From football to property and beyond, inequality is the mother of all crises

Inequality does indeed affect us all, both physically & mentally. It's foolish to say that the poor people are happier than wealthy people. No, poor people are not happy because they have to work that much more to earn just enough to fill theirs & their children's stomachs. Then, there are education costs, housing costs, utilities, healthcare costs, & now, even the clean, drinking water costs money. Add the social exclusivity of poor people & their families due to their poverty & the life of the poor person is just hellish.

To develop & provide sustainable resources to everyone equally, the wealthy & the poor, every country needs to invest in its infrastructure & economic policies. Although, the writer of this opinion post takes a simplistic view that if Netherlands can increase taxes, & also spread its tax net, to help out the vulnerable sections of its own populations, then everyone else can, it is pretty much impossible to do that without proper practice of faith & religion.

How will religion help in alleviating poverty & instituting equality among the populace? Netherlands is a small Scandinavian country with a much smaller population than many developing countries, like Pakistan, India, Brazil, Argentina, Nigeria, Kenya, Thailand etc. It is also a pretty much a homogeneous population, very much unlike many other developing countries around the world. Still, it's impossible to eradicate inequality because the rich control the political policy-making machine.

This eradication, or at least, alleviation of inequality, can only happen through ethical people in governments & policy-making area. Increasing taxes or spreading the tax net far & wide may help in increasing the government coffers but won't help much if that money is once again ends up in the pockets of rich executives & wealthy citizens of the country, or politicians loot that money. So, how does the general public ensure that government is full of good, ethical people? And even after identifying such honest people, can the general public act rationally enough to bring them to power & stick by them, while, they increase taxes on rich people, & use those taxes to upgrade the horrible situation the general public is living in? Remember, all this will take time, whereas, the general public will want to see substantial major changes as soon as possible.

Only ethics can help there, & ethics comes through religion. Ethical & religious people will need to become leaders & consider government coffers public money & hence, need to be spent on them.

Besides ethics & religion, huge changes in electoral policies need to be implemented. These kind of substantial changes to alleviate poverty & inequality need a good & long time frame, like a decade or more, easily. But, in most democracies, even when they are stable, a government & leader has about a few years, anywhere from 8 to 10 years to finish his / her work. Of course, that has to be done, if & when, opposition parties are silent & happy with what the government is doing (then, what's the point of the opposition party?). But, these fundamental economic & social changes can easily take couple of decades to meaningfully show any changes in the system.

So, inequality indeed adversely affects a major portion of the general populace, but alleviating or eradicating inequality requires a lot more work than simply changing the tax system (even that is huge work in itself).

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

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/feb/08/football-property-prices-beyond-inequality-mother-of-all-crises-tax-lilianne-ploumen

Inequality affects all of us. I live in Amsterdam, where house prices are now rising so sharply that ordinary, hard-working people don’t get a look-in. In London, it’s been like that for years. Whole neighbourhoods are unaffordable. Century-old football clubs have become the playthings of billionaires.

And the trend continues. More and more of the world’s wealth is in the hands of fewer and fewer people. I believe that tolerating this growing inequality will go down in history as humanity’s biggest mistake since communism.

People are essentially social animals. They can inspire each other, but they can also frustrate and discourage each other. And that’s what gross inequality does. It unravels the very fabric of our societies. It robs people of decent jobs and decent pay. And it robs them of their sense of purpose and self-worth.

In developing countries, the gap between rich and poor is far bigger. And it isn’t merely a technical issue, it is the result of political choices. Inequality is truly the mother of all crises. Whether it is conflict, climate change, economic stagnation or migration flows, inequality is always a major underlying cause.

Last autumn, the UN adopted new global goals. One of the main targets is to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030. To achieve that, economic growth must stay at the level it had for the past 10 years and its benefits must be far bigger than average for the poorest 40%.

The challenge we face is summed up in the slogan: “Leave no one behind”. The smartest policy here is to invest in the poorest of the poor. If we don’t, there is no way we will defeat extreme poverty by 2030. Which means we won’t generate the economic growth needed to achieve the other global goals. And we won’t reach our climate goals either.

“Leave no one behind” is also a moral imperative. In the past 25 years, globalisation has helped the world make spectacular progress on poverty. But at the same time we’ve allowed large groups to lag behind, and an even larger group to fall by the wayside completely. One of the main causes is exclusion. Whether it is on the basis of gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation, entire groups are being left out.

The mantra that no one should be left behind offers hope of a much-needed correction. It means managing globalisation properly. It means ending the unbridled power of elites. If realised, it would mean everyone could finally benefit from – and participate in – global development.

We know how to make this happen. Last year, we analysed Dutch policy to see how we could contribute more to inclusive development. It resulted in a plan of action worth €350m (£269m) that we are now putting into practice.

The plan consists of 20 measures across two areas. The first involves generating work and income for African women and young people with poor future prospects. The second consists of 10 measures to prompt robust political dialogue with developing countries on inclusive growth and development.

That dialogue is crucial, because resistance to change is often strongest precisely where change is needed most. In many poor countries, elites cling stubbornly to wealth and power until conflict, death and destruction are inevitable.

