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
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
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
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
Maternal Mortality in India: A Preventable Evil
India is a developing nation with a wealth of natural and man-made resources. Yet, with parameters of development such as maternal mortality, the country falls short. According to UNICEF, approximately 800 deaths occur each day due to avoidable causes linked to childbirth and pregnancy, and 20 percent of these deaths occur in India alone.
However, a stark reduction in maternal mortality in India has been observed over the past few years. This reduction can be mainly attributed to better health care for child-bearing women, increased monitoring of maternal death cases and increased alertness towards any medical complications or emergencies.
Strategies to reduce maternal mortality include increasing health care resources such as the number of hospitals and trained health care professionals. It is also essential to facilitate immediate referral to delivery services. Maintaining clean, sterile hospital environments and regulating the numbers of deliveries made at a given point of time can also ensure greater safety during childbirth.
Recently, a study in the British Medical Journal revealed that Assam, a state in North-East India, has approximately double the maternal mortality rate of India as a whole. This conspicuous disparity in maternal mortality rates can be explained by crowded, unclean and unfavorable hospital settings. These poor conditions can dissuade women from seeking immediate medical care and can even increase a risk of complications linked to pregnancy.
Another study reveals that approximately half of maternal deaths due to sepsis are caused by abortion through illegal means. This suggests that along with health factors, societal ideals also have an important role to play in observed maternal mortality.
Gender bias towards males can result in some families deciding to abort their children on the basis of gender. Poor households, in particular, are more likely to act in accordance with this bias as they believe that males have greater ability to obtain higher incomes and thus extract them out of their poverty. These societal stereotypes can be addressed by increasing a fairness of treatment of females in job sectors in terms of incomes and job responsibility.
Recently, UNICEF estimated that approximately 55,000 of all deaths due to maternal causes in India could have been prevented with better health care services. High levels of illiteracy are also deemed as a cause for these vast number of avoidable deaths.
Without proper knowledge of the precautionary methods for intercourse and the amount of resources required to support a child, poor households often have a higher number of children than average. This is based on the erroneous belief that more children will eventually result in greater incomes, but the costs of their upbringing are not taken into account.
Piyasree Mukherjee, CEO of the Foundation for Mother & Child Health, expresses her views on the situation by stating that, “In rural India, access to healthcare, specifically during delivery remains an issue, and there is also a lack of information.”
This comment potently underscores the paucity of available childbirth clinics and trained professionals in local communities. By increasing the number of delivery services and educational campaigns and improving the state of maternal and child care in India, there will hopefully come a time when maternal mortality in India is close to being eliminated.
– Tanvi Ambulkar
Photo: Flickr
The Top Diseases in Germany and Poverty’s Effects on Health
Even the most prosperous countries struggle to combat epidemics, which often disproportionately affect the poor. The top diseases in Germany, where poverty is on the rise despite a growing economy, are heart and lung diseases.
Top Diseases in Germany: Facts and Figures
Although the prevalence of ischemic heart disease dropped by 8.2% from 2005-2015, it remains the leading cause of premature death in Germany, closely followed by lung cancer, which has risen by 3.6% in as many years.
Studies by the German Health Update (GEDA) support a correlation between poverty and disease, and more specifically, heart and lung disease. Women at risk of poverty statistically experience more bronchial asthma and higher blood lipid levels, which can lead to cardiac disease, than their high-income counterparts. Likewise, low-income men proved more susceptible to heart problems, among other ailments, than high-income men of the same age group.
The obvious question is why? Low-income Germans engage in more health-risk behavior than the upper-class. GEDA finds that men and women who are at-risk-of-poverty are 1.3 times more likely to smoke than those with high-incomes, and due to a lack of exercise and a higher consumption of budget foods like potatoes, white bread and sausages, the ratio of obesity for low-income to high-income women is 3.3 to 1, and for men 1.6 to 1.
But can this health disparity really be reduced to the habitual differences between Germany’s rich and the poor? The GEDA study also attributes increased disease incidence among the poor to psychosocial stress. Experiences of exclusion, social comparison and anxieties about the future, all of which are more common to the impoverished, cause health-impairing stress, which insufficient social support exacerbates.
