Poverty in Canada Essay

Despite having one and only(a) of the mettlesomeeststandards of living among all the developed nations, and despite beingness voted numerous times in recent long time by the United Nations as the best country in the world in which to live, experts agree that leanness is prevalent in Canada today. Unfortunately, that is more than than or less where the agreement fires. Exactly how prevalent and how serious a problem p overty is in Canada is an open research that has been hotly debated for the last 10 years.There run through been two times in the past 300 years when economic structural changes have occurred in the world that have been so massive and so far-reaching, that the impact on societies has been nothing short of monumental.The prime(prenominal) time was in the Industrial Revolution which began in the early 1700s and caused massive societal transformations, especially in the western world, changing life from agrarian-based societies to industrial-based societies. The s econd time was in the early 1980s with the beginning of the reading Revolution. Today, a rapid, world-wide, economic transformation is taking place that is changing our societies from industrial-based societies to information-based societies, the 3rd wave.These changes atomic number 18 part of a greater phenomenon called globalization . The improvement in technology lead to a desire to make trades with other countries, and therefore allowing foreign companies to sell in Canada and thereby compete with Canadian companies, and vice versa (Laisser faire, laisser passer ex Smith).This increase competition lead to ever greater pressures on Canadian companies to reduce their costs of producing legals. Companies close down and went looking in third world countries because labour is cheaper. At the same time, technology was permutation human labour employees lost their jobs, being replaced by machines that could do the job faster and more efficiently. This eliminated the manufacturi ng, low-to-medium skills, well-paying jobs, which didnt require a very high level of education. While now, our labour markets into high-skills, high-paying jobs on one end of the spectrum, and low-skills, low-paying jobson the other end. Therefore, one way would be for pile have to relieve oneself a discontinue education to get a better job, get better money, and get themselves surface of poverty, which runs along the views of Plato. exactly who are the wretched in Canada? Are there any identifiable persons or groups who are more likely to be scummy than others? Is era a factor? What about gender, race? What about geographic factors? Does living in certain parts of the country make you more likely to be poor than living in other parts? According to Smith, there is in every society an dictatorial minimum standard of living which consists of survival necessities (shelter, food and clothes), plus additional non-survival necessities as determined by each societys customs (such a s owning a linen shirt and a oppose leather shoes in his day). Together these necessities meet not only a persons basic survival needs, but also allow that person to participate in society with self-respect and without the shame and stigma often attached to being poor. To allow any person to live downstairs this minimum standard would, to use Smiths term, render that society indecent.The following studies have been do by Kevin Lee from the Canadian Council on Social Development1. From 1990 to 1995 the total number of poor spate in Canada increased dramatically. During this period, Canadas total universe of discourse increased by 6.1 percent, whereas the population of those considered poor increased by 28.6 percent, far outstripping the overall growth.2. Poverty is largely an urban phenomenon. In 1990, 66.6 percent of the poor population in Canada lived in metropolitan centers. 70 percent of all poor people live in Montreal, Vancouver or Toronto. Between 1990 and 1995, poverty pass judgment rose in every city examined.3. Poverty stations varied substantial between cities. Cities in Quebec had the highest poverty grade while cities in southern Ontario had the lowest. For example, Montreal had the highest rate in Canada, 2.5 times high than Oakville, which had the lowest rate.4. Certain population groups were more likely to be poor than others. These included* Single-parent families, whose poverty rate was 2.45 times high than the aver sequence.* Aboriginal persons, whose poverty rate was 2.26 times higher than the average.* Recent immigrants, whose poverty rate was 2.17 times higher than the average.* Visible minorities, whose poverty rate was 1.53 times higher than the average.* Persons with disabilities, whose poverty rate was 1.47 times higher than the average.5. Poverty rates varied considerably according to age and gender. The young and the elderly are more likely to experience poverty. The incidence of poverty declines with age until age 45 to 5 4, after which it rises again. Women in every age groups are more likely to live in poverty, and women seniors above age 75 are the most like of any group. Among males, boys up to age 14 had the highest poverty rate. Children and youth made up one third of the total poor population.6. Poverty rates varied based on education levels. As expected, in every city examined persons with less than high school education were more likely to be poor than those with a post-secondary level education. However, at least 6 percent of post-secondary graduates in every city lived in poverty, and in six cities that rate was over 20 percent.7. Poverty rates varied based on occupational skills levels. As expected, persons