When it comes to social safety nets, many myths and half-truths about the efficacy of these programs exist among citizens and political leaders. Social safety nets are programs that aid the poor by increasing their incomes, improving school attendance, providing access to basic health care and implementing employment opportunities.
Even though some of these myths are inoffensive, they do have the potential to harm people who rely on governmental assistance programs. The New York Times reports that, “One billion people in developing countries participate in a social safety net. At least one type of unconditional cash assistance is used in 119 countries.”
Here are some of the top myths about social safety nets debunked:
Myth #1: The economy will do better if social programs are cut.
When governments decide to cut their social safety nets, many sectors of the economy begin to suffer. This is due to the fact, that by cutting social programs, governments inadvertently increase the unemployment rates within their countries.
For instance, in 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed the Recovery Act, which cut social programs, such as payments for individuals with disabilities and school-lunch programs. As a result, the largest projected deficit in U.S. history occurred, leading the U.S. economy to its worst recession since the Great Depression.
The American economy struggled to combat the resulting 14% inflation rate as well as the increased interest rates of the Federal Reserve Board.
With fewer citizens being able to afford goods and services, overall manufacturing decreased while layoffs and unpaid taxes increased. It is recorded that in 1982, those unemployed reached a staggering nine million, 17,000 businesses had failed, farmers across the nation began to lose land and the poor, elderly and sick became homeless.
Therefore instead of aiding the economy, social budget cuts on social safety nets result in a decrease in the overall finical health of a country’s economy.
Myth #2: Reducing government assistance benefits will make people get a job.
This myth is usually perpetrated by those who do not understand the demographics within social safety nets.
Over half of all people who are enrolled in government assistance programs are those who cannot physically or mentally work, such as the elderly and people with disabilities.
Even if governments were to reduce benefits for those who can work, it still would not make a significant difference in employment rates.
According to the Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania, many people who are working and receive housing assistance still live in homeless shelters simply because they still do not make enough currency for affording a place to live.
The Wall Street Journal further states that the four largest welfare recipients are those who labor as fast-food workers, home-care workers, child-care workers and part-time college faculty.
Thus, reducing government assistance will not make people get a job simply because those who receive these benefits are either unable to work or are currently working in a low-paying occupation.
Myth #3: Welfare makes people lazier.
Though the majority of persons benefiting from welfare are employed; surveys show that individuals from around the globe believe that social safety nets waste revenue and make people lazy.
However, in 2014, the World Bank reported that contrary to public opinion, individuals on financial assistance in countries such as Asia, Latin America and Africa rarely wasted money on alcohol and tobacco.
In addition, the director of the Poverty Action Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Abhijit Banerjee, released a scholarly paper that tracked and documented the cash-transfer programs in seven countries. The results from this paper determined that out of the seven countries, Mexico, Nicaragua, Morocco, Honduras, Indonesia and the Philippines, these programs did not discourage people from working.
Moreover, people who receive benefits from social safety nets do not become lazy. Rather, people who did receive these benefits continued to work diligently while also not wasting funds on items such as tobacco and alcohol.
Myth #4: People can benefit from social safety nets for as long as they want.
Most government assistance programs have a limited amount of time that someone can use unemployment benefits.
For instance, the U.S. used to allow people 99 weeks of unemployment assistance. Though in recent years, states have limited the amount of time that citizens can use unemployment benefits to around 26-30 weeks. Currently, the only state that gives citizens 30 weeks of unemployment benefits is Massachusetts.
Myth #5: Certain demographics make social safety nets benefit one group and disadvantage the rest.
A majority of people believe that social safety nets benefit a particular kind of demographic while disadvantaging other groups within a society. Particularly, U.S. citizens feel that groups, comparatively liberals, benefit the most from social assistance programs.
Yet details from a 2012 survey from the Pew Research Center show that in regards to politics, liberals and conservatives used governmental assistance programs almost equally, with 42% of liberals and 40% of conservatives using at least one governmental assistance program.