In an interview with the Foreign Policy Group in February 2016, a low-income woman named Heike Wagner explains, “If you don’t have any money [in Berlin], it’s really hard to be part of the group. Going to a bar, to the movies, you can’t do it…If you have friends with a good job, it’s tough to keep up those friendships.” In addition to the inaccessibility of healthy foods, the absence of physical recreation, the prominence of dangerous habits and the general stress of financial insecurity, social isolation deteriorates the health of Germany’s poor.
Because of the tight entanglement of income and health, combatting poverty ought to further the cause of disease prevention. With poverty “at its highest level in Germany since reunification 25 years ago,” political efforts to protect citizens’ health are crucial.
Programs Designed to Reduce Disease and Poverty
Among several efforts to reduce the top diseases in Germany across all economic backgrounds, the Federal Center for Health Education coordinates the Health Promotion for the Socially Disadvantaged network. Meanwhile, Federal Health Reporting continuously monitors and publishes data on the link between poverty and health to educate the public and inspire political change.
The German Heart Foundation (GHF) sponsors school programs which aim to impart preventative habits early in life. Skipping Hearts teaches children rope skipping and educates them about their hearts’ reactions to exercise and diet. GHF also brings the European Non-Smoking Project’s “Be Smart — Do Not Start” program into German schools.
Every November, GHF hosts a national campaign called Heart Weeks to inform the public about heart health. Cardiologists and heart health professionals give more than 1,200 seminars in hospitals and clinics across Germany.
Additionally, the National Action Plan, IN FORM, spreads awareness about nutrition, physical activity and well-being to encourage citizens to adopt healthy lifestyles. The program began in 2008 and is set to conclude in 2020.
– Robin Lee
Photo: Flickr
Diagnostic Methods Build the Foundation of Outbreak Control
The case of Ebola in Liberia provides an example of how breakthrough disease-testing methods can save thousands of lives. Jude Senguku, one of the leading physicians who treated Ebola patients in Liberia, told BBC that misinformation, panic and misdiagnosis kept people from seeking help at the onset of symptoms.
People knew very little about the deadly disease and feared being sent to Ebola isolation units. Public health workers needed better diagnostic methods to screen people for Ebola in order to obtain medical evidence that would support or invalidate a diagnosis.
For Monrovia’s Redemption Hospital, the solution came in the form of GeneXpert, a machine that rapidly tests for Ebola and provides results within 90 minutes.
At the beginning of the Ebola outbreak in 2014, there were 50 licensed doctors for a population of 4.3 million. To provide each symptomatic person a one-on-one doctor visit was both unfeasible and impractical. During and after the outbreak, GeneXpert allowed health care workers, including volunteers with limited medical training, to accurately test patients for the presence of the Ebola virus and direct them to care in time to receive life-saving treatment.
Senguku says that since 2014, GeneXpert was “very critical” in reducing Ebola scares and restoring Monrovia’s confidence in their doctors.
The technology uses a process called DNA amplification, which tests a human specimen — cheek cells, saliva, etc. — for the disease’s specific DNA sequence. In contrast to other diagnostic methods, the technology can identify extremely low amounts of viral DNA as well as drug-resistant strains, which makes it incredibly sensitive and accurate. The machine, which is used for multiple tests, costs about $17,000. The test cartridge, which is used in every test per person, costs a mere $10.
One of the technology’s most valuable features is its usability. The health care worker administering the test does not need to be trained to identify a specific disease. Rather, they simply need to know how to operate the machine. Moreover, because of its low dependence on electricity, GeneXpert is an ideal diagnostic tool for regions with limited access to power.
The diagnostic process plays a critical role in outbreak control, stabilizing population health and providing a sense of security to an affected community. Events like the Ebola outbreak of 2014 serve as examples of how improved diagnostic methods are helping health care workers deliver faster and more efficient care under strenuous circumstances.
– Jessica Levitan
Photo: Flickr
Germany and Its Dedication to Improving Welfare Efforts
Although Germany is experiencing record-low unemployment and the economy has been improving over the years, overall poverty in Germany is increasing. Since Germany’s reunification in 1990, the poverty rate has never been higher than its current state. Ulrich Schneider — chief executive of Germany’s Equal Welfare Organization — was quoted in an article by the “Deutsche Welle” saying “Poverty has never been as high and the regional disunity has never run as deep.”