But the most powerful weapon against inequality is tax. Governments have to fight tax avoidance and tax evasion. My country has initiated the renegotiation of 23 tax treaties. We’ve proposed anti-abuse provisions to ensure that the Netherlands is no longer an attractive option for companies that want to avoid taxes. And we now forgo tax exemptions on goods and services provided under official development assistance.

At the same time, we need to broaden the tax base in the developing countries, which often rely on consumption taxes that make the poor pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than the rich. These countries need a progressive tax regime. And for that they need assistance in administering and collecting more complex forms of taxation, such as income and wealth taxes.

Taxation is not a popular subject for politicians. But it deserves far more attention. A recent study, by Jan-Emmanuel De Neve and Nattavudh Powdthavee, brings further proof that higher taxation equals more happiness.

For many developing countries, the tax burden is still 10-15% of gross domestic product. According to the UN, they’ll have to raise collection to about 20% just to be able to finance their share of the global goals. In Scandinavia, the average tax burden is more than 45%. I wish the same for every country! Provided the money is spent well, of course.

So we have our work cut out. To the super rich, I say: trickle-down is dead. To the elites and the kleptocrats in poor countries, I say: there’s a limit to how high you can build the gates around your communities. The time has come to pay. Make sure the payment is in taxes.

Feminism's Radical Turn

A great opinion piece on the West's struggle with the feminism movement. Feminism movement was made by humans / people who don't have any ability to see / predict the future. Circumstances are always evolving & one's situation is never same as the other. Hence, feminism movement was not only short-sighted to start with, it lacked inclusion of all women from different backgrounds; based on ethnicity, religion, race, culture etc.

The idea of feminism was women are equal to men. Which they definitely are. No doubt. Problem was, & still is, that women were expected to act & do things exactly like what men were doing. As Jessa Crispin notes in her book that "feminism sold women a bill of goods by framing work as self-fulfillment and self-actualization. Women who rose to positions of traditional male power in corporations, in politics, in the military, on boards, like Clinton or Sheryl Sandberg became feminist role models." Essentially, a woman's self-worth was how much money she was earning by working in male-dominated sectors of the economy; heck, it didn't have to be male-dominated sectors of the economy. Period. That's why, some women in pornography industry are very happy & rose to the level of company CEOs themselves, & on their way to the top, debased other women, because they themselves have become millionaires; their self-worth is being measured in cold hard cash by themselves & the society around them.
As the writer details Jessa Crispin's thoughts on feminism in the following paragraph, it becomes evident that women were only fighting for equal rights & jobs as men, as long as those jobs were of privileged positions in the society. Women were not fighting to get in menial jobs. After all, those menial jobs are also held by men.

Equality is another issue in Western ideal of feminism; equality based on racial, ethnic, cultural, & social grounds. It seems that feminism became the movement-du-jour for the Caucasian / white privileged women. Every other women didn't get the memo; be they be women of African descent in America or of Latin descent in Northern & Southern America, or Muslim women in Middle East & South Asia or Hindu & Buddhist women in Asia. As Crispin correctly "echoes the sentiment in her rejection of the condescending attitude of Western feminists toward women in Muslim countries—this idea that these women need to be rescued (itself a masculine model) from their head scarves and their traditions."

In the name of feminism, women were driven out of their homes to work alongside men, & to become one more bread-winner for the family. However, nobody worked towards sharing the house work, & hence, women's responsibilities became child-bearing, child-rearing, all house work, & corporate work. Men still enjoyed their work outside the house & that was the end of their day's work.

What the general public has forgotten now that the women were driven out of the house to create a two-income family, to essentially, increase GDP in North America. The public & private sectors weren't creating any more jobs & GDP increases when the public spends on house & home purchases. Wages had become stagnant. So, instead of increasing wages or creating more jobs, women were encouraged to get out of the house, be independent, & make their own money; helping to keep up the lifestyle the public was used to; all in the guise of gender equality.

Here, I am going to bring feminism in Islam. The West & now, even the East, thinks that Islam, as a religion, suppresses Muslim women & their rights. In Islam, women are equal to men. Islam recognizes them as EQUAL, not as IDENTICAL. Both genders are complementary to each other & need one another to create a fully-functional, proper society.

This is all beautifully summarized by a letter to editor in the May issue of Maclean's magazine, by a Dr. Howard Taynen, from Ancaster, Ontario, Canada:

"... I am struck yet again by a routinely mistaken fundamental in this ever-present & evolving subject - equal is confused with identical. Thankfully, men & women are not identical anatomically, physiologically, temperamentally or psychologically. We are a magnificent complementarity of great potential value to ourselves, our children & the world. Eliminate the abuse, not the difference! It is naive & futile to defy nature by arbitrarily imposing identical roles in parenthood, marriage or the world in order to be equal. We are equal & different. It is a partnership that can function wholesomely without trying to change the differing roles & their respective strengths."

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

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/feminisms-radical-turn/

Literary Critic Jessa Crispin clearly appreciates the value of a catchy title. Her blog was named Bookslut. Now her new book, Why I Am Not a Feminist: A Feminist Manifesto, seems calculated to grab attention at a moment when feminism is portrayed as either trending or dead—or trending because it’s dead.

