A very admirable article which I support 99%, one must realise in a recent report from QCOSS, the Queensland branch of ACOSS the Australian Council of Social Security, found 400,000 Queenslanders "living in poverty" through no fault of their own[ after all who whould choose this situation for themselves] so while I support aid funding for people in other nations, we should not forget our own people living in similar circumstances.

Where I live, Townsville Queensland out of a population of 160,000, we have in excess of 1,000 FAMILIES who are homeless. The Federal Government has cut funding for public housing, forcing many families into tents, or trying to live with relatives untill the situation becomes unbearable, and the poverty stricken family tries to move on to another family member, or a refuge.

Personally I find this a disgrace for a federal government with in excess of $10 billion in reserve, these people have no hope of a future, the children will probably forced into crime to exist, and the we as a society blame them. We should think about who is "really" to blame.

Here, here Shonga. Couldn't agree with you more. Globalisation has been a disaster for struggling families in Australia. All it's done is forced lower end jobs off shore and added to more and more povety. I believe it's high time the World's people woke up to the money grubbing and greed orientated direction of powerful groups such as the WTO and joined hands to fight this over bearing societial cancer of growth and wealth creation. Maybe then, our struggling young adults will be able to afford to put a roof over thier heads and feed their modest family. Equally hopefully, the rich, corrupt and powerful Governments in third World countries will also be brought to their knees so that aid provided from wealthier nations will find it's way to those who need it most.

It’s said that a half truth, like a half brick, travels further and does more damage. This piece contains many half truths, and the impression they combine to create could do some serious damage.

“Poor country exporters still face significantly higher tariffs from rich countries than those applying in the reverse direction” Not so. Average tariff levels are generally higher in poorer countries – though it can certainly be argued that the things subject to the steepest tariffs by western countries (especially agriculture) do most harm to poor countries.

“China did not liberalise their economy according to the standard ‘Washington Consensus’ formula.” - true, but they did liberalise their economy according to home-grown formulas, as did the other Asian economies that have raised living standards so rapidly in the past 20 years. Liberalisation worked, even if it was not liberalisation exactly as the IMF might advocate it.

“..the Chinese success story is limited to the eastern cities and extreme poverty still exists in many regions” – also true, but the improvement in welfare in China has been unprecedented and staggering nonetheless. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have escaped poverty in a single generation. The ILO observed that "A reduction in poverty on this scale and within such a short time is unprecedented in history" (ILO World Employment Report 2004-05, p.156).

“The economic theory of the ‘trickle down effect’ … has been discredited”. There is no such theory. This phrase is used disparagingly to (mis)represent a particular view of economics, but is not a description that economists would own. It presupposes that growth benefits the rich first and foremost, with the poor benefiting secondarily if at all. But in fact, economic growth (almost always) benefits the poor as well as the rich (see for example “Growth Is Good for the Poor" http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/22015_Growth_is_Good_for_Poor.pdf)

Eliminating world poverty is a difficult and complex problem that has confounded sincere and clever people for decades. I strongly recommend William Easterly’s “The Elusive Quest for Growth” as a reality check for those who think simplistic solutions can save the world. http://www.amazon.com/Elusive-Quest-Growth-Adventures-Misadventures/dp/0262550423

It would be nice if there were more articles like this being published in the MSM. The myth of free trade and globalisation alleviating third world poverty is exactly that, a myth.

The great 'progressive' leader Willy Clinton rammed a free trade agreement down the throats of Mexicans, the economy has grown, but guess what, the people are poorer now than they were in 1992.

People like Senator Mason repeat the myth blindly, cherry picking examples and ignoring the overwhelming concensus among most knowledgable observers, free trade = money for Western Corporations, poverty for third world inhabitants (and increasingly first world inhabitants too).

"… overwhelming consensus among most knowledgable observers…". Come off it Carl. There's no concensus on this issue, it's too complicated and messy. Or are you falling into the trap of assuming that only those observers you agree with are “knowledgeable.”

The more simplistic nostrums of both the left and the right have failed to deliver on this issue. Each can point to individual countries where their own prescriptions have worked and their opponents have failed.

