data from the federal statistics office, showing that more than half or nearly 52% of net assets in Germany were owned by just 10% of the population.

In a glaring contrast, half of Germany's population of 81 million owns only just over one percent of assets.

"That is a massive break in equal opportunity," said Spannagel, adding that an individual's chance of making it ahead had diminished and the risk of falling into poverty had grown.

In the 1980s, the risk of falling from the middle income milieu into poverty had been around 12%, she said. Since 2005, the risk had risen to 16%.
...

Go Home, Yankee

No one has designated US as the world's sheriff / policeman, but it insists to be one. Poverty & economic injustice is rife at home but apparently, over a $100 billion are used every year to keep 150,000 troops stationed abroad in 800 bases in 70 countries around the world. Can there be any other country which is a bigger occupier of foreign lands & become an occupier by force?

Most troops / soldiers in that 150,000 count just joined the military to travel, partying & be with foreign women & men (why would soldiers, stationed in Germany, be not happy with an anti-prostitution charge in the US Military Code of Conduct; after all, it's for protecting the women, which is supposed to be all about "feminism" & curbing sexual degradation of women). After all, what's the point of 38,000 troops in Germany for the past 70 years or so. These young men & women merely want to get out of their small towns, get a free education in the military (essentially, get brainwashed to kill the other guy because the other guy is always a "terrorist") & party. A few unfortunate end up fighting in volatile regions or drummed up wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.

Another point in the article which astonished me was that brothels were deliberately set up for American troops & remained legal in Okinawa, Japan until 1972, 14 years after they were banned in the rest of Japan. That's the value American military & soldiers, who are supposed to be carrying the flags of liberty, equality, feminism, democracy etc to other countries, place on women's dignity. As long as it's American, British, Canadian women, equal rights & justice become the word du jour. But as soon as its Japanese, Chinese, German, Russian, Iraqi, Egyptian, or woman of any other nation, all that talk of equal rights for women & their dignity merely become words without any substance or meaning.

As usual, the Americans are best in teaching the world one thing & one thing only; how to be the greatest manipulator, liar, & hypocrite in the world. Say one thing & do another !!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21704817-presence-american-troops-foreign-soil-growing-more-controversial-go-home

At the end of July the United States army announced plans to hand back 15 square miles (40 square km) of land on Okinawa to the Japanese government. This will be the biggest land return in the island, home to almost 30,000 American troops, since the United States’ formal occupation ended in 1972. The decision follows the rape & murder of a local woman & big anti-American protests in June.

Opposition to American bases has increased recently in Turkey, too. In the wake of July’s failed military coup, many Turks have accused American soldiers on the Incirlik air base of being among the plotters. Three days after the coup Yusuf Kaplan, a pro-government journalist, tweeted: “USA, You know you are the biggest terrorist! We Know All the Coups are your work! We are not stupid! #procoupUSAgohome.”

America has more overseas military bases than any other nation: nearly 800 spread through more than 70 countries. Of the roughly 150,000 troops stationed abroad, 49,000 are in Japan, 28,000 in South Korea & 38,000 in Germany; the total cost to the American government, with war zones excluded, is up to $100 billion a year. For much of the 20th century, overseas military facilities were justified as a bulwark against the Soviet threat; as that faded, other reasons to stay soon emerged. Since the 1990s, wars in the Middle East have meant that countries such as Bahrain & Turkey have gained strategic importance. (American strikes on Islamic State (IS) are launched from the Incirlik base.) More recently, China’s growing naval power has prompted America to reinforce its presence in the Pacific.

Home support for foreign bases peaked a year after the September 11th attacks, when 48% of Americans thought projecting military might was the best way to reduce the terrorist threat. Today, although about the same number still believe that, 47% think it creates hatred & leads to more terrorism. (The divide falls along partisan lines, with 70% of Republicans supporting military force, & 65% of Democrats opposing.) When it comes to overseas bases themselves, though, Americans, for the most part, are “completely unaware” of them, says David Vine, associate professor of anthropology at the American University & author of “Base Nation: How US Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World”. If they consider them at all, he says, “most people would think the US military is good so US bases, wherever they are, must be a good thing”. During the presidential primaries Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, questioned the need for, & the expense of, so many overseas bases. No other candidate did.

False assumptions about the costs of funding America’s overseas military presence could, in part, explain the public’s ambivalence. According to Mr Vine, even “so-called experts within the military” believe the bases do not cost America much because foreign governments foot a large part of the bill.
In reality, he explains (& according to an estimate by the RAND Corporation in 2013), keeping members of the armed forces overseas, rather than within the United States, costs between $10,000 & $40,000 extra for every man & woman involved.

Within the armed forces, an overseas posting is still seen by many as a perk of the job & one of the main reasons to sign up in the first place. “For maybe 75% of the people I talk to, travelling is the biggest thing that gets them,” says Staff Sergeant Marco Lopez, a recruiter based in Los Angeles. Another recruiter, Staff Sergeant Andrew Murray, based in Tennessee, explains that a lot of new recruits “are looking to get out of small-town Tennessee; when I tell them about my experience in Europe, they just light up.” Europe, particularly Germany, seems to be one of the most popular destinations for army recruits. The sergeants found Germans particularly friendly & welcoming; Europe’s rich history attracts some, while Sergeant Murray enjoyed being able to visit “a different city every weekend, partying and sightseeing”.

Before going overseas, American troops are given a detailed briefing on what to expect & how to behave. Sergeant Murray says he was warned that Germans are not good at queuing, & that it was a good idea “to tone down the patriotism”; Sergeant Lopez, when stationed in Seoul, was told to avoid areas known for prostitution. Not all those enlisted take the briefings on board, as the recent events in Okinawa have made clear. Uncle Sam’s pay-cheques feed the economies of areas with army bases, but mostly through the soldiers’ patronage of night clubs & bars—which can lead to trouble.

In the past 15-20 years the Pentagon has taken steps to improve relations between its overseas outposts & local communities. Most of these have involved trying to rein in wayward soldiers. In 2006 an anti-prostitution charge was added to the United States Military Code of Justice (to the outrage of some American troops stationed in Germany, where prostitution is legal). The Department of Defence also reported an increase in the number of sexual-assault cases taken to courts martial, from 42% in 2009 to 68% in 2012. But Japan remains an outlier: within navy & marine-corps units stationed there, only 24% of those charged with sexual offences were court-martialled in 2012, the latest date for which data are available.