Feminism’s most recent and much exaggerated death spiral can be traced to the assumption, an absurd one, that the U.S. election provided a referendum on the topic. “Hillary Clinton’s loss in the presidential election to America’s most famous sexist instantly plunged the feminist cause into crisis,” The New Republic proclaimed hours after Trump’s win, as if the “feminist cause” is a single entity run out of a central command. If anything, the reverse proved true: the political upset galvanized organized protest driven by fear that the advances made by the feminist movement over the past 50 years would be reversed. The New York Times was bleaker: “Feminism lost. Now what?” ran a headline that suggested Clinton was herself synonymous with an ideology that dates back more than a century.

It’s precisely that conflation of a powerful, high-achieving woman with modern feminism that Crispin denounces in her slim, bracing polemic. The thought-provoking, sometimes frustrating book is part of a new literary groundswell: works grappling with the complex inequities of sexual equality and the ever-shifting gender see-saw a half century after “women’s lib.” Toronto writer Stephen Marche also wades in with his trenchant new book, The Unmade Bed: The Messy Truth About Men and Women in the 21st Century, in which he recounts leaving his job to be primary caregiver to his son so his wife could fulfill her career ambition. A countervailing groundswell is simultaneously at work: this vocal contingent calls for a return to the zero-sum game of the alpha husband, beta wife just as more than a third of women out-earn their husbands. The Alpha Female’s Guide to Men and Marriage by Suzanne Venker, the niece of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, laments that “society is creating a crop of women who are unable to love” and advises “it’s liberating to be a beta!” Similar messaging underlines the North Carolina billboard that sparked outrage last month. “Real men provide,” it read. “Real women appreciate it.”

Taking a cue from Crispin’s title, the media have described its message as more piling on the feminism-is-dead pyre: “The fall of feminism,” read the headline of a Los Angeles Times’ review. “Why this literary critic rejects modern-day feminism,” said CBC Radio.

Yet Crispin sits at an extreme rarely discussed in modern-day feminism: she’s a self-professed radical feminist, hell-bent on dismantling a patriarchy she blames 20th-century feminism for buttressing. “I am angry,” she writes. “And I do pose a threat.”

Feminism sold women a bill of goods, Crispin states, by framing work as self-fulfillment and self-actualization. Women who rose to positions of traditional male power in corporations, in politics, in the military, on boards, like Clinton or Sheryl Sandberg of Lean In fame, became feminist role models. Crispin doesn’t buy it, noting Clinton dismantled social welfare programs and supported international interventions that killed thousands.

Only spaces occupied by privileged men were desirable, Crispin points out; women, who’d always worked, but in menial positions, weren’t fighting for jobs held by poor men, labourers or miners, for whom the workplace and society would become increasingly hostile. The consequence, she writes, is a “kind of hyper-masculinized world, where women are participating—and absolutely expected to participate in this world by feminists—in patriarchal values.”

Crispin also takes aim at “universal feminism”—her term for a non-confrontational feminist status quo that bends over backwards to be agreeable to avoid the “man-hating” stereotype of decades earlier. This mainstream, she believes, is preoccupied with identity politics, narcissistic “self-empowerment” and whining about TV shows rather than the hard work of bridging to universal human rights. It’s a pop star battle: on one hand, Beyoncé embraces the “feminist” label; on the other, Taylor Swift, never one to rock the boat, prefers “equalism,” the belief that both sexes should be equal without highlighting feminism. “Lifestyles do not change the world,” Crispin writes.

Within this Instagram feminism, shrillness is anathema. That’s a problem, Crispin writes: “I hear the word ‘feminazi’ coming from young feminists’ mouths today way more often than I have ever heard it coming from the mouths of right-wing men.”

The reaction can also be chalked up to marketing forces that have diluted and co-opted “feminist” to sell products with an upbeat, friendly “empowerment” message for decades—from the “You’ve come a long way baby” Virginia Slims ads of the ’70s, to Acne Studios’ “Feminist Collection” featuring a $650 sweater, to the recently published picture book Strong is the New Pretty: A Celebration of Girls Being Themselves.

The fact that anyone can self-define as feminist, or not, also can render the word meaningless. Ivanka Trump claims both she and her woman-objectifying, women-grabbing dad are feminists. ... Marche rejects the self-proclaimed “male feminist,” saying it’s typically used to win points or get women into bed. Just be a decent guy, he writes.

Decades of hindsight offer perspective. For one, “trickle-down” feminism is about as effective as trickle-down economics. Equality has not touched all women equally, and there’s anger, as was evident at the Women’s March in Washington, where I saw a black woman hold up a sign at a largely white crowd: “F–k you and your white imperialistic feminism,” it read. She had a point.

Crispin echoes the sentiment in her rejection of the “condescending attitude of Western feminists toward women in Muslim countries—this idea that these women need to be rescued (itself a masculine model) from their head scarves and their traditions.”
...

Non-feminist history also reveals that blaming 20th-century feminism for the glorification of the work and the workplace, as Crispin does, gives it too much credit. Yes, the civil rights movement stirred second-wave feminism and The Feminine Mystique raised consciousness. But other factors, namely the need for dual-income-earning families and the Pill, which let women delay child-bearing or defer it altogether, played a role.

Now it’s evident that the very corporate workplace that women—mostly wives—flocked to in the ’70s was built on a male-breadwinner, female-homemaker model that remained unchanged. Needs of the new working wife and mother were ignored; nor was there a movement to replace or redistribute her labour in the home. The result: that famous Ms. magazine cover “I want a wife,” which also became a common working women’s half-joke.
...