I believe that the balance of evidence shows that trade and trade liberalisation, foreign investment, governance reforms and other parts of the pro-globalisation agenda have featured in pretty much every case of developing countries succeeding in reducing poverty in recent decades. And there have been success stories, albeit not as many as we’d like (China is one, though the author seems reluctant to admit the extent of its achievement). These measures might not be sufficient to reduce poverty, but it seems that they are necessary.

Rhain,
For God's sake man take you bloodyminded business cap off, we are talking about humanity, and how to help it, not it's explotation through business. Governernment sponsored self help inititives are needed in the pooer countries, with contributions from the "rich" countries like ours, even though our present contribution rate among the 22 richest countries is third last at 19. We are not helping the poor countries enough , and we are not even helping our own citizens who are falling through the huge cracks in our system.

We need a kinder, more compassionate world, one which uses the latest technologies to alievieate global warming and climate change, to cut our own expenses and pass some of the savings on to other human beings, and our own citizens, who are far less well off than you and I. The last thing we need is a greedier more selfish world, I doubt you understand a thing I've said.People are dying of starvation, and all you can do is talk about business, if you had a conscience, you would be ashamed of yourself, as it is I am embarresed for you.

“Over the two days we visited over 70 politicians from all parties. As expected, the response was varied. The Greens and Democrats have already adopted policy stances that reflect the substance of what we were asking - namely an increase in overseas aid to 0.5 per cent of Gross National Income by 2010 rising to 0.7 per cent by 2015 and explicitly targeting of this aid towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).”

How sad that it is the Greens and Democrats and NOT the political parties which claim to support the Christian vote which support these things. Good on the Greens and Dems in this regard but I would certainly like to see the other parties (particularly Family First) put their money where their mouth is with this one.

I mean we're talking about "those who are marginalised, those who don’t have clean water to drink, those without sanitation, those suffering from AIDS, malaria etc, those without education, those outside our modern society". How much more Christ-like could you get to want to battle these issues?!

And really, its not that difficult for us and other developed nations to do our part. For example, as you said "Oxfam estimated in 2002 that if Africa, East Asia, South Asia and Latin America were each to increase their share of world exports by one per cent, the resulting gains in income could lift 128 million people out of poverty." 128, 000, 000 people. That's 6.4 x population of Australia. Imagine if they were your relatives?

Also, I've heard that the amount of money already spent fighting the nonexistent WMDs in Iraq would be enough to feed, clothe and educate every poor man, woman and child on Earth.

I'm a Christian and I'll be a first time voter next election (yay). This will DEFINITELY be an important issue for me and my other Gen Y friends (Christian or not). Take note, federal politicians!

Right on, Rhian.

"The freeing of world trade simply has not happened" because of factually inaccurate and misrepresentative articles like this. It is to the detriment of the humanity the author claims to represent.

The growth in prosperity in the West over the last 100 years is in large part due to increased international trade.

Global trade liberalisation and anti-corruption measures would bring hundreds of millions out of poverty. The effects of trade liberalisation would be far greater in magnitude than that of any aid program. And the results would be lasting.

With free trade poor country wages eventually approach those of developed countries as first world wages fall. This is basic macroeconomics. The sacrifice of our wages for the benefit of those in the developing world is the biggest gift of all.

John
My heart leaps up when I behold good people like yourself working for a noble cause.
Your objective would be more quickly achieved if you could raise consciousness on the following.
1 The need to have wealth and tax records in the public domain.
2 The need to have relativity in wages where the maximum wage would be no more than 20 times the minimum wage.
3 A limit to individual wealth of say 20 million dollars.

Greed is the cause of poverty and unless it is curbed there will never be an end to poverty.
Yes Rhian this is simplistic and naive, but today's heresy is tomorrow's orthodoxy.

A couple of points ” Most of us in the Voices for Justice lobbying group are neither economists nor development experts,”

Absence of skills is nothing to be proud of or worth admitting in support of a campaign.

“The freeing of world trade simply has not happened”

That is a lie. Trade liberalization has improved significantly over the situation in 1970’s and before. Australia s an example had tariff barriers and quotas in force and applied to everything from dishwashers to cars to underpants.