Despite these myths being detrimental to those who rely on social safety nets, it is worth noting that the U.S. economy is slowly improving. As of August 2016, unemployment rates in the U.S. are as low as 4.9%. Additionally, average hourly wages have increased between 5 cents and $25.59, with average weekly wages at around $880.30.
However, the best way to eradicate these myths about social safety nets is to advocate for legislation that protects these programs. Pay attention to laws that pertain to social safety nets and meet with local representatives about how social safety nets benefit society. Information about U.S. elected officials can be found on the website commoncause.org.
– Shannon Warren
Photo: Flickr
António Guterres Named U.N. Secretary-General
In early October, the 15 ambassadors that make up the U.N.’s Security Council were presented with the challenging decision of choosing a new secretary-general. The vote was characterized as the most important decision from the U.N. this year. In the end, António Guterres, the former socialist prime minister of Portugal, was nominated as the new U.N. secretary-general.
Guterres was favored for the position for many months leading up to the actual vote. He accepted the nomination from Lisbon after the Council’s decision and did so with “gratitude and humility.”
He will replace current Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in January. Historically, the Security Council has been polarized in their decision-making, so the consensual conclusion to choose Guterres was met with his resounding agreement. Guterres described the decision as an “exemplary process of transparency and openness.”
The decision to choose António Guterres ignored the Council’s traditions of rotating the presidency based on region. The only region that hasn’t held the presidency is Eastern Europe, which is one reason why Danilo Turk, a former Slovenian president, and Irina Bokova, a Bulgarian director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), finished closely behind Guterres in the vote.
The Council also ignored external pressures to elect a woman secretary-general, despite seven of the 13 candidates begin female. Well aware of this, Guterres has pledged to exercise gender equity as he moves forward with his new position.
After acting as the prime minister of Portugal from 1995 to 2002, Guterres was elected to serve as the head of the U.N.’s High Commission for Refugees. While serving in this position, Guterres repeatedly called for humanitarian action from countries with appropriate resources.
In particular, after U.N. agencies failed to meet funding goals that would provide humanitarian aid for displaced peoples in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, Guterres called for financial commitment from Western countries.
His experience leading a major U.N. institution was looked at as a huge strength in the voting process. He has promised to demonstrate “the humility that is needed to serve especially those that are most vulnerable.”
Guterres will have to face many difficult challenges as he moves forward with his new position of leadership, like maintaining and negotiating support from Russia and the U.S. and facing the impacts of the global refugee crisis.
Despite these inevitable challenges, the ambassadors of the Security Council are confident that Guterres will be able to act justly and level-headedly as the new U.N. secretary-general.
– Peyton Jacobsen
Photo: Flickr
Indonesia Facing Diseases That Are Wreaking Havoc
Humans struggle with diseases all around the world, but they become much more life threatening in impoverished countries. As a tropical country, Indonesia facing diseases is paramount in the attempt to improve development.
In Java, Indonesia there is a resurgence of diphtheria in children, mainly due to parents’ resistance to vaccinating their children. Lymphatic Filariasis (elephantiasis), polio and bird flu have all taken a great toll on Indonesia and its inhabitants. These diseases in Indonesia not only affect individuals’ lives, but also negatively impact Indonesia’s social and economic development. In order to control infectious diseases, the government must be able to implement effective interventions.
For bird flu specifically, all suspected infected poultry must be reported and then killed. The government has been very inconsistent in applying this rule but must take action if it wants to eliminate bird flu. Many farmers hide their flocks in fear of having their birds killed; the farmers care more about their loss of livelihood than the spread of disease.
In the peer-reviewed journal, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases stated that Indonesia has some of the world’s highest concentrations of tropical diseases, holding back Indonesia’s emerging market status. High rates of disease are commonly found in low-income countries due to poor economic growth. However, Indonesia has experienced economic growth at an average of 6 percent over the recent years and its middle class is projected to double in size over the next decade.