That disconnect could explain why, 60 years after the “women’s movement,” reproductive health rights and sexual violence remain barriers to women’s freedom. Female politicians receive death threats. A gender pay gap exists, even in the professions. Yet Crispin isn’t offering an olive branch to men. She slams “casual hatred of men as a gender,” yet in the next breath, tells men it’s not her job to make feminism easy or understandable to them. “Figure it out,” she writes. “I just want to be clear that I don’t give a f–k about your response to this book. Do not email me, do not get in touch. Deal with your own s–t for once.” She offers one consolation: “Everything is more complicated than anyone wants to admit.” And that vague understatement pretty much sums up the long march ahead.

"Tax Bracketology" by Adam Zyglis

"Tax Bracketology" - Adam Zyglis, The Buffalo News, Buffalo, NY, US

Majority of UK children in poverty from working families – report

The article is pretty much self-explanatory. Most poor families are / have become poor in the developed world due to rising unemployment levels & stagnant or less-than-living wages.

Governments, on top of widespread unemployment & low wages, are cutting social programs in the name of austerity. However, incomes of ministers & taxes are not decreasing. Heck, in some cases, they are actually increasing.

Rich, on the other hand, are becoming richer, by the minute. Governments, which by the way, are controlled by these industrialist elites, are afraid of increasing taxes on the rich. Companies also try to find the best way to lower their tax burden through some legal loop holes. So, the only part of the whole country, who is left propping up the country's finances, are the poor people, who diligently pay taxes, while their incomes don't even go up. Their living expenses, on the other hand, keep going up.

So, of course, what else to expect when these families are bringing up children in poverty-ridden conditions. Of course then, as I blogged previously, most of these children will have a hard time in securing good jobs, housing, & perhaps, even good quality education. Then, they will end up either on the welfare list or the criminal list of the government, since they will still want to provide a good lifestyle to their own descendants.

The primary sources of this problem of increasing poverty across the developed world is the government being controlled by the business & political elites, & they all want to see their bank balances increase, even if it spreads misery all across their own countries & regions. Governments are trying to increase taxes or fines or services fees on the poor, decrease taxes or creating loopholes for the rich to avoid taxes altogether, not creating jobs at all ("governments can't meddle in free markets"), fighting unions (which were the reason that baby boomers enjoyed such high incomes & good lifestyle), & becoming parts of secretive trade pacts which will further destroy the labour conditions for the poor.

But, hey, we have democracy & freedoms, right !!! (sarcasm) If Westerners love freedom & democracy so much, then why are they so enthusiastically moving to Middle East (UAE, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia), Asian & South East Asian countries, where, there are no such things as democracy & freedom of speech, but good enough living wage (for a Western-educated graduate) & a good lifestyle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.rt.com/uk/310026-children-in-poverty/

The majority of children living in poverty in the UK come from working families, a leading think tank’s report reveals.

The report, titled ‘Living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: 2015’, was published ... by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS). It was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Trust.

The study examined key factors driving changes in incomes & poverty across the UK.

Figures from the report show that the number of children living in absolute poverty remained unchanged between 2009-10 & 2013-14. However, the proportion of kids living in poverty whose parents work rose by 9% over this period.

The IFS says this dramatic rise in what has been described as Britain’s working poor is a result of increased unemployment levels & a steady decline in workers’ real wages.

Despite the promise of a new living wage, benefit cuts made by the new Conservative government are likely to put pressure on poor families, the report said. It argued the effects of further government cuts make a greater impact than this marginal pay rise for those who are struggling financially.

"Material deprivation" was one of the main issues for those living in rented properties, single parents & disabled people.

The report noted many such families are unable to afford more luxurious goods & are more exposed to deprivation than home owners.

“Among families with children, social renters with incomes (after housing costs) around the median are at least as likely to be materially deprived as the lowest-income owner-occupiers," the report said.

"This illustrates the importance of looking at more than just current income to understand low living standards.”

Research Economist at the IFS Chris Belfield, who co-authored the report, said absolute poverty levels among children obscure “important and offsetting trends.”

“Since 2009–10, a fall in the number of workless families has acted to reduce poverty, but this has been offset by a substantial rise in in-work poverty," he said.

"This largely reflects the wider nature of the labour market since the recession: robust employment and weak earnings.”

Senior Research Economist at the IFS Robert Joyce, who also authored the report, added that the government needs to do more to combat the root causes of poverty.

“The government has recently emphasized worklessness as a cause of poverty," he said.

"This makes sense, but tackling low living standards will be difficult without improvements for working families too.”

Chief Executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Julia Unwin said in-work poverty is a growing concern.

“A strong economy and rising employment have masked the growing problem of in-work poverty, as years of below-inflation wage rises have taken their toll on people’s incomes,” she said.

“The upcoming minimum wage rise will help, but many low-income working families will still find themselves worse off due to tax credit changes. Boosting productivity and creating more jobs which offer progression at work is vital to make work a reliable route out of poverty.”

World entering era of global food insecurity with malnutrition & obesity side by side within countries

A good article but it left a big reason why a majority of the poorer households in UK, & around the world, won't have access to healthy & nutritious food. One of the big reasons is social inequality, which in turn, is caused by, in major part, by huge disparity in income & wealth.

