Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Women's Economic Rights Have Suffered Most- Why Women Need to Reclaim the Revolution Now


Women's Economic Rights Have Suffered Most- Why Women Need to Reclaim the Revolution Now


In all the years we've struggled just to uphold Roe v. Wade and prevent the erosion of the rights to our own bodies, we have lost more and more ground in the area of work and economic well-being. 

Conservative members of government have really had us over a barrel by constantly raising the threat of restricting access to abortion, contraceptives, and affordable health care.  It's critical that women have control of our bodies, our medical decisions, and our decisions about how many children we want to welcome into our lives and accept as our responsibility.  Without that control, the men who would keep us down know very well that that we are less free to live our lives and to fight for our rights in other areas. 

It's time we recognize the ploy for what it is.  They see what an uproar they produce in us whenever they raise the specter of rolling back rights we've worked so hard to win.  It is so effective a tool of manipulation that the women's movement as a whole has all but forgotten our goals and larger struggle.  Republicans threaten to tear up our reproductive rights.  Democrats promise to keep our reproductive rights safe.  As long as they both keep us on the ropes between them, neither capitalist party has to worry that women will organize and fight to claim the rest of our rights.

Many women know that we deserve more. We know that it is harder and harder to reach a decent standard of living no matter how hard we work.  Women haven’t been asleep; we’ve been assailed.  We have been assailed by poverty.  We’ve been assailed by poverty so widespread the economists won’t even dare to measure it.  According to the official measure, women living in poverty climbed to 14 and a half percent last year, the highest rate in 17 years. 

And if you look around, maybe even if you look in your own window, you might say that still sounds low to you and you would be right.  The official poverty measure has never been accurate.  It was based, in the 1970's, on the lowest possible cost of food that added up to the minimum calories needed for survival and was multiplied by 3.  This has nothing to do with real costs of food, let alone real costs of housing, utilities and transportation to work.  As the economist, Fred Goldstein puts it, "The government has deliberately held the definition (of poverty) to such a low income that the proportion of people officially living in poverty always remains within a range of approximately 11 percent to 13 percent, regardless of economic reality."  Even so, current government acknowledged poverty levels are now breaking the boundaries they were designed to always fall within.

The same measure includes another measure based on that’s called the “extreme poverty” rate.  That’s when you live on half the income that counts as “poverty.”  Today, at least 7 and a half million women are living on that, living below subsistence.  “Living below subsistence,” isn’t that another way of saying “starving to death?”

We’ve been assailed by homelessness and the threat of it.  No matter how hard we work, at any moment, we could be turned out of our homes—whether you “own” your home with a mortgage or whether you rent from a landlord, the slightest breeze could blow you out of your home and then not even a mighty wind can return you inside.   In just the first three months of the foreclosure crisis of 2008, over a million families were forced to leave their homes.  Women were disproportionately exploited and discriminated against in the process.  In order to obtain a mortgage and pay the best interest rate, lenders require proof of an ability and willingness to pay debts.  In a desperate effort to escape landlords and high rent payments that disappear every month, never to return, women will scrimp and sacrifice to achieve a credit rating considered worthy for a mortgage loan.  Even though women’s credit ratings are, on average, higher than men’s, still one third of women who obtained a mortgage were made to accept it on terms of high interest even though they qualified for the lowest rate.
And still we are the refuge of our own aging mothers and fathers, our unemployed mates, and our children—the young and the young adults.  An undocumented worker and his baby won’t be separated because a woman has taken them in.  A black, gay living assistant I know lost his job and he will not have to sleep outside or in the dehumanizing shelter because a woman* I know has taken him in. We are struggling against the economic disaster that is this falling down house called capitalism. We’re doing our best to make room for those who are fleeing its inhospitable cells.  

Women are the unacknowledged welfare safety net of the working class, even when our own situations are untenable.

We share whatever we have in solidarity.  Somehow we know that we are preserving our own dignity along with the dignity others abused by capitalism.

Women have long struggled simply to be allowed to earn a paycheck. We struggled for an end to discrimination and limitations on women that kept us doing only unpaid work.  We struggled against men whether they were the owners of mills and factories or the rulers of our households—we struggled against any men who felt it was their prerogative to make the rules for us. 

So we got into the workplaces. But, were our troubles over then? The demand for women’s political rights—legal rights, to the vote, to reproductive rights--these pierced deeply into the institutions that defined us and confined.  But no legal status change can make the broad changes women need to see without the movement to work against the powers that rely so intensely on exploitation for their existence.