It was Hawke who, with his “level playing field” speech, started trade liberalization in Australia.

World Free Trade situation would improve if US, Japan and Europe worked harder at removing agricultural restraints but they are not alone. Many third world countries are happy to embargo selective imports whilst complaining about access to developed world markets, they seem to think the corrupt “Kyoto thinking process” should be misapplied again.

As for ”However, the problem is that the current rules that govern world trade are rigged in favour of rich countries and their corporations” I suggest the author justify his claim if he wants to make it.

Using the “corporate boogeyman” is pitiful and undermines what scant credibility he might have had.

The last time I looked, ownership of “corporations” could be traced back to breathing people. A corporation is an artificial entity, designed to facilitate trade and accept risks which a single individual could not carry but they are artificial entities owned and run for the benefit of their share holders. They are artificial entities which remain subject to corporate and criminal law and when they do transgress that law, the operating individuals can be held personally liable.

Catfish23 – agree with your post. The major problem with third world countries lies with internal corruption not absence of access to first world markets.

Many merely find comfort in the statistics substanting their own position. One set of stats will prove one thing, only to be countered by stats showing a ‘spin’ for an opposite view. So does it just come down to a pure ideology or belief about the ‘nature’ of things, where ultimately, in the mind of the adherent, nothing will or can be proved?

Nevertheless, the ideology of ‘free trade’, like an over inflated balloon needs a little prick. “While the logic on how rich country trade liberalization can lead to poverty reduction in developing countries is straightforward, it is important to realize that in most cases the impact of liberalization will be limited…”
http://www.cepr.net/publications/trade_2004_11.htm

Col,
As you know we agree on not much at all, however I would like to say that I am pleasantly surprised to see you post on this subject. Of course I have a different view, and we have had many on-line stouches, however I wan't you to know that whether we agree or not, whether we have a go at each other or not I respect your opinion.

Everyone here sees part of the solution, I would not for a second pretend to know the full solution, however what I would say is that trade is not the answer, if it were after 100 years of trade we would not be in this situation still. I believe we should investigate mechinisms to combat the corruption so that the broad population recieves food and water, followed by a self help program.

We continue to talk about growth economies, it seems we are unable to talk about sustainable economies, growth is finite, why not change our mindset to helping our fellow human beings dying of malnutrition, rather than always including the economy in the discussion? My wife and I are in a group at the moment helping a single mother with nowhere to go, by donating items and time to her search for accomodation, no charge, just compassion, why can't those of you who don't agree with my opinion put these views into a much larger picture?

What we are doing is so rewarding and we are asking, nor wanting anything in return, our group consists of 6 people, of different political persuasions working together for a common cause, because it's the right thing to do. Is this such a difficult concept to embrace?

Shonga, I share your passion for reducing poverty, I just don’t share your view of how to achieve it. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to produce things that its citizens want, or things it can trade for things its citizens want. No country ever got rich on development assistance, but some have reduced poverty through other means. It’s neither bloody minded nor inhumane to ask how they have done it and whether their successes can be repeated.

For the record, I think that Australia should increase its aid budget, and its citizens could do more to address poverty at home and overseas. But I don’t think aid will cure global poverty by itself. It can alleviate the symptoms of poverty, so there’s definitely a case for humanitarian aid. And in the right circumstances, it might help to raise economic capacity, but only as part of a package of policies measures whose key focus must be on raising the productivity of poor economies.

You assume globalisation is synonymous with business exploitation. I don’t share that view, but even those who do recognise that the alternative can be even worse. Joan Robinson, a leading left-wing economist, said “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all”. If you can’t offer a realistic alternative that’s going to be better, then you do the poor no favours by denying them the benefits of globalisation.

There is a clear correlation between poverty and family planning.
If women in Africa are forced to have 6-7 kids instead of a couple,
no wonder they have problems feeding them all.

Its high time that every woman on the planet has access to family
planning, birth control and abortion services, despite the
protestations of the religious lobby.

The world keeps increasing population at 80 million a year, virtually
all of it in the poorest countries. Give these women a choice!