Indonesia is the only country in Southeast Asia with prevalent schistosomiasis, a parasitic disease prevalent in communities deprived of potable water or sufficient sanitation. Adding to that, almost 10 percent of the world’s leprosy cases are in Indonesia. Additionally, the World Health Organization is cautioning individuals about the emerging threat from dengue fever in Indonesia, which Indonesia is already spending a lot of money on — 323 million in 2010.
If Indonesia does not implement better controls to reduce these diseases, their future growth and economic gains could easily be thwarted, mainly due to the country’s negative impact on child development, labor and health.
In order to start controlling these infectious diseases USAID and other NGOs are working to improve health efforts in Indonesia. USAID currently has programs in both maternal and child health, infectious diseases (TB, HIV/AIDS), pandemic threats, neglected tropical diseases as well as water and sanitation issues.
To control infectious diseases USAID is partnering with Indonesia’s National TB Program to help treat and combat the disease for Indonesia’s future. One big step that was made was in 2012 when USAID introduced GeneXpert technology, which diagnoses multi-drug resistant TB in hours instead of months; this act alone has helped save countless lives. For HIV and AIDS, USAID is providing technical support to the Ministry of Health (MOH) to hasten prevention measures being used by the Indonesian individuals.
Lastly, Indonesia facing diseases has caused pandemic threats to the country. USAID has been engaging in a multitude of actions to stop these outbreaks. Along with plenty other assistance, USAID helps the Indonesian government identify and respond to risks as quickly as possible, in addition to increasing access to safe water and sanitation efforts.
Clearly, USAID and other public-health measures have made some progress. A recent study indicates that if it wants to keep the growth train running, Indonesia facing diseases will need to step up its outreach to better eliminate disease, which USAID has started. Hopefully, these positive impacts will end disease in Indonesia soon.
– Bella Chaffey
Photo: Flickr
Let Girls Learn Initiative: $5 Million in New Commitments
Equality. To some, it is merely a word, and to others, an idea. However, to the millions of girls throughout the world who are prevented simply based on their gender from receiving equal education, it is a movement.
In response to this, many associations, organizations and programs are created to end this unnecessary fight against adolescent girls and their right to attaining a quality education. As each contributes in its own corner of the world, there is one that is determined to assist the entire globe.
On the International Day of the Girl, the U.S. government-led initiative known as Let Girls Learn announced an astounding investment of more than $5 million in new private sector commitments.
Assembled by both President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, the program strives to eliminate the vast barriers and obstacles facing young girls around the world from attaining equal and quality education.
Established in March 2015, Let Girls Learn hopes to accelerate the speed at which all girls obtain a quality education. Since its creation, the program has provided more than $1 billion dollars worth of new and ongoing programming in more than 50 countries.
The platform works directly with a multitude of government departments, including the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), to effectively engage civil society and governments around the world act.
With the assistance of the Peace Corps, volunteers are able to identify obstructions limiting adolescent girls from attending schools, while USAID is focused on increasing access to quality education by empowering girls.
Additional programs, companies and organizations contributing to the fight for equal and quality education for girls everywhere include The World Bank, Girl Starter, Let Girls Lead and more.
Moving forward, Let Girls Learn plans on continuing its efforts until the last girl presently prevented from obtaining equal and quality education is put into school.
– Jordan J. Phelan
Photo: Flickr
Why Unequal Access to Land in Namibia is a Security Risk
Since becoming independent in 1990, Namibia has seen steady economic growth, increasing at an average rate of 4.3 percent in the past five years.
However, the country suffers from steep income inequality and poverty rates. Currently, 29.9 percent of Namibians are unemployed, 27.6 percent of households live in poverty and another 13.8 percent live in extreme poverty.
Of a population of 2.2 million, 70 percent are estimated to live in rural areas with limited access to health care, electricity, food and other resources.