The United States has 85 military facilities scattered across Japan—a legacy of American occupation after the second world war. Three-quarters of the territory occupied is on the string of islands making up Okinawa, along with more than half of the 49,000 military personnel. Okinawans resent the heavy burden they have shouldered, as well as the American presence itself—particularly the brothels. These were deliberately set up for United States troops & remained legal on the island until 1972, 14 years after they were banned in the rest of the country. The protests in June over the most recent rape victim were the latest in a long line of anti-American demonstrations. The largest came in 1995, when 85,000 Okinawans took to the streets following the gang-rape of a 12-year-old girl by three American soldiers.

In the past, the presence of American troops has also sparked more general protests. During the cold war West Germany played host to more American military facilities than any other country, up to 900 by some definitions, incorporating schools & hospitals as well as sports complexes & shopping centres. Local communities protested against the noise & disruption from constant military manoeuvres. Opposition reached its peak at the end of the 1980s, fuelled further by growing anti-nuclear sentiment. Leftist groups, the Red Army Faction & the Revolutionary Cells also launched violent attacks against American army headquarters & kidnapped military personnel, objecting to the mere physical presence of America in their country.

Miss you, miss you not

Almost 30 years later, the withdrawal of American troops from Germany is well under way: in 2010 the army announced it was handing over 23 sites to the German government. “We don’t miss them, but we weren’t wanting them to leave either,” says Hans Schnabel, a business-development manager in charge of converting old army bases in the Bavarian city of Schweinfurt, where up to 12,000 soldiers & their families were stationed before it closed in September 2014. After the cold war resentment in Germany towards the bases, & American forces in general, became more subdued; recent protests, such as one in June outside the Ramstein base against alleged support for drone operations, are fewer & quieter. At Schweinfurt, says Mr Schnabel, local people even think of the base with nostalgia: they are building an “American house” to remember those stationed there, & the streets around the new housing development (once the barracks) will be given names such as California Strasse and Ohio Strasse.

In contrast, America’s military presence in Turkey, as in Okinawa, is still a focus of thriving anti-Americanism today. The relationship began well enough: in 1946, when the USS Missouri sailed into Istanbul, the show of American might was warmly welcomed. It foreshadowed Turkey’s accession to NATO six years later & the stationing of American troops across the country. American enclaves in Ankara, & sailors’ weekend jollies in Izmir & Istanbul, contributed to a change in public opinion. By the end of the 1960s “Go home Yankee” signs greeted disembarking American sailors & soldiers. In the 1970s, as in Germany, leftist revolutionary groups resorted to increasingly extreme tactics in their attempts to “liberate” Turkey from American imperialism: the Turkish Revolutionary Army abducted 4 American airmen in March 1971 & 3 NATO engineers the next year.

Since then, America’s military presence in Turkey—though far less substantial than in Japan—has been seen by many as an unwanted encroachment on Turkey’s independence. In 2003 Turks protested against the war in Iraq & proposals for America to station military personnel at the Mersin naval base. When the USS Stout docked in Bodrum in 2011, members of the Turkish Communist Party stood on the shore chanting anti-American slogans. 3 years later, in two separate events, members of the Turkish Youth Union targeted American sailors & NATO soldiers in Istanbul, putting white sacks over their heads & throwing red paint over them. A similar incident occurred at Incirlik air base in April this year. Even a visit by President Barack Obama, during his trip to Turkey in 2009, drew crowds of angry protesters shouting “Yankee go home” & “Get out of our country.”

The latest attacks against America’s military presence in Turkey, however, mark a shift. Since the Syrian war broke out, the United States has increasingly used the Incirlik base to support the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), implying that it might also support an autonomous Kurdish state carved out of Turkey. America & its armed forces have long featured in conspiracy theories, too, particularly those involving Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic cleric living in self-imposed exile in the United States. The recent attempted coup against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is proof to many Turks of a Gulenist-American alliance, & of the subversive influence of American armed forces in the country. The closure of Incirlik air base for a short time immediately after the coup added fuel to the conspiracy theories. Mr Erdogan himself seems to be using America as a scapegoat, intentionally ramping up hostility towards the personnel stationed there.

The strategic importance of Incirlik for America’s campaign against IS means that keeping American combat boots on Turkish soil is more in America’s interests than Turkey’s. But given that anti-Americanism in Turkey is one of the few sentiments uniting an increasingly undemocratic & destabilised country, American troops will have to tread carefully: they are likely to become bigger, not smaller, targets as internal tensions mount.

In many other countries both sides, despite sporadic differences, have an equal interest in Americans staying. After the protests in 1995 in Okinawa, America & Japan agreed to close Futenma, the marine air base in the overcrowded city of Ginowan, & to build a new facility in Henoko, a fishing village. The plan failed to appease locals—who re-elected anti-base politicians such as Takeshi Onaga, Okinawa’s governor, in June’s local elections—but Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, is pressing ahead with it anyway.

He has particular reason to try to smooth tensions between the two sides. North Korea’s flaunting of its nuclear weapons & China’s aggression in the South China Sea mean his plans for strengthening Japan’s military defences must go ahead, & the United States’ armed forces are an essential part of this. Some 47% of Americans would agree with Mr Abe: they are in favour of extending America’s military presence in Asia to counter Chinese power. But 43% are opposed. America, despite what its enemies sometimes suppose, is never really thrilled to be the world’s policeman—especially if the world proves ungrateful.

The Roots of Nigeria's Chaos

A good interview to highlight couple of the points I've been blogging about since last year:

1. When "terrorists" attacked France last year, I blogged that nobody is looking at the real reasons behind the motivations of why these young people became or did what they did. Of course, what they did was wrong, but why did they do it. Just blaming Islam for its "hateful speech towards non-Muslims" is not sufficient enough reason.

The reason I said was these youths were venting their frustrations after watching & suffering injustices, mostly because of discrimination; racial, linguistic, religion, ethnicity etc. They were lashing out at an unjust & unfair society. Of course, their way of lashing out or venting their frustrations was wrong. In the same vein, the "terrorist" groups operating in several other 3rd-world countries are also lashing out after suffering injustices; perceived or otherwise. Be they "terrorist" groups be Boko Haram or ISIS or Al-Nusra or Al-Qaida etc.

As this Nigerian activist explains that there is a huge imbalance of wealth in Nigeria, in the North & the South, & I would add on to it that imbalance, & the perceived injustice growing out of it, drove many to join an amalgam of these groups that are collectively called, Boko Haram.