There are political & business elites -- the 1-percenters -- who live in their own little world. But the other 99% of the world populations are trying to survive on low income. They don't earn enough to buy healthy & nutritious food in the stores. That majority will always buy the cheap food, which is usually not grown organically & full of calories. Those people know that what they are buying is not healthy for their families but they don't have a choice.

At the same time, the government pays millions in grants & subsidies to companies in military-industrial complex to make new & advanced weaponry, but don't make effective agricultural policies to incentivize scientists & farmers to come up with new & efficient means to grow healthy & nutritious food, all the while limiting the use of fertilizers & harmful chemicals.

At the end of the day, majority of the families know which food is healthy & which one isn't. They would love to buy healthy & nutritious food but are constrained by their income level. If the government wants their public to become healthy, then one major change would be to increase minimum wages & taxes on wealthy individuals. Poor families would readily buy healthy & nutritious food with their increase in income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-entering-era-of-global-food-insecurity-with-malnutrition-and-obesity-side-by-side-within-10382877.html

The world is entering an era of global food insecurity which is already leading to the “double burden” of both obesity & malnutrition occurring side by side within countries & even within the same families, a leading food expert has warned.

It will become increasingly common to see obese parents in some developing countries raising underweight & stunted children because high-calorie food is cheaper & more readily available than the nutritious food needed for healthy growth, said Alan Dangour of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

“We are certainly looking at a period of increased instability in the supply of food, and also the diversity and types of food that are available are going to change,” said Dr Dangour, who is to lead a major study into global food insecurity & its impact on health.

“A result of this is called the ‘double burden’ of malnutrition,” he added. “Under-nutrition causes starvation and stunting in children, whereas obesity and over-weight in adults is another form of malnutrition, caused by eating the wrong type of food.

“The double burden exists in countries, or indeed in households, where you get a stunted child and an overweight mother. And that happens in many countries around the world as a result of the wrong diets being eaten [by adults] and the wrong diets being given to children,” he said.

“It’s not the fault of the mother, it’s the fault of the food system where the mother cannot afford to buy nutritious food such as dairy, eggs and fruit and is predominantly feeding her child a diet that is rich in calories, such as oil and cereal-based carbohydrates,” Dr Dangour said. “That diet will not be sufficient for the child to grow. It will stop the child from being hungry but it will also stop the child from growing properly,” he said.
...

“We know that at the end of this century it’s going to be very difficult to grow crops in certain parts of the world because of increasing temperatures,” Dr Dangour said. “In other parts of the world there is going to be increasing productivity because warmer temperatures will mean longer growing seasons.”

He said no single prediction on food insecurity could tell the whole story because climate change will affect different crops differently in different parts of the world: “For the UK, we could imagine a scenario in which changing food availability globally leads to changes in the availability of and the access to that food in the UK.

“For example, cereals may not be affected but fruit and vegetables, critical to a healthy diet, may become much more expensive. As people are responsive to food prices, it may lead to a reduction in consumption of those foods in the poorer population, which may lead to increased health inequality in the UK.”

In the past, policy-makers & planners have concentrated on producing enough food based on calorie content, often to the detriment of more nutritious food, such as pulses & fruit, that are required for healthy growth. This has helped to fuel an epidemic of obesity and diabetes, Dr Dangour explained.

“It’s happened over the past 10 years or so & it’s hugely important. It means policy-making is an enormous challenge, because you think: ‘It’s about just increasing the amount of food we produce.’ Well, no: you need to think about the types of food you are producing and about the access to those foods.

“As food availability globally changes, we could see both of those things happening. We could see under-nutrition and we are already seeing enormous increases in chronic diseases such as obesity and diabetes,” he added.

With 6,000 new warehouse jobs, what is Amazon really delivering?

It is simply common sense that a person doesn't get rich while paying living wages to its workers. You have to have "slaves" to increase your own wealth. After all, that's how the Western world became rich; with the work of millions of slaves in Australia, Europe, & North America.

The billionaires we see on the Forbes list every year didn't become multi-billionaires by caring for their fellow human beings by paying them good wages, so their fellow human being can also enjoy life. Oh, hell no !!! They became billionaires by forgoing every inch of ethics & humanity from themselves & becoming the cause of poverty in modern world by paying government-mandated minimum wages. If the government removes that wage floor, then you will see how soon those wages go down to mere pennies. Ironically enough, all those billions help them control the government, too.

Irony on top of all this is these multi-billionaire entrepreneurs are celebrated in the business community. They are invited to give talks & reinvigorate the young minds of university students. Internet is flushed with tips & tricks of doing business gleaned from these unethical & inhumane execs. Some of these famous business people include Steve Jobs (let's take the jobs out of North America & put them in Asia, & pay those workers minimum wages, which will drive them to suicides.), Jeff Bezos (well, this article pretty much lays out what he pays to his employees & how he treats them), Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey & etc.

Then, we cry foul over how bad this world has become. Well, what kind of world you were expecting when you & a majority of world population is learning how to treat their fellow human beings from multi-billionaire sharks. I am even humiliating sharks by calling these people "sharks".