At last someone has stopped dancing around with words.
Unlike the rest who just fogg the discussion about world poverty, thereby ensuring the problem is not adequately discussed, and lessen possibilities for effective action.
Thanks, Yabby.
The Vatican, George W Bush, and other repressive groups promoting social customs which prevent mothers from limiting their pregnancies: Such antediluvian thinkers stand top of the list of reasons for continuing world poverty. Take away their influence, and there may be a chance for less poverty - and a world having much less misery.

I am totally in agreement with Yabby and Colinsett.

Well meaning groups, with compassion, endeavouring to halt poverty simply take 2 steps forward and 3 back.

Aid to third world countries should come with a clause - no population control, no aid!

Why should we not speak out against the practice of giving birth to children who will be born into poverty, a life of misery, or an early death?

However, I do object to Yabby's rather chauvinistic recommendation that "all WOMEN have access to family planning etc etc....". It takes two to tango Yabby. You appear to have dismissed the male's role in their contribution to the population explosions where it would be much simpler, cheaper and more efficient to give irresponsible males, the "snip"!

"women in Africa are forced to have 6-7 kids instead of a couple"
I don't believe this is the case. This is quite culturally ignorant of you. For a lot of people, children are a blessing, and a promise of someone to care for them in their "old" age (where pension systems don't really exist) not something done under coercion. Also, with high infant mortality rates, you have 5-6 expecting to keep 1-2.
I support better access to contraceptives and family planning services (though not abortions, I don't think this is something that needs to be supported) AND better health care for children/adults. When women realise they can have 1-2 children and keep them healthy, rather than 5-6 and watch 3-4 of them die, they will naturally choose this option instead.
Did anybody see the news item about Japan's ageing population? Apparently, toy companies are marketing toys to senior citizens now because there's not enough of a market with children (not enough children). Also, some of these toys are basically dollies, so the elderly have somebody to "care" for in their old age (like a 6 year old child would nurse her dolly). It's to combat loneliness. How sad that on one side of the world we have adults with no children and lots of money, and on the other, children with no adults, and no money.

Rhian,
That's fair enough mate, we all have different ideas that's why we are here, I'd like to know your philosophy nof solving our our people living in poverty crisis, the rodent tells us that only 4.9% of the population is unemployed, which when I went to school meant that 9r.1% of the population is employed, if this is the case why are there still so many people living in poverty, they presumeably have a job, so the answer in your view is......

Shonga,
Complicated question.

Firstly, 4.9% unemployment doesn’t imply 95.1% employment. The unemployment rate counts the unemployed as a percentage of the labour force, which is people willing and available to work. Only 65% of the adult population is in the labour force, and the poor are disproportionately represented in the remaining 35% - retirees, the sick and disabled, single parents and others who, for whatever reason, can’t work.

Secondly, employment includes people on temporary and casual contracts and those in part-time work. I think the growth of this type of employment has on balance been a good thing, because most people who work these arrangements do so by choice (I’m guessing you’ll disagree). But a minority are taking this type of work because they can’t get the permanent full-time employment they’d prefer, and for these, the labour market is not delivering what they want or need.

I’m not denying that there are poor households with full-time workers, but they are a minority of poor households.

So some approaches to solving poverty can include:

1. Address rectifiable causes of exclusion from the labour market (‘poverty traps” in the tax system, tax breaks for child care, re-training from declining skills, English language classes for migrants, removing labour market regulation shown to discourage employment of marginal workers, helping injured or disabled workers find suitable employment if they are able);

2. Improve income security for retirees (e.g. encourage voluntary superannuation contributions)

3. Invest in education – a long-term solution, but education is one way of helping kids escape inter-generational poverty

4. Target welfare benefits better – this government has increased spending on welfare to record levels, but a lot of the money goes to the relatively well off.

5. Make sure governments deliver their core responsibilities in the provision of social infrastructure and public goods.

No cultural ignorance at all YngN. Fact is that plenty
of surveys have shown that many women in Africa would like
to have access to better family planning etc. They are
fighting the Bush regime and the Catholic Church all
the way, who think that abstinence is the answer to
everything. Doesent work in the real world. If we in
the West don't provide the funding, then they can't
afford it, its that simple. Instead we send boatloads
of food, try to stop family planning in many places,
then wonder why they have a problem. Sheesh...