2. Then, the Nigerian activist goes on to explain how US foreign policy, multinational oil companies, IMF, & World Bank supported corruption in Nigeria or came up with monetary policies which, in effect, further exacerbated the wealth imbalance in the country, which, in turn, created the current conditions of lawlessness & "terrorism".

As I have also blogged previously that the governments of developed countries, through their foreign policies & support of their multinational companies, effectively plunder & rob the developing countries of their natural & intellectual resources, which, in turn, create a wave of cheap labour force for their own countries (immigration) & create more wealth for their own companies.

The Nigerian activist stated how Nigerian economy & politics are heavily dependent & thus "shaped by multinational corporations. ... We are running an economy that is based, basically, on oil rents, collection of royalties and rents from oil production by transnational oil corporations. They have overbearing influence on the political development of the country and on the economy. ... And so right now the oil companies operate above the law, because the government would not do anything ... whatsoever to offend them or to make them lose their profit. And so they break the law with absolute impunity."

He then goes on to explain how the overbearing & devastating influence of IMF & World Bank hobbled & effectively disabled the Nigerian economy & economic development. "... the influence of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank has also been very significant in dislocating the pattern of growth of the Nigerian economy and African economy generally that was visible between--in the early '70s through the early 1980s. And that, of course, happened through the introduction of structural adjustment programs that opened up the economy for dumping of products from the Global North, from North America, from Europe, from Japan, Australia, and then also killing local production, local industries, killing local agriculture, and, making these countries kind of dependent on ... foreign aid and stuff like that. So we've seen a situation where the negative influence of multinational corporation has played a very, very big role in keeping our nation from being on the right path of progress."

Ironically enough, we've seen the devastating impact of these structural adjustment programs within European Union, too, within the past 5 years or so. European Union was effectively made by richer countries of Europe (Germany & France) to basically push their products on to the poorer economies of Europe (Greece, Portugal etc.). So, while Germany enjoyed positive trade balances due to exports to these countries, it also effectively killed the industries of Greece (& negative trade balances due to heavy imports) & made it dependent on German imports. When economy tanked, there was nothing to support Greek economy & it nosedived disastrously.

So, yes, I concede that there are corrupt politicians in developing countries & there is widespread corruption. But, the corruption can be overtaken if developed countries of the Global North stop meddling in the internal affairs of those countries. Political & economic meddling hobbles & destroys any chances of progress developing countries have & effectively push them back further in the hole.

Since, the developing countries keep trying to climb out the hole but the walls are kept out of reach by developed countries, economic development & proper distribution of wealth never takes place. That, in effect, create the perfect conditions for wrong elements of the society to rile up the young population against their own & any foreign influences. Then, the Global North (or developed countries) label those people "terrorists" & try to root them out with any means necessary. That in turn create more chaos & destruction without actually solving the problem, since, the root of the problem was never looked upon, deliberately or otherwise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbhjyhIDgxw

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Nigeria is in a state of semi-chaos. And the question I have, and I think most people following this story have, is: how did Nigeria get to a point where such events can take place?

Now joining us to help give some historical context to all of this ... is Nnimmo Bassey. He's a Nigerian architect, environmentalist, an author, a poet. He chaired the Friends of the Earth International from 2008 through 2012. He was executive director of Environmental Rights Action for two decades. And he now is the director of the Mother Earth Foundation.

So can you just give us quickly what's happening now on the ground in Nigeria and a little bit about who the Boko Haram is and what they represent?

NNIMMO BASSEY, DIRECTOR, HEALTH OF MOTHER EARTH FOUNDATION: As you said, Nigeria is undergoing very difficult times at the moment. But these had been building up over time. Usually in the past we had incidents of clashes over religious differences between the Muslims and Christians in the northern part of the country, but these were on-and-off incidents. But what we're seeing now is a sustained aggression by a diversity of groups who are generally grouped under the label Boko Haram. Boko Haram does not appear to be one single organization that has a command structure as such, but an amalgam of groups who share perhaps a philosophy of just wreaking destruction in the nation.

Nigeria gained political independence in 1960, but the structure was not perfect. And just as the nation was getting its act together, 6 years into independence, the military struck. ... the year after the military struck, Nigeria faced a civil war ... from a number of reasons. And when the Civil War ended in 1970, Nigeria wealth from oil revenue, crude oil revenue. And then, at that time, the military head of state said Nigeria had the problem of how to spend money, not how to make money. So that kind of settled the philosophy.

JAY: Before you get into the oil politics, 'cause I know it's such a big story, from after independence, 1960s and so on, it's at the height of the Cold War, and much of African politics, as I understand it, was shaped by the Cold War. What was the role of US policy in the development of the military dictatorship in Nigeria?

BASSEY: ... we had military rule in Nigeria from 1966 ... and this went on for about 3 decades, with just a little space of time that they left in 1979 and came back in 1983.

And also in this time, the US has maybe made a few noises against military dictatorship more generally. I believe the US was not really obviously against the governments in power. And, of course, Nigeria was a very strong frontline state against apartheid in South Africa at a time when US was ambivalent, the US was ambivalent about what was going on in South Africa. So it wasn't really a very smooth relationship all through this time.

But the military were not politicians, generally. They were just young man who grabbed power for whatever purpose. And they had to run the country down to the ground. And so what we're seeing now manifesting in the country now is a result of several years of misrule, both by politicians and by the military, and right now have been in meetings where the past military rulers go to great pains to explain that they cannot be to blame, because they always work with politicians. And, of course, with the local politicians, they also work with politicians from the US, from Europe, and from elsewhere.

But we had a situation where wealth has been concentrated in a few hands across the nation. If you look at statistics, right now the ... GDP, gross domestic product, is said to be growing at a rate of more than 6% per year, and just a couple of weeks ago the government announced: by recalculating the gross domestic product, Nigeria is now the biggest economy in Africa, bigger than South African economy.

But at the same time, what is not being told to the world, what is not being announced clearly, is that poverty is increasing rapidly also. So you have a situation where 70% of the population live in poverty, and then wealth is concentrated in a few hands. And in the northern part of the country, this disparity is much more sharper because of years of negligence, especially in educational sector, because some people ... manipulate the poor and the marginalized, children, especially, and the youth, into not obtaining suitable education, but just being put in a state where they have to depend on the rich for daily handouts and occasional days of festivities. And so you find in the northern part of the country very deep and desperate poverty besides incredible wealth here of a few people. And so over the years, this has built up. This has resulted in discontent, especially amongst the poor, young people.