with lower skills levels had a higher incidence of poverty, howeverhigh-skills workers still had high poverty rates in some cities. For example, in Montreal almost 20 percent of high-skills workers were living in poverty as compared to 4.5 percent in Gloucester or Burlington.8. The ave rage income for working-age families in Canada was $60,400.9. The average income for working-age poor families in Canada was $14,500.Taken from http//www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2000/up/ but another question prevails here How should we service them? Canada has been using a lot of different methods to try and help them. We can buoy understand numerous shelters for the homeless, which also provides them with food and water. All this is free for them, but its not helping them get out of poverty, it is like a breathing device for them. Without it, they would die. There are other people who do have a home, as humble as it might be, but they are having troubles paying for it, since they cannot experience a job. The government supplies those people with an amount of money weekly. This is called the Welfare system, but it is not working as well as in Sweden. This may be because the people are taking this money, and instead of outlay it on food and vital needs, some of them go and buy cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs. On the other hand, some people are wisely investing it in education, and vital needs. This makes us wonder if our tax money is being spent wisely.Should the government tax the working people to give and income to the non-working people? There are many points of view about this subject. We may think that it is unfair that you are working to help them, without getting anything in return. We may feel like we are being obliged to care for the less well off. But in fact, by giving them little boost, they are helping us back. If they get a receive at a better education, they could get a job, or even open their own company, which would bring into being employment, and in its turn would increase consumption, and make the economy go round. We would all benefit from this. If this starts off, there would be enough jobs for everyone, thus getting the present poor people out of poverty and help the following generation be poverty free. Of course I am exaggerating, there wo uldnever be 0% poverty, but there might be a possibility of a 100% educated population. erstwhile this has been reached, more innovations get out be accessible, and the updated Adam Smith would come in play Laisser innover, also cognize as R&D. This could help in many ways, a good example would be lacuna technology.The exploration of space has, ever since it began in 1962 with the launch of Yuri Gagarin, been a controversial subject among the peoples of this planet. The controversy surrounds the disbursement of billions and billions of dollars on the pursuits of space exploration. The thread of the most common argument against space is that there are more pressing problems here on our planet such as pollution, overcrowding, disease, poverty etc. that this money could be spent on. Will taking moneys from space exploration and investing more money in these spry problems help them? There is no doubt that by investing more in these problems that there will be measurable improvemen ts in all problems. In fact given a conscious private road to pop off wisely any problem could be helped. So the question becomes does space exploration help this planet? Can exploring space on its own justify the investment?The most obvious body politic where space exploration has benefited our immediate lives is right in every ones own living room. The television newscasts which you reside have been more than likely been transmitted via air. The satellite has also allowed trans-continental telephone calls, emergency tracking and a host of other uses. These are measurable benefits in the present, but the question begs as to why we spend money on theoretical research on quasars, missions to the moon, and experimental technologies which run acrossm like learning prevarication to most people.The answer to this question lies in the benefit of space exploration that we see today, that is, in satellite communications. More than thirty years ago when Sputnik was first launched tha t was deemed a marvel of science and technology, almost science fiction. No one person could foresee the benefits that could be gleaned from the launch of this simple spherical metal stumblebum which bounced radio signals back to earth. The point here is that the investment in this project paid off, in what we see today in the form of TVnews, phone calls and direct broadcasting television.It is important to point out that the Sputnik launch and all other attempts including the American Echo project were good investments but there are space projects which failed miserably such as the Russian attempt at building a crack Booster, now called Energia. Millions of dollars were wasted in this failed project. What I am trying to illustrate is that there are good and bad ideas, good and bad investments not only in space exploration but in any field of science. This is what drives the advancement of knowledge.Space exploration in the broadest sense gives us the future. It is an investment n ot for the short term but for the long term. It allows us to study different environments, allows technology to develop and allows ideas to be tested. No one can argue that Sputnik was not a wise investment so how can we possibly know that sending missions to the moon is not. The responsibility lies with us to determine what is important and worth pursuing.