It was quickly discovered that women wage earners aren’t taken seriously when we stand up for our equal rights, our economic rights, or our rights to dignity in the workplace. The most fortunate among us have found their way into a union and the most fortunate of all have found their way into a union where women are among its leaders. Most of us are more likely to work in situations where union organizing is structurally difficult either because we’re isolated in a small business with just a few people all doing different work,  or we're contract workers, or salon seat renters, office assistants, retail clerks, customer service, health care workers –all jobs without a living wage.  When making attempts to shine in order to get a raise, instead of praise, we hear, “We’re not paying you to think.”  The news of no raises again for the 8th year in a row is accompanied by, “at least you have jobs,” as if this should soften the blow. 

Women, just by entering the workforce, gained a little bit of personal freedom, but by and large did little to increase our political power as workers or as women.  

Capitalism has found ways to its advantage to absorb women into the workforce.   Women's isolation from organized labor unions has left us with unequal bargaining power and thus lower wages.  

Capitalism keeps workers of all kinds on the ropes.  For many years we’ve been feeling the attrition of jobs overall.  Increased technology permanently decreases workers.  Workers who have given up looking for jobs and are part of informal economies (living with relatives, bartering, odd jobs or even illegal work) are taken out of official statistical measures.  Without a sense of the long term unemployed, it’s difficult to assess the real unemployment rate, but it is growing and it will continue to grow.

We are not in a recovery.  We are in a prolonged, contracting economy that will not see genuine job growth and will not rebound to previous levels.  

Today, jobs are going away because there are fewer things capitalists can do to make a profit.  Demand is waning.  High tech jobs are expensive to create, they require expensive equipment, and fewer hands to work them.  Housing stocks were built in massive supplies during the boom and now sit empty across the country. Construction work is down and few can afford to buy houses, even at slightly depressed prices.  Manufacturing is nearly extinct having been almost entirely shipped to even lower waged women workers overseas.

A women's movement that doesn't challenge capitalism will never win economic rights for women

The total wealth we, as a society, are creating is growing, but jobs are not.  Jobs are more productive. Fewer workers are doing them and the owners and stockholders are reaping the profits.  It's not an illusion that we are working harder. Many people are taking two and three jobs to get by, and we are getting less for our efforts.  

We need to go further than defending our rights. What we need is real decision making power over the economy, the kind of decision making power that the capitalist system and the governmental structure that the capitalists own doesn't allow.  

We need a society in which everyone has enough.  As a society, we have the resources to fulfill this need.

The sum total wealth produced annually by U.S. workers, if divided equally, would amount to over $50,000 per person.  

What could we do if we could decide?

·         If excess housing stock were paid for at cost, we could grant housing rights to everyone.  People who build and repair houses could be paid for their work and for the cost of materials. Under capitalism, housing is used as a tool of exploitation that enriches landlords, banks, and developers.  We make money for our bosses at work and turn what little we make over to the landlords and banks.  What would your savings be, over a year, if you didn't have to pay a mortgage or rent? 

·         How many hours do you work to afford a place to live?  Would you prefer to spend them growing your own garden?  You would have fresh food for having done the work.  

·         What freedoms would you feel if you had access to health care whenever you needed it?

·         Socially organized energy costs that go into renewables would give us years of not needing to pay utilities.  And the air would be cleaner.  

·         Caring for anyone who is dependent is a labor of love, but society could pay caregivers and recognize its economic value to us all.  It would recognize the quality of life it is securing for the recipient and we would all know that if something happened to us, we would be cared for.  

Capitalist ideology would have us believe that people who are not desperate will not sacrifice and work and then soon, you wouldn't see the productivity you had before.  What they are really afraid of is that when people have enough, they can bargain and won't work unless the organization can pay them fair compensation.  A worker owned and controlled cooperative would distribute profits fairly and democratically.  And why should anyone work jobs at all that are degrading or environmentally harmful, or too physically dangerous? Some work that is carried on now must change how it is done or else thankfully go away.  

It is our task as a society, as human beings dependent ultimately on nature, as workers, as social beings, to provide for everyone.  We will need to study and practice living within the means of the earth.  We will need to live within the means of our communities so that we could end wars and trade manipulations that force the subjugation of workers in other parts of the world to meet our needs.  We need to work enough to ensure some surplus to provide for those of us who have suffered unexpected blows or losses.

We can move beyond the assertion of our rights to our bodies and claim the right to our lives in full.  We can build a society in which our real needs matter most.  We need direct decision-making, not just over laws—so many of which are constructed to keep property and wealth away from us--but over the areas of life where our real concerns, our intelligence, our human development and growth, our chosen relationships, our material needs, and our well-being matters most.  

