THIS is Poverty?
A newly-released study titled "The Affordability Gap", coming out of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, using statistics available from Statistics Canada, gives the results of their exploration of the patterns of spending ascertained from questioning Canadian households. The results of their study led the CCPA to the conclusion that low-income households are at a distinct disadvantage in quality of life and opportunities. Amazing conclusion, that.
Were these low-income families unable to buy enough good-quality food for themselves? Were they experiencing difficulties in find a decent place to live? Were the children of low-income families forced to attend under-performing schools? Did the lack of adequate household income result in dire deprivation for the families involved? Did they worry whether they could pay their rent or mortgages, have enough left over for milk for their children?
I can relate to all that to some degree. And feel really, truly badly for these low-income families. I remember schools feeding hungry children, allowing children to shower there because of a lack of indoor hygienic facilities at home. I recall myself receiving dental work through public-school auspices from a dentist all the kids named "the butcher". And I remember attending a fresh-air camp for underprivileged children.
I can even recall what it was like to worry about paying both a first and second mortgage, and having enough left over to pay the milkman, and counting pennies to try to buy enough fresh fruits and vegetables to feed three hungry children and their parents. Holidays were comprised of day-time visits to local parks, and going for lots of walks. We were pretty happy, anyway. And we felt ourselves inordinately privileged.
But this study compares the average household spending of the low-income percentile to that of the richest, and there is a whopping disparity there. Honestly. "We live in one of the most affluent nations on the planet, but Canada's poorest households are struggling to buy basic goods and services that most Canadians would consider reasonable for normal living in the 21st century", according to the author of the report.
"In every spending category, the richest 20 percent spent six or seven times more than the poorest 20 percent." Imagine. Is this to be believed? This is serious stuff since, according to the report many Canadians haven't the funds "to participate in a meaningful way in the society around them." Details, we'd like those details, please.
Well, the report author points out helpfully that for low-income people to be able to "participate in a meaningful way" they must have disposable income 'left over' once the basics of food, shelter and transportation have been paid for. So our poor social left-outs do have food, shelter and transportation; that's a great relief.
Government must step in to help Canadians unable to compete in our social world by boosting welfare rates substantially, increasing minimum wage rates and enhancing income support programs. To enable these of society's less fortunate to have high-speed Internet access, cellphones, pets, and recreation. For poor households spend $2,680 on recreation as compared to the wealthy who spend $8,449. No kidding.
Insufficient numbers of low-income families are able to spend money on sports equipment, computers, visiting museums, and purchasing tickets to the performing arts. More important, in my jaded view, eye care and dental care is lower among the poor percentile than the wealthy. Might this be indicative of values and priorities: recreational versus medical needs?
Good thing for all of us, isn't it, that Canada has a universal health care system, and that the poor needn't concern themselves about access to doctors, to hospitals and to the larger health-care community, when and as required. Free from the need to purchase pricey health insurance, from having to pay physicians' fees, and hospital fees, the poor do (relatively) well.
To be poor in Canada, is (no) dread thing indeed.
Were these low-income families unable to buy enough good-quality food for themselves? Were they experiencing difficulties in find a decent place to live? Were the children of low-income families forced to attend under-performing schools? Did the lack of adequate household income result in dire deprivation for the families involved? Did they worry whether they could pay their rent or mortgages, have enough left over for milk for their children?
I can relate to all that to some degree. And feel really, truly badly for these low-income families. I remember schools feeding hungry children, allowing children to shower there because of a lack of indoor hygienic facilities at home. I recall myself receiving dental work through public-school auspices from a dentist all the kids named "the butcher". And I remember attending a fresh-air camp for underprivileged children.
I can even recall what it was like to worry about paying both a first and second mortgage, and having enough left over to pay the milkman, and counting pennies to try to buy enough fresh fruits and vegetables to feed three hungry children and their parents. Holidays were comprised of day-time visits to local parks, and going for lots of walks. We were pretty happy, anyway. And we felt ourselves inordinately privileged.
But this study compares the average household spending of the low-income percentile to that of the richest, and there is a whopping disparity there. Honestly. "We live in one of the most affluent nations on the planet, but Canada's poorest households are struggling to buy basic goods and services that most Canadians would consider reasonable for normal living in the 21st century", according to the author of the report.
"In every spending category, the richest 20 percent spent six or seven times more than the poorest 20 percent." Imagine. Is this to be believed? This is serious stuff since, according to the report many Canadians haven't the funds "to participate in a meaningful way in the society around them." Details, we'd like those details, please.
Well, the report author points out helpfully that for low-income people to be able to "participate in a meaningful way" they must have disposable income 'left over' once the basics of food, shelter and transportation have been paid for. So our poor social left-outs do have food, shelter and transportation; that's a great relief.
Government must step in to help Canadians unable to compete in our social world by boosting welfare rates substantially, increasing minimum wage rates and enhancing income support programs. To enable these of society's less fortunate to have high-speed Internet access, cellphones, pets, and recreation. For poor households spend $2,680 on recreation as compared to the wealthy who spend $8,449. No kidding.
Insufficient numbers of low-income families are able to spend money on sports equipment, computers, visiting museums, and purchasing tickets to the performing arts. More important, in my jaded view, eye care and dental care is lower among the poor percentile than the wealthy. Might this be indicative of values and priorities: recreational versus medical needs?
Good thing for all of us, isn't it, that Canada has a universal health care system, and that the poor needn't concern themselves about access to doctors, to hospitals and to the larger health-care community, when and as required. Free from the need to purchase pricey health insurance, from having to pay physicians' fees, and hospital fees, the poor do (relatively) well.
To be poor in Canada, is (no) dread thing indeed.
Labels: Canada, Environment, Health, Society
posted by Pieface | 6:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home