A Collection of Thoughts

I have high hopes. My goals are seemingly impossible to achieve. My better judgement tells me to give up, but by doing so, I would change the odds quite dramatically. Instead of having extremely little chance of achieving them, I would have zero chance. My aim is simple. I wish to eliminate injustice and poverty, and bring about a future where all people have equal opportunity and equal access to that which they need to reach their goals and meet their needs. I believe this is completely impossible to do, but as long as it remains something that is neither unthinkable nor undesirable, its impossibility is, in my opinion, a temporary state. In other words, it is impossible now, but I feel that enough work, determination and people seeking the same common goals would create a basic mindset in which it would not only cease to be impossible, but become likely.

To eradicate poverty, we first need to define poverty and isolate its causes while working on tackling its effects. The United Nations definition of poverty sums it up quite well:

“Fundamentally, poverty is a denial of choices and opportunities, a 

violation of human dignity.  It means lack of basic capacity to participate 

effectively in society.  It means not having enough to feed and cloth a 

family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which 

to grow one’s food or a job to earn one’s living, not having access to 

credit.  It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, 

households and communities.  It means susceptibility to violence, and it 

often implies living on marginal or fragile environments, without access to 

clean water or sanitation

Already, this definition, signed in 1998 by the heads of all UN agencies, conflicts with the generally accepted view of what poverty is. Most people seem to consider poverty as something limited to other countries, far away from where they live, and thus none of their concern. This view limits poverty to its extremes, notably in isolated communities in Third World countries. The UN definition, however, is clearly visible in every city, in every country, the world over. Even in developed countries, with wealthy cities and high GDP, there are people who struggle to keep their homes, their jobs and their families. Even where there are welfare schemes to give people the means to keep themselves alive, there are people who cannot access those services, which themselves are often not effective in bringing dignity and inclusion anyway. Though they keep people alive and well, often it's only to remain in an endless cycle of poverty and exclusion.

My point above about welfare schemes highlights a bigger point I have to make. Eradication of poverty cannot take place by simply 'throwing money at it'. The money helps people, yes, but it does not bring them anything but an extension of their time. A person with no job and no skills cannot get a job by merely having a bit more money, they need the relevant skills first. The very first sentence in the UN definition quoted above highlights a lack of choices and opportunity, also. Would this include career choices? Employment skills offered here in the UK are currently limited to very few sectors, mostly retail and the most basic data entry. I think the most demoralising thing a person can be told is that they will never be able to access the skills they want for the job they want, and that if they want to be trained, they will be trained for a job they have no choice but to take. Actually, they do have a choice, but the choice is either to take it or no longer receive the money that keeps their basic needs met.

People in poverty are often looked down upon by others, if not for their inability to escape or manage it well, then for taking support given to them by governments. This is just two examples of how poverty in developed countries causes social exclusion. It is also becoming increasingly more difficult to escape poverty, while the exclusion does not decrease to compensate. More and more jobs demand higher and higher entry requirements, so that someone who could have easily taken a job twenty-five years ago would be refused the same job now. Although that person's skills and experience would not be different, they would not have the relevant qualification for that job, as the requirement changed.

I believe it can be fairly straightforward to address this employability mismatch, but it would require a radical change. I often do promote radical change, but this is one of the least radical of my ideas. I am of the belief that everyone; old, young, disabled, not disabled, big and small, is capable of being productive to society in some way. Not only capable, but constantly producing positive output. I refer mostly to hobbyists, anyone who helps their friends or family, strangers on buses who ask the driver to open the door again for the elderly lady who didn't manage to get off the first time. These people are valuable, but because their value does not directly translate to a qualification, it goes greatly unrecognised in terms of employment. However, personality traits and interests are what makes a person individual, and employment is supposed to be all about matching individuals with jobs. Where it is neither practical nor totally possible to put one's entire attitude and personality on a curriculum vitae, that well-trodden path to employment misses one of the most crucial factors an employer should face. Meanwhile, an employer whose vacancy requires a working knowledge of the role may miss a hundred  excellently matched individuals based on them not arriving with that working knowledge, but who knows whether they might have the intellect to acquire that knowledge within a day of starting? What I propose here is a re-working of the employment system where all candidates spend time in a role, gaining experience and making themselves known to the employer, before the decision is made whether to hire them or not. Many officially recognised qualifications, which cost money to attain, would be obsoleted by this trial system, along with the need for interviews and CVs. It would also put people who are in poverty on a more equal and inclusive standing when applying for work.

In the above paragraphs, I have only touched upon a very small few examples of one tiny factor in poverty. I have not explained very much here at all. However, I feel I have said enough for one night, and would like as much feedback as possible before perhaps continuing at some later date.