If only 1-2 kids survived, then the population in the
poorest areas of Africa would not be growing that fast,
even you can work that out.

Note I mentioned "choice". The Catholics are even against
the snip, male or female.

Dickie no chauvanistic comments at all. Fact is I said
all women should be provided with a "CHOICE". Men
too, if thats your issue, but clearly its women who
are left holding the babies so to speak, they have a far
larger problem then men. Look at the Congo, millions
raped, dodn't you think ALL those women deserve help and
a choice?

SHONGA “trade” is a serious source of wealth creation and distribution for everyone who participates in it. However, in the context of an entire human life experience, “trade” will only account for part of that experience and “free trade” can not be expected to resolve everything.

Other freedoms are equally and more critical such as freedom of choice in

The numbers of children we produce and are responsible for (I had a vasectomy after the second).

The freedom to acquire skills and benefit from their deployment.

Free participation in fair elections for a government of our choosing and not some despot of any political hue or participation limited to some preordained tribal, caste or class group.

With freedom comes responsibility and that responsibility is to work within the limits of ones resources. In western terms we call it “budgeting”.

Some other posters here are saying similar things to me, yabby and colinsett and with which I entirely concur. The developed world is at zero population growth and “stable”. The poorest nations are exploding thanks, in part, to the efforts of developed nations to reduce child mortality rates. There is no point in vastly improving the numbers of children if the resources available are insufficient to support a “quality of life”.

SHONGA, happy to debate anytime. Respect your right to hold a contrary view. To gain support for any view, the easiest way is to promote its comparative merits.
Cheers

Yabby

Your'e right! The women in the Congo do need help.These women pay dearly for being raped whilst the perpetrator freely moves on to impregnate or infect his next victim!

The point I am making is that uneducated women often fail to take the pill or are unaware of their monthly "fertile" period. Even educated westernised women get this wrong!

India was given free contraception decades ago and it didn't work!
I give little credence to the current effects of "birth control" or "family planning" in the poorer nations.

However, effective birth control is essential and one must seriously consider the inclusion of the more than equal benefits of vasectomies which, unlike other methods, comes with a guarantee. This procedure is less than a morning or afternoon procedure and it is REVERSIBLE! And at the risk of riducule may I suggest that men initiate sex more than women!

Increasing vasectomies in third world countries will more assuredly reduce the number of children born with HIV. The current birth control programmes have not and I've yet to learn of any programmes strongly recommending vasectomies!

Vasectomies will more assuredly result in fewer children, fewer mouths to feed, fewer abortions and more ability for men and women to exit the poverty cycle to seek a better education - providing the religious cease indoctrinating the masses and the despicable actions of despotic rulers are addressed!

Governments occasionally withold aid from other nations for different reasons. Strangely, a lack of endeavour by other governments, to curb population explosions is not, I believe, one of them!

Dickie, the snip should be available for both genders, when
they want it. Thats the point, its not happening. IIRC
it was BBS Panorama that went into all of this. A woman
in the Philipines, after 8 kids pleaded to have the snip.
Nope, it was a Catholic hospital, not possible. etc.
Its crazy stuff!

In India they had a huge campaign for the snip, but the
Catholic Health minister of the time put a stop to it.
So the story goes, throughout the 3rd world and its
a scandal.

Family planning includes the snip, male and female.
Just give people these choices, choices they don't have
now, thats my point.

No point trying to solve poverty, until you get some
of these basics right. Boatloads of food will mean
just even more people to feed, as in Ethiopia and elsewhere.

rHIAN.
nOW YOU ARE BEGINNING TO MAKE SOME SENSE TO ME, THANK YOU i AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY ON SOME OF THOSE SOLUTIONS.

All must join together under the economically sustainable umberella of H.E.L.P.