In 2013, a survey titled “Living in Europe” released results showing that 16.2 million people in Germany were victims of poverty. That astounding number makes up 20.3% of the German population. As previously stated, poverty in Germany has been increasing over the years and the statistics only support that fact. The percentage of the impoverished German population has ranged from 19.6 to 21.9 since 2008. The poverty issue in Germany has affected men and women alike, but it has affected children more than anything.
In 2014, there were an estimated 1.9 million minors growing up in impoverished households in Germany. Surprisingly, that number shot up by 52,000 in the span of one year. This horrific statistic will haunt the lives of many for years to come. Statistics show “that 57.2 percent of children between the ages of seven and 15 had been supported by basic welfare for a period of at least three years.” Anette Stein — an expert working at the Bertelsmann Foundation — knows from work experience: “The longer that a child lives on welfare, the worse the consequences are.”
The consequences of welfare are horrible because welfare-dependent children are not just affected financially, but also physically and socially. Welfare dependent children have higher chances of struggling in social situations, struggling with health issues and struggling with education.
How Germany is Trying to Appease Poverty
Schneider is aware of Germany’s current status and has proposed to appease the situation by increasing welfare rates and creating more employment opportunities. It was decided in 2015 that in order to create thousands of new jobs for poverty-stricken German citizens, a substantial amount of money would have to be spent. Andre Nahles — a German Labor Minister — stated Germany “will use 2.7 billion euros ($3 billion) from the European Social Fund, plus 4.3 billion euros from within Germany.”
This plan will create 26 different programs within Germany and run until the year 2020. The German labor industry claims that almost 40% of the money will be invested in “the promotion of social integration and the battle against poverty.”
Although Germany is currently in a poor position, their current state does not come as much of a surprise. Statisticians have reported that the European Union as a whole is in worse shape than Germany. Twenty-four point five percent of the EU’s population is facing poverty and social exclusion. Additionally, “16.7 percent of the population was at risk of poverty, 9.6 percent significantly material-disadvantaged and 10.7 percent were living in households with very low labor market participation.”
Germany has a lot of improvements to make before it can get back on track as a country, but it is attacking its problems head-on. The Germans have not shied away from improving welfare efforts and have implemented plans for progression. With Germany’s economy on the rise and the unemployment rate on the decline, it should only be a matter of time before poverty in Germany takes a turn for the better.
– Terry J. Halloran
Photo: Flickr
America Has Strong Advocates for the Global Poor
The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations possess the constitutional authority and resources to manage national security, international health crises, and address human rights abuses. On a daily basis, congressional members are strong advocates for the global poor.
To address the complexity of the international affairs, the governing bodies established regional subcommittees and assigned specific representatives to create solutions that are tailored to the unique needs of the diverse and multi-polar system.
Rep. Christopher Smith, with Rep. Karen Bass as the Ranking Member, chairs the U.S. House of Representative’s Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Human Rights, and International Organizations. Past actions of the committee include calls for the promotion of good governance in Eritrea; accountability in human rights reports; and cooperation with the U.N. to stabilize South Sudan.
Sen. Jeff Flake, with Sen. Edward J. Markey as its ranking member, chairs the U.S. Senate Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy. The committee has recently passed legislation highlighting their dedication to being an ally to the global poor. The legislation is called Electrify Africa, which partners with sub-Saharan governments to provide power services for at least 50 million people.
Other responsibilities of the Senate Subcommittee promote good government and identify threats for the intelligence and military community to further evaluate. These elected representatives work diligently to be effective advocates for the global poor.
However, congressional leaders are elected to serve the American people. If you are one of millions of Americans who care about the globally impoverished, then have your voice heard.
By emailing, calling or writing, individual Americans can lobby their representatives to support bills that demonstrate their allegiance to assisting the global poor. Often times, it does not take more than five constituents reaching out to make something become a topic of discussion. It’s amazing to think that individual American citizens can have a big impact by being influential advocates for the global poor.
There has never been a more important time to get involved. The world is at a pivotal point: continue improving the living conditions of those who live on less than a dollar a day or forfeit the hard work of generations. The choice is up to every American to become an ally of the global poor.
– Adam George
Photo: Flickr