Friday, October 12, 2007

The General Welfare & The Blessings of Liberty

The economy is a feature of our common wealth just as the environment is.


The notions of "general welfare" and "blessings of liberty" come straight from the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. While the Constitution (if upheld) does much to provide a structure in which manifestations of these concepts may flourish, fully creating them will require greater participation, imagination, and action.

In an earlier post, I listed factors that contribute to poverty. "Poverty" is often defined as a lack of wealth, a condition, or an attribute of the poor. Programs focusing on eliminating poverty may dwell on the immediate material needs of the poor; as well as their access to education or to wage earning positions in the economy. Also common are programs aimed at reforming individual "character" or skill-sets. I would like to propose that "poverty" is the most visible and extreme result of harmful economic mechanisms that the visibly poor suffer most acutely, but that these mechanisms are harmful at every level of society.


The "general welfare" can be construed to have two meanings. One meaning is a community that fares or," goes" well. Another is the older sense of "fare" as something that sustains a community. That sense survives in our use of "fare" to denote a served food. Both senses are important. One way of seeing the "general welfare" is as our common wealth. There are resources that are precious to everyone, irreplaceable and necessary to life. In addition, there are those resources that add to our sense of history, well-being, safety, and flourishing. We must strengthen and protect these resources. In addition to natural and cultural resources, there is infrastructure which enables us to travel (fare well), to get out of our private lives and into the public sphere which is also crucial to the common wealth. There must be public spaces where people can freely gather to express themselves and form common goals and activities to further promote the "general welfare." We are ALL impoverished whenever the common wealth is confiscated, privatized, or permitted to degenerate.


The "blessings of liberty," it is hoped, refers to our freedom from harassment and unfair infringement on our rights as well as the freedom to pursue goals of our own design. Whenever one person or group is able to strongarm others into doing their bidding; or forces others to pay out to avoid a penalty rather than to obtain a good; or creates unequal access to important resources based on arbitrary criteria; (and many other actions along these lines) harms are done.

In rebuilding a country which is in the process of being looted and bankrupted of its common wealth and which permits and promotes extortionary, monopolistic, and discriminatory practices (and again I'm sure there is more to the list but suffice it to say...) that we should recognize two important goals.

One-rebuild and continue to grow our common wealth. The environment, culture, agriculture, public transportation, public meeting and gathering space, built environments promoting physical activity and enjoyment, education, safety. We have enough resources so that everyone could enjoy the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter, and health. We could also support a variety of free presses and media.

Two-Fight against and fight back against practices that are economically regressive and further exacerbate inequality. Against flat taxes and food taxes; against predatory lending and heavily biassed contracts. It's easy to identify a regressive mechanism if you just think of a Robin Hood in reverse. Does this take money from the poor and direct it straight to the rich? Pay day loans, subprime mortages, high rents etc. etc...

Many of us have made adjustments to our lives to decrease our environmental impact and act politically to prevent destruction to the environment. The Economy also needs our personal commitment and political protection. The economy is a feature of our common wealth just as the environment is; therefore, just as we change our diets, recycling and consumption habits for the preservation of the environment, we can also act personally to protect the economy from destruction. Just as we agitate politically on behalf of the environment, we can agitate politically on behalf of the economy.

This might sound startling because we are so used to hearing corporations, wall street, and "economists" speak about the economy as though it were theirs and they know what is best for it. But every person is invested in our economy and it takes no special training to become an economic activist. Just think how in our language "environmentalist" does not refer to an environmental scientist, but rather anyone who has an awareness of environmental issues and advocates for environmental protections. Imagine one day all of us who wish to protect the economy as our common wealth are casually called "economists."

We can protect ourselves from harm by making a personal commitment to resist entering into high interest borrowing arrangements and contracts in which the other party has lots more power including the power to change the contract even further to their advantage for any reason they like in the future and where anyone tries to weaken our ability to sue for breach of contract. We can politically fight corporate power's advancing ability to rig economic transactions in their favor; end the corporation's status as a "person;"end fraudulent and corrupt businesses etc. It would take a whole book to make a list. (Read David Korten and Naomi Klein for starters.) This resistance depends on alternatives and working hard to ensure those alternatives exist is essential to success.


Our goal is to make our public and "private" relations more democratic, more equal, freer and more beneficial for society and for ourselves.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

The Art of Economics

Many studies examine "risk factors" of poverty which ask, "who is likely to be poor?" Some studies examine impoverished regions and ask, "where are the poor?" A recent book went around the world asking people essentially, "Hey, you're poor! How come?" The researcher's condescending tone led many of those asked to deny the presumption and refused to speculate on the question. The problem with these approaches is that they begin with the assumption that poverty is a condition precipitated solely by decisions made by individuals for themselves. While personal behavior has some bearing on one's economic condition, there are many factors which exceed the scope of individual decision-making and which encroach on individuals' abilities to make self-interested or community, or socially interested decisions.