Anyway, so some people will counter me by saying that well, these multi-billionaires pay higher taxes or they generously donate to charities. Well, as for the taxes, you should look into what is their real tax rate is. After all the deductions & such, it is usually far less than your average taxpayers' tax rate; these billionaires pay around 10-15% tax in US, while an average taxpayer pays around 30%.

Now, as for donating to charities, what would be a better way of doing things? Not paying a living wage & treating your employees like they are not even humans & after hoarding all that money, donating like a few percent to a charity to help a few people. Heck, those donations are also tax-deductible, & hence, there is a financial incentive to donate a little. Or, paying a living wage to your employees, so they can look after their families in a good way, & raise the standard of living of your employees & their communities. Heck, if the salaries are good enough of those employees, they will donate to charities themselves, anyway. So, charities will get their donations, but on a much larger scale & scope.

Another thing our society is looking at is more chaos in our communities in the near future. Since, these entrepreneurs can only squeeze out enough blood & sweat from their employees, now they are turning to tech to squeeze out more profits out of their operations. After robots & AI (Artificial Intelligence) has been improved or perfected over the next few more years, human employees will be laid off en masse. Why? Because robots will cost a lot less than having a human employee around.

But, hey, since these multi-billionaires achieved what every one of us want for ourselves, let's learn from them in TEDx conferences, university graduation convocations, & international conferences how much worse to treat your fellow human being, so someday I can be one of these tyrants, too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/17/idUS199953413420150617#tRwbKHDomj1zlGzi.97 

Some people showed up before dawn. Others spent an hour waiting on a line that stretched out the door. That was the scene ... when hundreds of job seekers converged on an Amazon hiring event in Chattanooga, Tennessee. All hoped for full-time work picking, packing & shipping orders at the online retailer’s local distribution center, a warehouse the size of 28 football fields. “I’m blessed to be here!” one smiling 23-year-old applicant told television reporters.

... On May 26th, Amazon announced 6,000 new full-time job openings at 19 of its distribution centers. Many are in communities that doled out generous tax credits & other incentives — including $10.3 million in Kenosha, Wisconsin, alone — to bring Amazon jobs to town.

So it’s a good time to ask: Are Amazon’s warehouse jobs worth lining up for? Should they be subsidized with taxpayer dollars? And what do they mean to the long-term economic health of their host communities?

On his 2013 jobs tour, President Barack Obama stopped to deliver a speech at the aforementioned Amazon warehouse in Chattanooga. The audience cheered when he called for restoring the middle class through “good jobs with good wages.” But today that same warehouse is hiring at $11.25 an hour. That’s $23,400 annually, or $850 below the poverty line for a family of four.

Hourly wages at the other warehouses listed in Amazon’s recent hiring announcement range from $11 in Jefferson, Indiana to $12.75 an hour in Robbinsville, New Jersey & Windsor, Connecticut.

Even by industry standards, those are some thin paychecks. Wal-Mart pays distribution center employees an average hourly wage of $19, said a spokesman for that company.

Meanwhile, Amazon’s treatment of warehouse workers has been under scrutiny since 2011, when an investigation by the Allentown Morning Call newspaper revealed what were — quite literally — sweatshop conditions. When summer temperatures exceeded 100 degrees inside the company’s Breinigsville, Pennsylvania warehouse, managers would not open the loading bay doors for fear of theft. Instead, they hired paramedics to wait outside in ambulances, ready to extract heat-stricken employees on stretchers & in wheelchairs, the investigation found. Workers also said they were pressured to meet ever-greater production targets, a strategy colloquially known as “management by stress.”

Amazon declined to answer the newspaper’s specific questions about working conditions in the warehouse but, 8 months after the story was released, company officials announced that they’d spent $52 million to retrofit warehouses with air conditioning.

In my own interviews with dozens of Amazon warehouse workers, I’ve heard reports of repetitive stress injuries, pain & exhaustion. (Some called themselves “Amazombies.” Others said they tried to think of the job as a free fitness program.)

Those issues relate to job quality. What about job quantity?

On the same day Amazon announced 6,000 new hires, teams from around the globe competed in the first-ever “Amazon Picking Challenge” in Seattle. Their goal? Build robots that can “pick” shelved items — in this case, the objects ranged from rubber ducks to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn – with enough dexterity to someday replace human hands. (Amazon already has some 15,000 Kiva robots that transport shelves of merchandise to human “pickers,” but the act of picking has proved much harder to automate.)

Amazon maintains a very low headcount for its sales volume, which rose to $89 billion last year. Amazon creates just 17 jobs for every $10 million in sales, according to figures in its annual report. Compare that with traditional brick-and-mortar retailers, which create jobs at more than twice that rate: 42 positions for each $10 million in sales, according to an analysis of census data by the non-profit Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

“From a regional perspective, this is clearly not a path to greater employment & more economic activity,” said Stacy Mitchell, the organization’s director. “Your particular community may come out a bit ahead in terms of job numbers, but it comes at the expense of your neighbors.”

She & other community development advocates worry that, with its low-cost merchandise & expanding same-day delivery service, Amazon will eviscerate smaller businesses that put more of their earnings into hiring workers. (The company is already famous for pursuing massive growth while accepting razor-thin profit margins.) Amazon already has an edge over traditional brick-and-mortar retailers in the 25 states where it pays no sales tax. And local governments have also strengthened its advantage, lavishing Amazon with more than $430 million in tax credits & other incentives since 2000, according to Subsidy Tracker, a database created by the economic watchdog Good Jobs First.