According to Focus on Land in Africa, a research group that studies development in the continent, these economic and social imbalances are consequences of more than a century of German colonization and South African apartheid occupation.
Another lasting effect is the unequal access to land in Namibia for those who are not considered elite. Although the country has 820,000 square kilometers of land and a small population for its size, the region’s weather patterns and topography make for some uninhabitable parts, concentrating the population into certain areas.
In 1990, the white minority which made up less than 0.5 percent of the population owned almost all commercial land in Namibia. Shortly after becoming a sovereign state, the government of Namibia introduced comprehensive land reform to alleviate land access inequalities.
Decades later, unequal access to land in Namibia continues to be an issue, Brigadier General Paul Nathinge of the Namibian Defense Forces warns could be a security risk for the country.
“Namibia is experiencing a serious problem associated with land in terms of housing and resettlement,” Nathinge told New Era. “The majority of the population are for the expropriation of the white-owned farms, which are believed to have been forcefully acquired by the colonisers […].” Nathinge added the government has thus far been unable to resolve the housing crisis for the middle and lower class in urban regions.
Individuals and groups alike have called for the government to prioritize poverty and housing relief in legislation. Nathinge warns of the dangers of public uprisings, class conflicts and racial wars in the name of equality.
He says such extreme measures make Namibians more vulnerable to manmade disasters, both internal and external. A main concern for the country is foreign aggression from developed countries in the form of an economic and military takeover to take advantage of Namibia’s abundant natural resources and geographical features.
Current land reform in Namibia centers around the redistribution of farmland, land rights registration on communal land and land title provisions in urban areas. The Namibian government is working towards redistributing at least 15 million hectares of commercial farmland to previously disadvantaged Namibians by 2020.
– Ashley Leon
Photo: Flickr
Ten Facts About Refugees in Kenya Forced to Return to Somalia
During the early 1990s, Kenya formed a repatriation program, the Dadaab refugee camp, for thousands of displaced Somalians escaping rebel attacks, drought, continuous violence and abuse.
– Rachel Williams
Photo: Flickr
What’s Being Done About Global TB Rates
In addition to the already grim picture, the WHO report concedes that notification and diagnostic systems continue to lack in high-risk areas. These newly exposed realities severely muddy the larger picture of successes and shortcomings. And they are surely expected to result in a reported stagnation of global TB rates for years to come, despite the 2030 U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) explicit mention of curtailing TB as an epidemic.
Complicating efforts to combat the problem and to plan future long-term strategies is the reality that TB is increasingly experiencing multi-drug resistant strains of the disease. In fact, such cases account for over 40 percent of estimated global TB cases.
In recent months, much greater efforts have been spurred to collectively address the global TB crisis. Caucuses have been organized in Latin America, Eurasia and Africa, and several Asian and African nations have passed legislation aimed at ending TB rates in their respective countries in accordance with U.N. and WHO goals and aspirations.
In March, the Americas TB Caucus was formed and included in its ranks Brazil, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Peru and Uruguay. In June, 13 nations stretching from the United Kingdom to Kyrgyzstan announced the formation of the Eurasian Parliamentary Group on TB. And in July, the African TB Caucus was launched and included 18 nations from across the continent, particularly the hard-hit South Africa.
The Philippines, Sudan and Zimbabwe have also announced national efforts this year aimed at combating TB.
In addition to funding efforts to disseminate prevention and treatment methods to those affected, parliamentarians and researchers alike also see a need to treat the social symptoms of TB so as to eliminate factors and settings that can lead to a widening of the epidemic such as endemic poverty rates in high-risk areas.
The WHO included in its 2016 report on social implications for the fight against global TB rates that: “Ending TB and ending poverty are intertwined goals. Ministries of health, affected communities and partners can do more to use available evidence of the links in order to advocate for poverty elimination and action on related risk factors (e.g. noncommunicable disease prevention, food security, and housing).”
– James Collins
Photo: Flickr
Does Socioeconomic Status Determine Dietary Choices?
