Defining poverty and critiquing workfare policies in Canada

¶ … poverty?

When discussing poverty, not all are in agreement as to exactly what it means. There are various camps when it comes to defining poverty. Essentially, the definitions break down into either relative poverty or absolute poverty or more likely, something in between. Absolute poverty is categorized as not having the means to afford the absolute essentials. Relative poverty is a more liberal idea, based on one's ability to afford things, in comparison to others ability to afford the same things. Clearly, being unable to put food on the table is within the definition of poverty. However, when one begins looking at the type of food that one can afford to place on the table the lines become more indistinguishable. Based on two different surveys, "the evidence from these different sources of public opinion indicates that the public favours a relative or social inclusion approach to the definition of poverty" (Canadian Council on Social Development, 2000).

What is wrong with workfare?

Unfortunately, workfare doesn't "work" for everyone. In fact, it is precisely those who need it most that it excludes. Workfare is based on "the assumption that every person receiving government assistance is able to work for this assistance" (4 Social Workers, 2008). Clearly, many of those who most need assistance are not able to work for it for various reasons. For example, single parents with young dependent children face extreme difficulty finding adequate daycare and when found probably can not afford it. Additionally, when it comes to workfare, "able bodied Aboriginal people are willing and able to work, however they face the issue of being forced to conceal their identities in order to "fit in" with society. The inequalities that they have faced and continue to face are a barrier to fair and equal employment" (4 Social Workers, 2008). This problem, when viewed through a social inclusion framework, would be viewed as "raising the bar" instead of "removing the bar" (Armitage, 2003).

What concerns you most about poverty and why?

The fact that poverty is so deeply ingrained in society worldwide is of great concern. An infusion of cash into poverty stricken environments will not cure the problem. This is because of the underlying issues associated with poverty. Just because someone now has cash, they do not automatically shed the lack of self-esteem, oppression, and depression that commonly accompany poverty. Their health is not instantly changed after years of eating "poor" food. They are not suddenly rocket scientists, nor do most have the acumen to even enroll in college. After generations of living in poverty, it becomes their culture and giving someone money does not change their culture. When the cash is gone, they are back in the same position. It has become so institutionalized that it will take a miracle to eradicate it. It is this deep seated culture of poverty which must be addressed and unfortunately, because of poor-bashing (and many other factors) most are not willing to accept that it is everyone's responsibility to eradicate poverty. Without everyone accepting responsibility, poverty will never end.