Tossing out tax incentives for Amazon jobs might be good short-term politics, but when it comes to lasting employment, let the buyer beware. In 1999, the city of Coffeyville, Kansas showered Amazon with more than $4 million in infrastructure improvements & cash incentives for a 1 million-square-foot distribution center. Soon Amazon was one of the area’s largest employers. But its sales strategy kept changing. Since same-day shipping requires distribution hubs that are closer to urban centers, Amazon grew out of Coffeyville. Executives announced in October that the warehouse would shut down.

Jim Falkner, then Coffeyville’s mayor, created a Facebook page pleading for help. “Please leave suggestions concerning the Amazon job-loss recovery effort,” he wrote. 5 days later, he added, “Amazon is the straw that broke the camel’s back when it comes to unemployment in the community.”

"Distribution of Wealth" by Dario Castillejos

"Distribution of Wealth" - Dario Castillejos, Mexico

"Shining City" by Steve Greenberg

"Shining City" - Steve Greenberg, CA, US

Living paycheque to paycheque a reality for thousands in Toronto

This is the ugly reality of Canada. 1.5 Million Torontonians earning almost $38,000 a year, which puts the family under the social class of "poor". And that's when several of these people earning this wage are university educated from a Canadian university. People in other countries think that residents of Canada must be rolling in cash.

Since, when I became unemployed, people are constantly telling me that this is the new reality & just take any job which is paying even $30K. What those completely ignoramuses don't realize that once you get in that tier of temporary & contract work force, earning $30K-$40K without any benefits, you are forever stuck in that tier. Life would be a little hard, not to say the least, even for myself; forget saving anything for kids' futures. That's when I have an MBA from a reputable university & 7 years of work experience.

Besides, what readers may not focus on the fact that the guy in this article is a native resident of Canada (read: white guy). The question arises then that what about all those legal immigrants & "people of colour" who may not even have "relevant work experiences" or Canadian education? They are in even worse positions (of course, depending upon which area of work we are talking about, e.g. computer-related work is still good enough).

People from developing countries think that since, Canada is a developed country, there will be lots of money to be made there. Bearing that false misconception, they move their whole family to Canada, & that's when they realize what an ignoramus they have been up until that time.

Now, such economic & financial problems might be considered temporary problems, & usually, the hope is that eventually, the economy will improve, labour market will improve, & everyone will be happy all around. The problem with that thinking is that what it is ignoring the fact that that economic improvement depends a lot on several factors; for instance, size of country's economy, government's tax policies, domestic consumption, foreign trade treaties, domestic industries (types, sizes, diversification) etc.

Canadian economy is very heavily dependent on only one industry; fossil fuels. And even then, that industry is localized in one geographical area of the country. Then what is the rest of the country should do? Wait for a handout from Alberta & Saskatchewan? Everyone relocate their whole families in those provinces (not an easy thing to do for every family)? Go back to university & shell out another $ 50,000 for another degree in oil & gas?

Canadian government, on the other hand, is more focused on spending taxpayer dollars on Kurds & the war against ISIS in Iraq & Syria, while Canadians are making the rounds to their local food banks to satisfy their hunger for basic food. Manufacturing sector is dwindling & moving to Mexico, thanks to Mexico's foreign trade treaties with several countries around the world. Canadian government can't help the country with favourable tax policies since the country doesn't have that much money (as per the government).

But, no worries, for the rich business & political elites. Their billion, million dollar wealth & 6-figure incomes are completely safe. Why do they care for small time citizens who dutifully paid taxes & now get their food from local food banks. Hey, I thought that only happened in corrupt "developing" countries. (sarcasm)

This is the ugly reality of living in a developed country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/05/19/living-paycheque-to-paycheque-a-reality-for-thousands-in-toronto.html

Every time Eric Pinsonneault visits the grocery store, it’s a nail-biter for the single father of 3 kids, all under the age of 10.

He pushes his cart down the aisle, silently hoping to find a sale, or at the very least price tags that haven’t risen too much since his last visit.

Most of the time that doesn’t happen, & so he gets inventive — price matching, only serving the family meat 3 times a week, & cooking dishes that rely on cheaper staples such as rice & pasta.

“My income is so low, it makes everything that much harder,” says Pinsonneault, who lives on $38,000 a year, just above minimum wage.

That places him among the 1.5 million Torontonians making less than $21 an hour & in a smaller group earning under $18.52 — the figure recently reported as the necessary hourly wage to meet the needs of 2 parents working full-time while raising 2 children.

These low earners are part of a growing class plagued by skyrocketing housing prices, astronomical child-care rates & a broadening sense of poverty that puts a strain on shelters, food banks & welfare organizations.

Pinsonneault, a 30-year-old who calls himself “poor,” never expected to join that category when he was fresh out of university, comfortably living in a three-bedroom Chatham house that cost him $700 a month.

That was before he had 3 kids, went through a divorce, lost a job in a brutal downsizing & moved to Toronto.

Now, the administrative co-ordinator for a local start-up finds himself watching bills grow, wondering how he will cobble together enough cash to pay them off. Recently, he had to borrow from family to cover his credit card expenses, & just before that, he accepted his children’s school’s offer to pay their agenda fees.