And the problem generally across the nation has been that over--the years of military rule has made even the civilian politicians behave sometimes like--as if they were military overlords. And elections have not been fair and free most of the time. And politicians were very, very readily amenable to using political talks, some of whom have been armed with weapons. And if you look at the crisis that occurred in the South in about--around 2005 in the Niger Delta, in the oil fields, where militancy heightened, you find that some of the young people who were involved in this militancy had worked as help to politicians through elections, but they would not receive what they were promised at the end of the day. And so the politicians used to use and then dump them.

And a similar thing also occurred in the northern part of the country, but we are not in a position to say exactly how what has become the Boko Haram phenomenon grew, from what was the root. What is known is that the amalgam of groups generally operating under this name or under this nomenclature believe that anything Western must be rejected, especially Western education. And so they will fund a lot of attacks on schools, on public institutions, and then on the military, on whatever they feel would hurt the government.

But what has become very reprehensible is that over the past few months, these insurgents (as they're labeled these days) have concentrated on killing defenseless children, some in their sleep in their hostels, in secondary school hostels. They've recently ... abducted over 200 girls from a hostel in a school at Chibok in northeastern Nigeria. In Abuja about two weeks ago they set off explosions in a very densely packed motor park, a public transportation hall on the outskirts of Abuja, killing innocent workers and children who were either on their way to school or to their offices.

JAY: How much has the interests of big Western oil companies shaped the politics of Nigeria? I mean, you're talking about a handful of very, very wealthy, and in the north tremendous poverty, where all these events are taking place. But in terms of over the last decades, how much has Nigerian politics been shaped either by, you know, Western/American oil companies, and even directly with US CIA and such involvement?

BASSEY: Well, let me speak about how the Nigerian economy and politics have been shaped by multinational corporations. They've been very key in shaping the way politics has developed in the country and how the economy has grown. We are running an economy that is based, basically, on oil rents, collection of royalties and rents from oil production by transnational oil corporations. They have overbearing influence on the political development of the country and on the economy. In fact, the national budget of Nigeria has always been about ... what should be the benchmark of the price of crude oil. And so crude oil has been a determinant factor right from the early 1970s, when oil revenue became the major source of foreign exchange for the country. And so right now the oil companies operate above the law, because the government would not do anything ... whatsoever to offend them or to make them lose their profit. And so they break the law with absolute impunity.
...

Now, because of the heavy dependence on oil revenue, as I said, these corporations have very heavy influence on politics. And rich people in the country are rich because they have a slice of oil revenue, not because they engaged in anything productive. And so we run a kind of voodoo economy, something that is more or less maybe beginning to change now because there are other sectors of the economy that are contributing to progress, and that is getting a bit more productive than before.

But as I say this, the influence of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank has also been very significant in dislocating the pattern of growth of the Nigerian economy and African economy generally that was visible between--in the early '70s through the early 1980s. And that, of course, happened through the introduction of structural adjustment programs that opened up the economy for dumping of products from the Global North, from North America, from Europe, from Japan, Australia, and then also killing local production, local industries, killing local agriculture, and, making these countries kind of dependent on ... foreign aid and stuff like that. So we've seen a situation where the negative influence of multinational corporation has played a very, very big role in keeping our nation from being on the right path of progress.

Ivy League Study: The General Public Has Virtually No Influence on Policy

This news bite isn't so surprising or at least should not be surprising, if you don't live under a rock & actually think a little bit how the world actually works in real life.

As I have blogged several times in the past & as this news bite confirms it that democracy doesn't exist anywhere in the world, except, maybe, in very small countries with quite a bit of homogenous population in terms of race, ethnicity, & religious beliefs.

So, as this study concludes that public policy is heavily, or rather, completely, influenced by wealthy elites & the special interest / lobbying groups. The common man, or a woman, doesn't have any power in influencing public policies, even the ones directly & adversely affecting him / her.

Now, I know that correlation doesn't imply causation but you do have to wonder how come most, if not all, policies coming out of the government end up favouring the wealthy much more than the poor public. Be it the taxation debate or jobs discussion, or the minimum wage or homelessness, or any number of social & public problems, the rich & wealthy always win out, while the poor left holding the empty bag.

Democracy in the world, especially in the West, only exists superficially. The mass public thinks that since they are voting, their voice matters. Nope it doesn't. Take Canada, for instance. Majority of public is against Syrian refugees making Canada their new home or Canada supplying $15 billions of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. But did the government listen to the public to actually not welcome Syrian refugees, especially when government is cutting funding to help reduce urban homelessness or rising unemployment through financial injections in the economy. Please keep in mind here that we are not discussing the morality of these issues. That's a whole different discussion in itself.

We can also take US public opinion when George Bush's approval ratings before winning his second term was the lowest of any American president before him but he still won a second term. Or how a majority of German public is against Merkel's insistence on keep welcoming more & more refugees & migrants? Once again, not discussing morality of such issues as refugee crisis. Or Japan where a majority of public was against Abe's decision to turn the country towards more militarism than pacifism. Or is it really democratic of all those dozens of nations involved in TTP (TransPacific Trade Partnership) without any input, whatsoever, from the general public, who will be taking the brunt of all the adverse effects of this trade partnership, while the rich elites make a fine buck out of this trade partnership?

Remember, democracy is not about voting in general elections, but actually about having an actual influence in how the country is run.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5So9ZFO5DeY

ANTON WORONCZUK, TRNN PRODUCER: A new study titled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, & Average Citizens (PDF) says what we've all long felt to be true: the rich & powerful have much greater influence than the rest of us. Political scientist Martin Gilens of Princeton University & Benjamin Page of Northwestern looked at about 1,800 survey questions of public opinion between 1981 & 2002, & they concluded "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

So, Benjamin, tell us how you came to this conclusion. Tell us about the data that you looked at. And give us some concrete statistics to show that democracy gap between the public & the economic elites.

BENJAMIN PAGE, FULCHER PROF. OF DECISION MAKING, NORTHWESTERN UNIV.: Well, Marty Gilens & his people worked for about 10 years to do this. It's a very difficult study. ... . It involved gathering a lot of information about public opinion, about what affluent people think, & about what interest groups stand for. And we then looked at how public policy came out on these 1,800 cases. And it turns out, if you wanted to predict it, the average citizen simply appeared to have no influence whatsoever, no measurable influence, but organized groups had quite a bit, & affluent citizens even more.

