Welcome!

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

  Don't show this to me again.

*ILLITERACY cuases of POVERTY

*POOR HEALTH cuases of POVERTY

UNEMPLOYMENT AS A CUASE FOR POVERTY

According to the most recent World Bank development indicators, 1.4 billion people were living on less than US$1.25 a day in 2005. A further 2.5 billion people were living on less than US$2 dollars a day, meaning that at least 45 percent of the world's population exist in a state of absolute or relative poverty, including half of the world's children. In contrast, the world's 497 billionaires (approximately 0.000008% of the world's population) have an estimated wealth of US$3.5 trillion (over 7 percent of world GDP).

Children who grow up in families with low incomes are significantly more likely to experience a wide range of problems and poor developmental outcomes than children from wealthier families

Some of the most impressive research findings on childhood poverty come from statistical analyses of large data sets in which pure effects of family income have been isolated from the effects of other factors often associated with poverty (e.g., single parenthood, low parental education). Duncan and Brooks-Gunn and their colleagues demonstrated that family income significantly predicted children's academic achievement and ability, even after removing any predictive power associated with family risk factors that often go along with poverty. Such findings are particularly important in invalidating arguments that poor outcomes for poor children result from other factors besides income level (e.g., character flaws in families, negative effects of welfare, low education levels, single parenting). On the other hand, such an approach to statistical analyses may also represent an unfair or overly rigorous test of whether poverty matters for children. As also noted by Luthar, one will necessarily underestimate the consequences of poverty if one eliminates or ignores any influences of poverty that are also associated with common causes of that poverty (e.g., low parental education, single parenthood). In the real world, poverty naturally coexists with other important family risk factors.

Oppression As A Cause For Working Class Poverty

Researched discussion for why the oppression of the working classes in America leads to their impovrishment. Statistics included.

The working class in America is a mixture of industrial and service workers who work for a wage. Although most people in America would assign themselves the economic class of 'middle class,' for purposes of this discussion, the working class will be defined as all workers who do not own capital and who work for a wage. Auto workers, secretaries, custodians, retail workers, and even middle management fall into this category. This group, as defined, consists of people with very different economic means: from low-wage earners living paycheck to paycheck, to salaried middle executives of business firms. Although superficially there may appear to be no connection between low-wage earners and middle management, they can both be viewed in terms of poverty and oppression. While poverty has historically been the perennial plague of low-wage workers, middle executives and management have become vulnerable in recent years to the oppression of a capitalistic economy.

Poverty as oppression in America is a direct result of the economic mandates and tendencies of capitalism. A capitalistic economy is inherently impersonal and concerned exclusively with profit. In the ubiquitous drive for profit, oppression becomes the relationship between workers and employers as employers try to maximize profits by minimizing wages. Thus the primary cause for poverty amidst the working class is oppression. Not only does capitalism require a marginal labor force of the unemployed to depress wages, but recently it has shown its need to eliminate employees and produce internationally to reduce costs. Thus the working class finds itself in periodic poverty due to oppression for three main reasons: unemployment, layoffs, and subcontracting.

Layoffs are another form of capitalistic oppression. Traditionally, layoffs have been a way in which businesses have coped with an economic depression. The typical layoffs were largely industrial and blue-collar workers. According to a New York Times poll, a third of all American households have experienced a layoff in the last 15 years. Department of Labor figures show that only about 35 percent of those laid-off full-time workers end up in a equally paid or better-paying job

Layoffs are another form of capitalistic oppression. Traditionally, layoffs have been a way in which businesses have coped with an economic depression. The typical layoffs were largely industrial and blue-collar workers. According to a New York Times poll, a third of all American households have experienced a layoff in the last 15 years. Department of Labor figures show that only about 35 percent of those laid-off full-time workers end up in a equally paid or better-paying job

From 1981 to 1983, the median pay for a worker who lost a full-time job and later was rehired fell $62 per week in 1994 dollars. From 1991 to 1993, the median pay drop had grown to $85 per week. Decent paying jobs in America have been replaced by jobs with lower wages, fewer benefits, and more hours. Many full-time jobs are being permanently lost as businesses increase their proportion of part-time workers. This replacement of full-time with part-time jobs creates a permanent tendency toward lower paying jobs without benefits.

While layoffs have been a part of every recession, now they are occurring in larger numbers during an economic recovery. Lately this trend has gained media attention as it has broadened from a low-wage-earner phenomenon to a trend which affects middle management and white-collar workers as well. In a reversal from the early 1980's, white-collar workers with some college education make up the majority of layoffs. This is because layoffs are not simply a compensation for an economic depression. Layoffs are a tool of oppression of the capitalistic system, which, in its drive for ever increasing profits must drive more and more workers, both blue and white-collar, closer and closer to poverty. The education and skills of these workers has in no way changed. There is no economic depression or negative market forces. The only justification for the current trend of increasing lay-offs is the oppression of workers to increase profit.

Poverty of the working class is very accurately described by oppression. All of the aspects of the capitalist economy which drive the working class into poverty or near poverty are simply efforts to increase profit at the expense of workers. Regardless of the state of the economy, of the skills or education of the workers, or of the type of job performed, capitalism consistently oppresses workers to increase profit. This oppression through unemployment, lay-offs, and subcontracting is a direct cause of poverty for working folks.

combination of a falling employment rate and a falling unemployment rate

Over the last few decades, there has been an enormous increase in the number of people who fall into the no man's land of the labor market that Carroll Wright created 130 years ago. These people are not employed, but they also don't fit the government's definition of the unemployed -- those who "do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior four weeks, and are currently available for work."

There are only two possible explanations for this bizarre combination of a falling employment rate and a falling unemployment rate. The first is that there has been a big increase in the number of people not working purely by their own choice. You can think of them as the self-unemployed. They include retirees, as well as stay-at-home parents, people caring for aging parents and others doing unpaid work.

The second possible explanation -- a jump in the number of people who aren't working, who aren't actively looking but who would, in fact, like to find a good job -- is less comforting. It also appears to be the more accurate explanation.

There is no doubt that the unemployment rate is a less telling measure than it once was. It's simply no longer the best barometer of the country's economic health. A truer picture can be found elsewhere, by looking at compensation growth, for instance, or to changes in the percentage of the employed.

No less than Tom Nardone, the economist overseeing the unemployment survey, made a similar point. "Just saying the unemployment rate is 5 percent, without any other context, really doesn?t tell you much," Mr. Nardone said.

...Watch & See the intensity of poverty