“There is always something else,” he says. “I just got hit for a field trip for $20.”

Meanwhile, he says, his kids are getting older, needing more food & feeling pressure from peers to wear name-brand clothing & own all the latest Apple gadgets. The family can’t afford a landline or cable TV, so fancy clothing or an iPad are out of the question, says Pinsonneault. The same goes for trips to the movies or nights out.

To make up for it, Pinsonneault treats the family to breakfast at Sunset Grill once a month. Other times, he will shell out $15 on 3 $5 pizzas, giving the family enough food for lunch & two fun dinners.

“(My kids) understand that it’s only my money & that we are poor,” he says. “I try to give them as much as I can, but it’s hard.”

...

After tucking them into bed one evening, he told the Star, “I’m struggling, but emotionally, as a parent, I am bogged down knowing that they don’t get everything. That’s the hardest part.”

One day, he envisions things could be more manageable — he’ll move up in the fast-growing company he works for &, perhaps, the government will listen to collective pleas for lower child care & housing costs & a higher minimum wage.

But even then, he says, “I never put my hopes up high. It’s one day at a time.”

"What Middle Class" by Ingrid Rice

"What Middle Class" - Ingrid Rice, Canada

Law Society seeks to break down damaging racial barriers

This problem of race is in every profession, all over North America & Europe. Of course, this problem is more defined in some professions than others. This is one of the primary reasons why a majority of immigrants, regardless of intelligence & competence, never rise to the top, whereas, Caucasians, with their entrenched networks in the society, get to the top of their career ladders, much more easily.

Furthermore, I get confused when people tell me to network to land plump jobs. Yes, statistically, it is proven that about 80% of the jobs are found through networking & those jobs are usually the good ones. Problem is that the people in your network are not only ready to help, but are also influential enough in their own organization, by virtue of their own positions or through their networks, that they can get you in the door, for those plump jobs.

That's where immigrants have problems. Their networks are usually full of people of similar backgrounds, & hence, they are, in all likelihood, are in the same boat as you, with having the same kind of "weak" network. They themselves are in the lower levels of corporate hierarchy in their own companies, & hence, they are devoid of any influence, & their networks are full of people who also don't command much influence, if any at all.

So, the most probable end result will be a two-tier society, with most of the Caucasians in the society at the upper tier (who got there with their entrenched & strong networks) & most immigrants are left in the lower tier (due to a lack of an entrenched & strong network). Eventually, that gap in workplaces carries into income & wealth gap, which affects immigrant families in regards to their residence location (ghettos at the extreme), kids in criminal activities, educational & recreational activities available to kids etc.

Sometimes, I think, that North America & Europe may have abolished slavery decades & centuries ago, but this concept of "networking for jobs" is creating nothing else than more slaves to serve the Caucasians of North America & Europe. History seems to be repeating itself again.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
While he has encountered blatant racism – a client once called him a “sandwich boy,” – Toronto lawyer Shawn Richard says it is the invisible barriers non-white lawyers face that remain harder for many to overcome.
 
Mr. Richard, 36, an associate at a Toronto family law firm, says in law school he felt surrounded by white students who, unlike him, all seemed to have family members in the profession or appointed to the bench.

“The legal profession is still a profession where you find that lawyers are often the children of lawyers. Race affects that issue only because the legal profession is still a white profession,” he said in an interview. “If you’re not white, chances are your parents are not lawyers & judges & politicians in this country.”

This kind of subtle barrier is among those laid out in a Law Society of Upper Canada consultation paper that says many lawyers from black, Asian & Middle Eastern backgrounds feel alienated by the dominant white culture of many of the province’s law firms, where conversations among white lawyers are often about “playing golf, going to the cottage & watching hockey.”

This feeling of not fitting in, the report says, has real consequences. The lack of a built-in network of family & friends already in the legal profession, the report says, adds to the trouble some from non-white backgrounds have finding mentors to champion careers. The result is that many non-white lawyers end up leaving larger firms for smaller firms or to practise on their own.
 
The Law Society’s report says 57% of Ontario lawyers who self-identified as “racialized” told an online survey they felt disadvantaged in their career. Large percentages also said their background was a barrier to entering the profession, & felt they had to perform to a higher standard than other lawyers.
 
The report, on which the law society has been holding consultations, recommends a series of proposals to address these barriers, including improved mentoring programs. But the report also suggests that law firms be forced to disclose demographic data on their diversity, or lack of it, to the Law Society, which regulates lawyers in Ontario.
 
The law society itself already collects demographic data from all individual lawyers in Ontario, but the submission of the data is voluntary. That data do show a large increase in the number of lawyers who self-identify as “racialized,” up from 9% in 2001 to 17% in 2010. (Aboriginal lawyers are not included in this statistic.)
 
Linc Rogers, a partner with Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP & long an active member of CABL, applauds the report. But he said the Law Society should be promoting, not regulating, diversity in the profession.

“Part of the problem with mandatory requirements is it can often just become a check-the-box exercise,” Mr. Rogers said. “You don’t necessarily have the buy-in & commitment that you are looking for.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/law-society-of-upper-canada-seeks-to-break-down-damaging-racial-barriers/article23009495/