WORONCZUK: So you looked at about two decades' worth of surveys of public opinion. Do you see a change in influence of economic elites over that time? Or is it relatively constant? And also, do you see a change in the kinds of elites that have influence over policy?

PAGE: Well, there appears to be some change over time. As economic inequality has increased & there's more money among the most wealthy people, they seem to use more of it for politics & have more influence. And, of course, the study data ended some time ago. This was before the Supreme Court decisions that increased the power of money still far further.

WORONCZUK: And so what kind of issues do we see the wealthy having a greater influence over? What kind of policy choices do they seek that differs from that of the desires of the public?

PAGE: Well, there are certain kinds of issues on which wealthy Americans tend to disagree quite a bit with the average. One of the biggest is Social Security, where the average American really likes the program, wants to increase it, & wealthy Americans tend to want to cut it to reduce budget deficits. Then there are a lot of policies that have to do with jobs & incomes where you get the same kind of situation--the wealthy people, of course, don't particularly get anything from those, & I think they may underappreciate their importance to average people. There are also disagreements about economic regulation. The average American's much more keen on regulating big corporations, for example. And there are difference about tax policy. The average American would like to close loopholes & have high-income people pay a substantially larger share, whereas upper income people are less enthusiastic about that.

WORONCZUK: Do you see any policy desires of the public or the economic elite that tend to converge?

PAGE: Yes. There are many of them, and particularly in this study. ... in many cases, the average person agrees & they get what they want, but apparently it's only because the affluent want it.

What we suspect but don't really have evidence for is that much wealthier people may be exerting most of that political influence. And they tend to have much more different policy preferences from the average person.

WORONCZUK: Okay. So judging this democracy gap that exists between the public & the economic elite, let's say that Obama called you tomorrow & put you on economic reform task force. What recommendations would you make to him?

PAGE: ... what I would suggest is that we really work hard to reduce the role of money in politics. The Supreme Court's made it a little harder, but there's still things you can do--full disclosure of all kinds of political donations, for example; limiting lobbying; & probably public financing of campaigns. Most people don't want to give a bunch of tax money to politicians, but the alternative is to have them rely on private money, & public funding would probably help quite a bit reduce that reliance.

Ex-CIA executive director admits waterboarding is ‘torture’

Since, there's so much written about torture / "enhanced interrogation" techniques at Guantanamo Bay, there's nothing much left to comment on it. However, I would like to point out one thing this article mentions about these "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

As the article mentions that some of these torture techniques have been borrowed from the "torture book" of Nazi Germany.

So, it's all good & ok to vilify Nazis and describe Adolf Hitler as the most despicable human who ever lived, but it's all good and ok to copy the torture tactics from Nazis & apply them extensively on people who are still waiting for the lawful punishments for their alleged crimes.

Think of it like this; you hate that coworker at your workplace who bullies everyone & everyone is afraid of him/her. Would you, a nice person, copy & act like that bully & still think that you are not only a nice person, but people are respecting you because you are still being a considered a nice person by others?

Or what if your husband or boyfriend start copying tactics & methods of a rapist? Would you still think that he is a nice person with whom you are or willing to have a family?

Furthermore, perhaps, Nazis were using these "enhanced interrogation" techniques to extract info from Jews. They wanted to eliminate all Jews from lands they had occupied. Perhaps, they labelled "Jews" as "terrorists" & considered themselves & their nations / occupied lands to be threatened by Jews, & hence, wanted to extract info from captured Jews in any way they can, so they can exterminate all of them. Now, what if, we replace "Nazis" with "American military" & "Jews" with "Muslims". Lo and behold, we got Gitmo !!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.rt.com/usa/311532-cia-torture-gitmo-interrogation/

The most senior CIA officer on record yet has said he’s “comfortable with saying” that waterboarding & related interrogation methods were “torture.” He was commenting on the post-9/11 “enhanced interrogation” tactics used by the Bush Administration.

The remarks by former executive director of the CIA, Alvin ‘Buzzy’ Krongard (2001-2004), were made to BBC’s Panorama. The third most senior former official at the agency was asked if he thought waterboarding & related tools amounted to torture.

“Well, let's put it this way, it is meant to make him (the suspect) as uncomfortable as possible. So I assume, without getting into semantics, that's torture. I'm comfortable with saying that."

The torture debate has never let up. President Barack Obama famously put an end to torture in 2009, but failed to prosecute senior Bush-era officials for running such programs.

In the past, the position of all Bush-era officials was overwhelmingly that the euphemistically-called “enhanced interrogation” is not torture, as it was approved by the White House at the time. Those techniques included, aside from waterboarding, sleep deprivation, forcing detainees into uncomfortable physical positions, slamming them into flexible walls, as well as cramming them into small spaces, beating them physically & subjecting them to ice-cold baths.

Guantanamo Bay, which Obama has several times promised to shut down, is still operating. Panorama writes how one detainee, Abu Zubayadh, accused of being a key Al-Qaeda recruiter, has been in detention there since 2002. During these 14 years, he has regularly been stuffed into a box barely larger than a square meter, sometimes for 29 hours at a time. The person is forced to sit in a crouched position, with no room to breathe or do anything else.

Another, upright, coffin-shaped box was also used. Abu spent more than 11 days confined in that.

All the methods were taken from the CIA’s SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance & Escape) handbook on resisting interrogation. Some of the torture methods date back to Nazi Germany.

SERE military instructor Malcolm Nance talked to Panorama, explaining how “these close confinement boxes were used by the SS… They would stuff these British and American agents into them and drive them mad.”

The practice was banned by the Geneva Conventions, but this ban didn’t prevent its use on Guantanamo Bay inmates.

A host of other methods thought to have been banned were uncovered in last December’s Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, which dealt with the interrogation of terror suspects in secret CIA prison facilities.

According to Krongard, any intelligence extracted that the Brits found interesting & “particularly represented a threat” was shared with them by the Americans. "I can't think of two intelligence services working in a more harmonious or closer [way] and that I think, had a lot to do with the relationship at the top," he added.

When asked if he thought the British knew or approved of the interrogation methods, Krongard said: “It’s hard for me to think that they didn’t, they’re professional intelligence people, I mean obviously.”

However, when the BBC approached the Foreign Office to ask whether accepting information gathered through torture was fine, it received an adamant reply: “We do not condone it, nor do we ask others to do it on our behalf."