Researchers spend a lot of time trying to understand what social factors influence dietary choices. Many have concluded that the two primary social issues at play are socioeconomic status and education level. According to the European Union Information Council (EUFIC), individuals with low incomes and little education tend to have unhealthy dietary lifestyles. When purchasing food, people who make less money tend to prioritize low prices and familiarity over health value.
Food deserts are common in poorer neighborhoods. The USDA defines food deserts as “parts of the country vapid of fresh fruit, vegetables, and other healthful whole foods, usually found in impoverished areas. This is largely due to a lack of grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and healthy food providers.” A lack of healthy choices leads many individuals to buy unhealthy, nutrient-poor, processed foods from local convenience stores and fast food restaurants.
People who’ve received little education are also prone to making unhealthy dietary decisions due to lack of knowledge about nutrition. Reports from State of Obesity estimate that in recent years nearly 33 percent of American high school dropouts were obese, compared to only 21.5 percent of college graduates.
Lowering the prices on healthy food may help improve peoples’ dietary choices. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, healthy diets cost $1.50 more per day than unhealthy diets. One study showed price reductions on low fat foods resulting in consumers purchasing more of them.
Insurers like Humana and local Blue Cross Blue Shield providers are trying to reduce poor dietary choices by offering customers coupons and discounts on healthy food items. Recipients of these coupons were shown to purchase 4.5 percent more healthy food products than they had before.
Another proposed solution is increased funding for nutrition education. SNAP-Ed programs from the USDA have demonstrated a positive correlation between nutrition education and good dietary choices. According to one report, children and seniors who received nutrition education made positive dietary choices, such as choosing low-fat milk and increasing their consumption of fruits and vegetables.
– Shannon Warren
Photo: Flickr
Potential Rise in Poverty Among OPEC
A potential rise in poverty among OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) is expected as oil is indeed the cornerstone of a majority of their exports and revenue has swung drastically since 2014.
The combined effects of excess supply and competition among markets over the years have impacted OPEC nations like Algeria, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Iraq. The economic uncertainty has deterred these large developing economies adversely.
An estimated 250,000 jobs have been lost as a result of the progressive decline in oil prices and many more are threatened owing to the 50 percent drop over the last two years. This crisis will result in a potential rise in poverty among OPEC, with declining national incomes overall.
Moreover, the presence of Boko Haram in Nigeria has also been a factor that is currently impacting its oil exporting capacity. The 50 percent price decline has only fueled this.
To combat a potential rise in poverty and economic instability, the African Development Bank plans to provide loans worth $10 billion by the year 2019 to bolster various sectors, including energy and electricity. Despite Nigeria’s depreciating currency and 70 percent poverty rate, this method can greatly increase investment capacity and attract more investment.
The Abidjan, a bank based in the Ivory Coast, also resolved to provide $1 billion for supporting the Nigerian budget.
A report by Nigeria’s Leadership newspaper has commended its diversification projects as a means to boost economic growth amid uncertainty.
Existing tensions between oil-producing nations have also escalated as a result of the plummet. Many nations argue about freezing and regulating their output. Consequently, mediating between countries is a viable way to ease the pressure. Iraq is currently heading a conciliation with Iran and Saudi Arabia in an attempt for both countries to reach a consensus regarding the crisis.
Ecuador, OPEC’s smallest member, was especially plagued by the plunge in oil prices as the government has to control and curtail public expenditure. The government has looked to OPEC remedy the situation in some way.
President of OPEC and minister of energy and industry in Qatar, Mohammed Saleh Abdulla Al Sada, is also working actively to agree upon a benchmark price and output level for all countries to adhere to. A renewed benchmark output of 32.5 million barrels has recently been discussed. This could alleviate the price volatility and circumvent a potential rise in poverty among OPEC countries.
Similarly, Algeria has also been a strong advocate of cutting production among OPEC nations as a means to raise oil prices again. Algeria is expected to see a 3 percent drop in its GDP this year.