I'm proposing here a list of mechanisms and conditions which contribute to poverty. I propose to list them without, at first categorizing them into how directly or indirectly they create poverty, how deliberate or how diffuse they are, nor how individual or social, private or public the decision-making is. Importantly, I will list factors without, for the moment proposing solutions. What I am proposing here, is, for the time being, to "brainstorm" possible causes and correlations. This list is evolving and I intend to add and refine it over time. Some items on the list may be too general at first and will require some specific examples. Some causes will be more relevant in some regions than in others. The list will also serve to open our minds about what constitutes "quality of life" and what degrades it. We must ask, "what is an economy for?" Our relations with and management of our economy, society, and culture are an art-not primarily a scientific or technical field. Though we cringe a the thought of "social engineering," we need not recoil from the art of the good life . The unexamined culture is not worth living in.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO POVERTY: A STARTING LIST ....
  • unemployment
  • underemployment
  • unsatisfactory employment
  • unable to work
  • labor as commodity
  • pensions discontinued
  • health care costs
  • insurance shortfalls
  • pay/housing shortfalls
  • personal credit debt (connected to being underpaid?)
  • high interest loans, mortgages with variable interest rates
  • predatory lending: "payday loans," exorbitant interest rates
  • personal deficit spending
  • personal investment in depreciating goods
  • personal investment in erosive financial institutions ie: when bank fees exceed interest paid, etc.
  • renting housing
  • low-income persons not perceived as a "market" for homes and housing
  • rental density
  • cities divided by barriers and roads requiring automobile dependence
  • ghetto formation
  • insurmountable difference between rent rates and mortgage payment rates
  • bias and discrimination in lending or mortgages; ie: "redlining" racism and neighborhood discrimination by lenders
  • over-investment in employer stock
  • compulsive and/or impulsive purchases
  • gambling
  • lack of personal interests or worthwhile activities
  • menial, repetitive, physical, and restrictive jobs
  • forced displacement to find work
  • trapped in a zone without employment
  • homelessness
  • dangerous buildings
  • malfunctioning resources
  • unsanitary conditions
  • ugliness-shabbiness, junk, hazards, vermin, tagging, grunginess, commercial tawdriness
  • crime-ambient or personal engagement
  • fear-limiting access
  • limited access to resources
  • incarceration
  • drug and alcohol abuse ambient or personal
  • low educational attainment
  • lack of public transportation
  • unpaid commuting time and resources
  • dependence on foreign and non-local resources
  • privatization of utilities or other public resources and necessities
  • lack of public resources
  • weak unions
  • pollution
  • poor nutrition
  • starvation
  • untreated mental illness
  • untreated disease and injury
  • death -ambient and personal-there ARE ultimate costs and how death and dying are experienced and ritualized are contributions as well
  • absent prenatal care
  • when necessities are highly priced-inflation
  • predatory (temporarily sub-cost) pricing that drives out competition to win monopoly
  • corporate monopolies
  • regressive taxation
  • political ignorance, apathy, lack of social or political participation
  • illiteracy
  • Cultural illiteracy
  • lack of social skills or social graces
  • bias and discrimination by prospective employers
  • poorly negotiated trade policies
  • when U.S. financial system is unpredictable due to poor regulation, foreign investment looks elsewhere resulting in a falling dollar value-deflation
  • Poor or absent oversight of stock and bond rating agencies, background investigation of mortgages, fraud in the financial system
  • investing in homes beyond one's means and beyond the means of anyone else to buy it
  • Loss of common gathering spaces
  • pyramid scheme economics
  • ignorance of self-sufficiency skills
  • lack of self-sufficiency products
  • land confiscation
  • commodity auctions
  • displacement and property destruction from natural disaster, war, famine
  • protection by copyrights and patents, but these must be neither overly restrictive nor overreaching into public domain
  • protection of private property, but this in balance with public resources and commons
  • lack of democracy
  • adverse contracts
  • lack of legal recourse
  • slave or child labor, sex-trade- human commodities
  • social stigmas
  • repressive government, lack of free speech or press, persecution, terror
  • human rights abuses
  • environmental degradation
  • species loss
  • global warming
  • IMF-World Bank "structural adjustment" loans (Predatory lending to Third World Governments reducing their ability to provide social services and protections for their poor)
  • self-sacrifice for the betterment of others
Your comments welcome.