The results of the Senate Intelligence Committee probe were published last December. Though much of the report was redacted, it contained shocking findings about what was euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including the admission that they were ultimately ineffective.

"Muslim Culture" by Ramzy Taweel

 "Muslim Culture" - Ramzy Taweel, Beirut, Lebanon

Will Germans embrace or shun refugees?

I see quite a few people are enthusiastically sharing videos & news of Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau, welcoming Syrian refugees in Canada. They are all saying that this is what humanity is all about, & Syria's neighbouring Arab countries should learn a thing or two from Canada (please keep in mind that Syria's neighbouring Arab countries have taken in millions of refugees, while Canada is only taking in 25,000, even though, Lebanon is not militarily involved in Syria but Canada is).

If I recall correctly, social media was abuzz with similar praises, & rebukes for Arab countries, a few months ago, when Europe, & especially Germany, was welcoming refugees.

As this article shows, the world is full of either stupid people or extremely naive people. Europeans & German public was never, & still is, not so enthusiastically welcoming refugees as the media portrayed.

As the Toronto Star article from November 20th shows, a majority of general Canadian public also is not in favour of Canada welcoming refugees. Even though, Canada is only accepting 25,000 Syrian refugees who will be spread around all over the country, so their effect will be minimal on Canadian labour market, if any. Ironically enough, Canada got this idea of welcoming refugees from Germany, & Germany now has instituted border controls & German public has started to dislike Merkel ("Merkel's approval rating slipped to 54% in December - down from 71% in January.") We do have to keep in mind that Germany is smaller in land mass than Canada but then Germany has a better economy than Canada, which is suffering from a recession, which is also predicted to last long.

However, just like Germans, Canadians are torn apart between wanting to help people in their time of need, but then also looking at their own dire future. As the article states that policy makers in Germany are discussing lowering the minimum wages so employers can hire them (of course, low minimum wages will affect all & not only refugees). Although, German government is providing funds for German language classes for refugees, the funds are only available for basic classes. Of course, one cannot perform better in his/her job, if they are not fluent in the language of their adopted country. At the same time, the refugees in Germany are educated & coming with a dream to have similar jobs in Germany as they had back in their homeland, but they won't get those jobs. Germany needs, & welcoming, these refugees to get the jobs that German public doesn't want; the proverbial "low paid & dirty" work.

Canada is welcoming refugees who are family members, & no single men. Family / married men are usually educated & since they need to earn enough money to support their families, they will be looking for similar jobs they had back in their homeland. Problem is that Canada cannot provide those kinds of jobs, since its economy is in shambles, & even Canadian educated grads are having an extremely hard time in securing those kinds of proverbially "high paid & good" jobs. So, in a few months, these refugees will be forgotten, since the media will move on to the next sensational story, & the refugees will be left to fend for themselves in the labour market.

One more point comes out of this article is what is democracy, then? As I blogged earlier, the general public loves "democracy" as long as the government's decisions benefits it. Do you think that is it democratic that the majority of Canadians dislike Trudeau's plan of welcoming & settling refugees but he went ahead with it, anyway? Do you think that is it democratic that Merkel's welcoming refugees doesn't coincide with what the German public really wants? Do you think is it democratic that US, & Republican party's leadership front runner, Donald Trump, is being embraced by millions of Americans, even after his extremely xenophobic comments against refugees & Muslims?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35062438

In a crowded market square in Gera, poets & performers take to the stage. Above them is a banner that has become a familiar sight at train stations across Germany. "Refugees Welcome," it reads in big letters.

Die Linke, a left-wing German political party, has set up a stall to welcome the newcomers, alongside a local charity.
...

Nearby, supporters of AfD - Alternative for Germany - a right-wing group which is cynical about the entry of so many refugees, have gathered.

It's Saturday afternoon in late October & Dirk Heinze has come with his wife Daniella Bruhnke & their 3 children, Sophia, six, Turina, two, & 10-month-old Pierre to hear what both groups have to say.

Dirk, 40, works in care for the elderly & has lived his whole life in Gera. I'm following them as well as some of the refugees to see how they & the city adapt to the changes brought about by the influx of asylum seekers.

Gera was once part of the former German Democratic Republic. It is small, with a population of 95,000, &, until recently, only had 2,000 foreign residents.

Dirk views the groups with scepticism, saying that they are both trying to capitalise on the refugee crisis.

Dirk & Daniella explain that they are frustrated at being excluded from decisions that have affected their town. Many residents feel the same, according to Daniella, because the decision to admit so many refugees was made by politicians, without consultation.

The couple haven't been involved in any protests, although they understand why others have. "So many other people are coming. They [the protesters] fear for their jobs. They fear, well, yes for their lives," says Daniella.

In August Angela Merkel said all Syrians could apply for asylum, & wouldn't be sent back to the first safe country they landed in. Germany was already taking a substantial number of refugees.

This week it was reported that the influx of asylum-seekers in Germany has reached the one million mark - four times the total for 2014. About a half of the new refugees are from Syria.

Refugees are being bussed across the country. ...

Gera is receiving fewer refugees than other cities. Many of them are currently living in the former hospital, converted in mid-October into a refugee centre for up to 2,000 new arrivals.

Someone tried to flood the centre before it opened, so security is very tight. There was also an attack on a refugee by two German men with five dogs in tow. Injuries were minor but news quickly spread around the centre that it may not be safe to go out at night.

The recent influx has caused a mini-political earthquake in Germany. Merkel's approval rating slipped to 54% in December - down from 71% in January.

There have been high-profile & large Pegida (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West) demonstrations against the arrival of Muslim refugees. These have mostly been held in Dresden - about an hour from Gera.

In Gera itself there have been smaller protests known as "Thugida" demonstrations (the name combines Pegida with Thuringia, which is the state in which Gera sits).

It's far from one-sided, though. Germans have been filling train stations to welcome refugees - handing out sweets to children & clothes to their parents.

Dirk & Daniella's concerns are always couched with sympathy for those truly in need. "Regardless of which country they come, what religion they are - if someone needs help, they have to receive help," says Daniella.

But she maintains that people shouldn't be allowed to come "just because they want a better life, and because it is better here in Germany".

Dirk is sceptical of Merkel's "Wir schaffen das" ["We will make it"] pronouncements. ...
...