Furthermore, political and economic turmoil in Venezuela, owing to the oil price decline and President Nicolas Maduro’s ration laws has resulted in food shortages and a 700 percent crippling inflation rate. Venezuela already has a concurrent poverty rate of 32.1 percent.
However, many neighboring countries like Chile, Peru, Argentina and Colombia are in the strategic position to aid the people and reach out to Maduro. Peru’s President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski recently called upon leaders to engage in the situation.
He believes that Peru’s pharmaceutical industry can be effectively used to help the country. Venezuela’s democratic Unity Alliance also echoes this view. Foreign aid is the only sustainable way for Venezuela to find its way through this major economic and financial bulwark.
Overall, a potential rise in poverty among OPEC countries may be the outcome of the drastic tumbling oil prices. It is vital that countries comply with OPEC proposals and guidelines to safeguard the interests of the economy and the people.
– Shivani Ekkanath
Photo: Flickr
AIDS Today: Where Has the Aid Gone for AIDS?
How dangerous is AIDS today?
While many wealthy nations have found ways to manage HIV, neither it nor AIDS had yet been eradicated.
Since the epidemic began in 1981, over 70 million people have been infected with the HIV virus, and upward of 35 million have succumbed to AIDS.
In 2015 alone, 1.1 million people died of AIDS or of an AIDS-related illness. Sub-Saharan Africa houses a majority of the AIDS infected population. One in every 25 adults is infected with the disease.
Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for nearly 70 percent of the worldwide infected population, while the other 30 percent are dispersed primarily throughout Western and Central Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Despite these substantial numbers, investments in HIV prevention research have decreased. Many donors were met with a slew of competing funding demands. Others no longer see the retrovirus as posing a current threat. Much of the world views HIV and AIDS as medical relics — diseases of a time long gone. Yet every day nearly 5,753 people are infected with HIV. That is about 240 people every hour.
HIV is transmitted from person-to-person through unprotected sexual intercourse, transmission of contaminated blood and from mother to child during birth or through breastfeeding. There is no cure for HIV, but the virus can be treated to almost a complete halt with antiretroviral therapy.
However, marginalized groups of people are not granted access to this therapy. As of December 2015, more than 60 percent of people living with HIV did not have access to antiretroviral therapy.
For the first time since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, scientists believe we are in reach of an entirely AIDS-free generation. Since 2000, the United Nation’s International Children’s Emergency Fund estimates that about 30 million new infections have been averted, eight million lives have been saved and 15 million people who would not otherwise have access are now receiving treatment.
The International AIDS Conference is a biennial meeting held for people working in fields actively related to the prevention of HIV. This year, nearly 18,000 delegates and 1,000 journalists showed up. Many of those in attendance were policymakers, people living with the disease and others committed to putting a stop to the epidemic. This year’s theme was “Access Equity Right Now.” It focused primarily on the ways in which the world can refocus global efforts on HIV/AIDS today and hopefully making treatment readily available to everyone.
But why should we stop there? With access to birth control and prenatal care, better sex education and sterile medical equipment, it is conceivable that we could live in a world that is entirely HIV-free — a world where AIDS really is history.
– Kayla Provencher
Photo: Flickr
Social Safety Nets: Debunking Myths About Government Assistance
When it comes to social safety nets, many myths and half-truths about the efficacy of these programs exist among citizens and political leaders. Social safety nets are programs that aid the poor by increasing their incomes, improving school attendance, providing access to basic health care and implementing employment opportunities.
Even though some of these myths are inoffensive, they do have the potential to harm people who rely on governmental assistance programs. The New York Times reports that, “One billion people in developing countries participate in a social safety net. At least one type of unconditional cash assistance is used in 119 countries.”
Here are some of the top myths about social safety nets debunked:
Myth #1: The economy will do better if social programs are cut.