The recent attacks in Paris are on everyone's mind - particularly since at least two of the attackers entered Europe posing as refugees. New arrivals in Germany tell me they worry that Germans will come to fear all refugees & that everyone will end up too scared even to communicate, resulting in a segregated city.

"I do believe that the opinion of many people has now changed, because many are afraid now that terrorists will mix themselves among the refugees," says Daniella. "Who knows who is a terrorist and who is a refugee? They don't have it written on their forehead."

They tell me of other concerns, too. There has been debate for months about lowering the minimum wage in Germany for refugees. It is a controversial idea that, as Dirk puts it, "will keep the big bosses happy", but he fears may lower wages for Germans.

Jobs are on everyone's minds here. I spend some time at a German language school. Classes are growing every day because of the arrival of refugees. I meet a language teacher who, though enthusiastic about the potential of the refugees, is not hopeful about their chances.

Sandy Mazur tells me that German is being taught, funded by the government, to a basic level - but after that the money stops.

"These refugees who come from Syria are very ambitious," she says. "They want work - and here in Germany we have so many free work places because we don't have so many young people."

But she says the German provided is not enough to get a job, & certainly not a job in anywhere near in the same professions the refugees worked in back home. Some are teachers, IT professionals & engineers.

As I leave in early December refugees are more visible on the streets of Gera.

Residents are undoubtedly nervous, but many of their foreign neighbours hope they can bring new life to this quiet city.

"Biggest Arms Exporters" by Rainer Hachfeld

"Biggest Arms Exporters" - Rainer Hachfeld, Neues Deutschland, Berlin, Germany

"The Butler" quote

IMDB          RottenTomatoes          Wikipedia

My rant on Refugee crisis (second one)

Few points were mulling around in my head after continuously reading comments & social media posts that Muslims & Arab countries are not doing enough to ease the refugee crisis from Iraq & Syria:

1. Muslim countries have taken millions of refugees:
Although, Muslim countries can certainly do more, they are/have done a lot already. Syrians are taking refuge in Turkey (1.9 million refugees), Jordan (650K), & Lebanon (1.3 million) for the past 3 years. That totals up to 4 Million refugees in 3 Muslim countries alone. Source: UNHCR

From a Sept 4th article on Bloomberg, "Nabil Othman, acting regional representative to the Gulf region at the United Nations' refugee agency, UNHCR, told Bloomberg there were 500,000 Syrians in that country [Saudi Arabia]. Saudi Arabia, like all of the Gulf states, is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention, so these displaced people are not officially designated as refugees." Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait & UAE have not taken refugees themselves, but UAE, Kuwait & Qatar, for example, are providing financial help to refugees through UNHCR. These countries have donated millions of $$$. These countries are smaller in size & cannot cope with a large influx of refugees. Those refugees will overwhelm their local economies & labour markets.

2. Quite a few of the refugees entering in Europe are actually just getting there to search for a better economic life. They are taking this issue as a perfect opportunity to enter Western developed countries without all the hassles of immigration process. They are not running away from Syria to save their lives. For example, the instigator of this issue, Abdullah Kurdi's family (Aylan Kurdi's family), was already safe in Turkey since 2012.

After all, why are Afghanis & even Pakistanis & Bangladeshis are in these refugee crowds who are trying to enter into Europe. Afghanis have claimed asylum in Pakistan & in Iran for decades, now. It's easier for Afghanis to enter into Pakistan & Iran as refugees than go all the way to Europe. Same question can be asked for Pakistani & Bangladeshi "refugees". These are not refugees. They are "economic opportunists." That's why, European government leaders are now trying to distinguish between the words, "migrants" & "refugees". Angela Merkel even said that all those "refugees" from Balkans will be sent back (which emphasizes my point that people into Germany & Austria are not all "refugees"). David Cameron emphasized that UK will only take "refugees," & not migrants looking for a better life.

3. Pope's call is similar to all those Christian missionary teams which used to go to Africa, South America, South East Asia. It was famous that these missionaries were brutal in their faith conversion tactics; accept Christianity & we will give you food & shelter or don't accept Christianity & you won't get anything. Of course, Pope's call is not that radical, but there are already stories coming out that some Iranians & Afghanis are converting to Christianity. (Source: Daily Mail) Their thinking is that as Christians, they can easily claim asylum in Europe by claiming that they fear persecution in Middle East.

4. Germany is taking almost 800K refugees because it has a hidden agenda: Germany is running a huge shortfall of labourers & it needs low-tech workers for its workforce. Every refugee wants to eventually work, & unlike, Arab countries, where the majority of population is young & educated, European countries are aging & need younger workforce. Although, Jordan, Lebanon, & Turkey are housing these refugees, these refugees are not allowed to work there. Most of the Western countries, depending on their own labour markets & economies, will either permanently resettle some refugees or send these refugees back to their countries of origins after a certain amount of time has passed.

My rant on Refugee crisis (first one)

Public, nowadays, has ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder).

This week's topic is Refugee crisis. Everyone is talking about it. Everyone is feeling "so sad." Why?

Where was this sadness when Israel killed children in Gaza last year?
 
Where was this sadness a few months back when Rohingya Muslims were dying in boats near the East Asian countries' seashores? (btw, is that issue resolved ... does anyone care anymore?)

Where was this sadness when US & its allies were bombing "children" in Iraq?

Where was this sadness when Afghanistan was getting bombed by NATO forces (which include all these Western countries) & small children were being killed there?

Why is Canada selling 15-billion Cdn $$$ of armoured trucks to Saudi Arabia, which will most likely be used against innocent Yemenis & its own public, esp. when Canada is supposed to be such a "kind" & "compassionate" country?

Weren't UK, France, Italy, & American forces were bombing indiscriminately Libyans a couple years back? Do you really think no kids must've died in those bombings?

(FYI, these refugees are not only from Syria, but from several war-torn countries; Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, & even Palestine).

Half of Toronto-area workers have fallen into 'precarious employment'

Although, this is a good informative piece & confirms my thinking that job situation in Canada keeps going downhill, I still come across people who work in career offices (employment agencies, government human resources centers, & university career offices) who think completely different, i.e. that there's nothing wrong with labour market of Canada & everything is on the up.

Those people have usually one suggestion: networking. Do networking.

I'm dumbfounded with that suggestion because I understand that networking is very important to have access to that hidden job market but then are all these millions of job seekers in Toronto & all over Canada are socially inept people that they aren't / can't network?

I can accept that perhaps, I am not the greatest person to make friends with people & network easily. But I can't accept that all these millions of people are similar to me on the social gauge. So, if they are not like me & most of them must be much more social than me, then why are they having problems landing a secure, permanent, good-paying job?

Part of my answer goes back to my previous blog post (of Robocops coming to Dubai by 2017) that with the help of automation & robotics, the bar of secure & permanent jobs in every category & profession is constantly rising. Although, the piece says that trends of changes in labour market cannot be predicted & can come suddenly, I say that they are actually predictable & can be seen from miles afar. For instance, hotel staff jobs will be going away within the next 10-20 years, thanks to the introduction of robot staff at Henn na hotel in Japan. Or the jobs of taxi drivers, truck drivers & chauffeurs are already in jeopardy, thanks to self-driving trucks, cars, & even Uber.

Although, the piece talks about politicians & institution leaders getting their heads together & make better policies in the areas of labour relations, employment, pay structures etc., I'd say that that's a useless suggestion.

We know politicians are controlled by rich business elites. Rich business elites didn't become rich by giving away money to poor through better pay structure, providing training & development, & hiring humans, instead of not automating their jobs. A business person will always look for efficiency & cost-cutting measures, & automating a job achieves both objectives.

Networking is useless if there are no influential people in your network to pull you in the upper echelons of a business or an organization. Because if you are a young individual & not at the top of the organization, & if there's no scope of you climbing higher quickly, even if you starts at the bottom of the organizational hierarchy, then your permanent job is already at jeopardy. You may get hired on contract or temporary basis later on in life, but not permanent. At that point in your life, you won't have time to go back to school to re-educate yourself & re-orient your ship of life.

Is this labour market situation unique to Canada where more & more people are falling into precarious employment? Sort of. Because, Canadian industries are mostly focused on fossil fuels & minerals extractions. Governments cannot do much since companies do come in Canada with the help of tax subsidies but then as soon as they realize their tax advantages, they go back to a low-cost area. Governments cannot intervene heavily since that would amount to dictatorship & governments' undue influences. That would go against the free market mantra of the West.

This labour market situation of more people falling into precarious employment is same in US & Europe. Germany & France engineered the European Union to increase their own employment & labour market situation. But, it was at the detriment of other countries which could not export & had to import German & French products, which in the end, put a huge dent in their labour markets. After all, somebody's GDP must decrease so someone else's increases.

Root of the problem of these labour market problems is that Western governments always acted reactionary, instead of proactively, to where the world was moving. North American countries didn't market technical professions (those jobs are plentiful now with good salary prospects, but not enough job seekers) or they pushed for dismemberment of unions, even though, they are the ones to push for higher wages. North American countries didn't, & still aren't, pushing for green technologies, which can help hire more people in secure, permanent jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/columnists/half-of-toronto-area-workers-have-fallen-into-precarious-employment-study/article9003680/

In just a few short decades Canada’s labour market has changed dramatically. The widely held belief that employment leads to economic security & social well-being has become out-of-step with an increasing number of people in today’s work force.

Research ... by McMaster University & United Way Toronto provides new insights into just how much the labour market in Southern Ontario has changed. Barely half of people working in the Greater Toronto & Hamilton areas have permanent, full-time jobs that provide benefits & stability. Everyone else is working in situations that are part-time, vulnerable or insecure in some way. This includes a growing number of temporary, contract & on-call positions. Jobs without benefits. Jobs with uncertain futures. This significant rise in precarious employment is a serious threat – not only to the collective prosperity of the region, but also to the social fabric of communities.

Beneath this finding is another surprise: precarious employment is hurting everyone. It’s found across all demographic groups, in every sector & across income levels that were previously immune. Having a middle-class income can now come with increased employment insecurity.

It is now common for many workers to piece together year-round, full-time hours by working multiple jobs. In addition, working conditions are more uncertain, as existing labour laws have not kept up with changing realities. Union membership is on the decline. Doors to opportunity are limited as opportunities for job training & development decline.

While we know that being precariously employed is worst when you’re living in low income, our research confirms this increasingly is an issue that affects people at every income level. Moreover, uncertainty about work is a major barrier for anyone planning for the future. People find it more difficult to chart a clear & stable path in their careers & are consequently delaying significant life plans, such as whether to start a family, because they feel insecure about their futures. Among parents, making plans, scheduling activities & spending time together as a family becomes much more difficult. The stress & pressure of being precariously employed is also more likely to lead to feelings of self doubt & anxiety.

Just as important, our study also found that job insecurity is about more than just poverty. Its impacts are far-reaching, affecting all parts of our lives, redefining how we contribute to our economy, give back to our community & interact with our families. Precarious work can make it more difficult to make ongoing volunteer commitments & donate to charities. Across all income levels, insecurity makes it less likely that people will have vital social networks, such as friends to talk to.

Trends that have caused nearly half of our work force to engage in insecure employment show no signs of slowing down. Among study respondents, even those who describe their current employment as permanent are aware that change can come suddenly & unexpectedly.

The question now is: How should we respond to this shifting climate? While the global nature of our economy can sometimes make it feel like change is beyond our control, policy paralysis is not an option. We have a variety of tools within our reach to effectively limit the spread of insecure employment & mitigate its negative effects.

The way forward is to confront these trends, assess how current labour market regulations & income security policies are supporting people in precarious employment, & explore options for making them more responsive. It’s time for a conversation that brings together the private sector, labour organizations, community groups & all levels of government in a discussion about how together we can mitigate the negative effects of precarious employment.

Raising incomes is an obvious & critical area of focus, but it is not enough. The reality that workers in precarious employment tend to exit & re-enter the labour market much more often than those in permanent employment requires a renewed look at basic employment standards & protections as well as revamped income security programs.

More attention also needs to be given to how we can best support human capital development so that our work force remains innovative & competitive. Training & education models with a life-long learning focus can help workers build the skills to continuously improve their employment prospects.

Family supports, such as early learning & child care, accessible recreation & settlement programs, & affordable housing are also keys to maintaining healthy households & building a stronger sense of community.

What we need today is a renewed public policy framework that will be supportive of those in precarious employment & responsive to the challenges associated with this shifting labour market. Given this reality, it’s crucial that we all work together, governments, employers, labour & other stakeholders, to identify common ground & advance a shared agenda for real & sustainable progress.


Susan McIsaac is president & CEO of United Way Toronto, Charlotte Yates, is dean at the faculty of social sciences at McMaster University.