When governments decide to cut their social safety nets, many sectors of the economy begin to suffer. This is due to the fact, that by cutting social programs, governments inadvertently increase the unemployment rates within their countries.
For instance, in 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed the Recovery Act, which cut social programs, such as payments for individuals with disabilities and school-lunch programs. As a result, the largest projected deficit in U.S. history occurred, leading the U.S. economy to its worst recession since the Great Depression.
The American economy struggled to combat the resulting 14% inflation rate as well as the increased interest rates of the Federal Reserve Board.
With fewer citizens being able to afford goods and services, overall manufacturing decreased while layoffs and unpaid taxes increased. It is recorded that in 1982, those unemployed reached a staggering nine million, 17,000 businesses had failed, farmers across the nation began to lose land and the poor, elderly and sick became homeless.
Therefore instead of aiding the economy, social budget cuts on social safety nets result in a decrease in the overall finical health of a country’s economy.
Myth #2: Reducing government assistance benefits will make people get a job.
This myth is usually perpetrated by those who do not understand the demographics within social safety nets.
Over half of all people who are enrolled in government assistance programs are those who cannot physically or mentally work, such as the elderly and people with disabilities.
Even if governments were to reduce benefits for those who can work, it still would not make a significant difference in employment rates.
According to the Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania, many people who are working and receive housing assistance still live in homeless shelters simply because they still do not make enough currency for affording a place to live.
The Wall Street Journal further states that the four largest welfare recipients are those who labor as fast-food workers, home-care workers, child-care workers and part-time college faculty.
Thus, reducing government assistance will not make people get a job simply because those who receive these benefits are either unable to work or are currently working in a low-paying occupation.
Myth #3: Welfare makes people lazier.
Though the majority of persons benefiting from welfare are employed; surveys show that individuals from around the globe believe that social safety nets waste revenue and make people lazy.
However, in 2014, the World Bank reported that contrary to public opinion, individuals on financial assistance in countries such as Asia, Latin America and Africa rarely wasted money on alcohol and tobacco.
In addition, the director of the Poverty Action Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Abhijit Banerjee, released a scholarly paper that tracked and documented the cash-transfer programs in seven countries. The results from this paper determined that out of the seven countries, Mexico, Nicaragua, Morocco, Honduras, Indonesia and the Philippines, these programs did not discourage people from working.
Moreover, people who receive benefits from social safety nets do not become lazy. Rather, people who did receive these benefits continued to work diligently while also not wasting funds on items such as tobacco and alcohol.
Myth #4: People can benefit from social safety nets for as long as they want.
Most government assistance programs have a limited amount of time that someone can use unemployment benefits.
For instance, the U.S. used to allow people 99 weeks of unemployment assistance. Though in recent years, states have limited the amount of time that citizens can use unemployment benefits to around 26-30 weeks. Currently, the only state that gives citizens 30 weeks of unemployment benefits is Massachusetts.
Myth #5: Certain demographics make social safety nets benefit one group and disadvantage the rest.
A majority of people believe that social safety nets benefit a particular kind of demographic while disadvantaging other groups within a society. Particularly, U.S. citizens feel that groups, comparatively liberals, benefit the most from social assistance programs.
Yet details from a 2012 survey from the Pew Research Center show that in regards to politics, liberals and conservatives used governmental assistance programs almost equally, with 42% of liberals and 40% of conservatives using at least one governmental assistance program.
Despite these myths being detrimental to those who rely on social safety nets, it is worth noting that the U.S. economy is slowly improving. As of August 2016, unemployment rates in the U.S. are as low as 4.9%. Additionally, average hourly wages have increased between 5 cents and $25.59, with average weekly wages at around $880.30.
However, the best way to eradicate these myths about social safety nets is to advocate for legislation that protects these programs. Pay attention to laws that pertain to social safety nets and meet with local representatives about how social safety nets benefit society. Information about U.S. elected officials can be found on the website commoncause.org.
– Shannon Warren
Photo: Flickr