The Office of H.E.L.P
P.O.Box 795 Templestowe,
Victoria. Australia. 3106

To advance civilisation we must acknowledge the human soul and our need for spiritual nourishment whilst embracing the philosophical art of objective thought to encourage the logical progression of an ecologically stable and economically sustainable global environment.
Cindy A Taylor 1999 Founder & President of The Office of Human Evolvement Logical Progress (H.E.L.P)©


In September, 1999 Cindy –Anne Taylor founded The Office of Human Evolvement & Logical Progress (H.E.L.P.) to unite the peoples of Earth in agreement using the common denominator of factual knowledge.

Unlike the United Nations, H.E.L.P. is a Privately run, International, non-governmental organization, motivated by global intelligence and devoted to ecologically sustainable and economically innovative solutions to environmental, social and biological threats via shared (state of the art) developments in all disciplines whilst facilitating ethical international trade and monitoring security (NW0INJA satellite).

The obligation that comes with having wealth, knowledge and intelligence is to share it. Put into practice this needs to work as a win/win flow of support in and out of each country. Miss Taylor is always seeking intelligent minds… the best of the best in every discipline, every science, and every philosophy in every country.

The profits of this organisation all go back to the people through it’s perpetual contributions to biological, social and most urgently global environmental health. We can all help! You can make a difference …Earth thanks you in anticipation of your loyalty to Lay-By Direct Pty Ltd and The Office of H E L P Pty Ltd ©

Most importantly The Office of H.E.L.P. always needs enthusiastic people who want to make a difference!

With great respect for the many various cultures of our World, global acceptance of the H.E.L.P. concept is the goal. Humans may never encounter beings from another planet but we don’t need a comparison to recognize that we are all Earthlings. Say this out loud more often and you might hear, accept and act on the truth of it ‘….all our homes are on planet Earth, so as Earthlings we must all work together to protect our home planet’

Col,
You may be surprised that I wholeheartly agree with your last post, the only issue you didn't address is domestic poverty, I sincerely would like to know your thoughts on addressing "thr Australian working poor" which despit not being officially recognised by either State or Federal government exists to a greater extent than we average people are able to see.

If you read one of my earlier posts I mentioned we in Townsville are booming, similtaneously with in excess of a thousand homeless families, from a population of 160,000 people. Surely this is not acceptable, even from a business point of view it means the children will probably not gain a education standard to be able to be trained for an occupation to fill a gap in the skill shortage situation.

If more egelatiarianism is not forthcoming from State and Federal governments, I feel as though as time goes by we as a nation will become more and more vunerable, what do you think Col?

Shonga “I wholeheartly agree with your last post,”
that pleases me.

Re poverty stricken / homeless families.

I guess my upbringing has limited my ability to understand why someone ends up homeless.

If I understood, for instance, how someone can exercise such a complete lack of responsibility for their circumstances as to not ensure they do have a roof over their head and their children are cared for, I would have greater insight to what to do for them to avoid such predicaments.

I assume that it all starts with “Responsibility” for ones own circumstances. Part of “responsibility” is to budget ones expenditure to suit the available income (McCawbers Law per Charles Dickens).

Some folk will end up homeless as a consequence of interest rate increases, I know someone who bought a property cheap in a mortgagee sale, the original owners simply “disappeared” and took everything which was not nailed down and which a lot was apparently financed with borrowed money.

I know that the debt will haunt the absconding family for years to come. I do not blame banks, they check that borrowers qualify on an affordability test before they lend (allowing a 2% growth margin for prudence (eg. if interest rate is 7%, banks will calculate on 9% for affordability).

I know some people have a hard break, I know organizations like St V and the Salvos help a lot of folk in need and all credit to them. But I know a friend who had a son who was a drug addict finally cut him off and refused to help because he was dragging her down into his morass. He ended up homeless and destitute.

I would like someone to tell me how far we should go to help those who do not help themselves and the answer to that is inextricably tied to how best to defend children from the irresponsibility of their natural parents. My friend, the parent of the drug addict, was torn apart by adopting a “tough love” attitude but what else can you do with those who seem chronically irresponsible?

Col,
I can see your point, and basically agree especially when it comes to drugs and other associated behavioural problems. We have a single mother and her child living with us because she was living with her inlaws, but found that her depression could not withstand the pressure she was being placed under. She was paying full price for board and lodgings.

She like I have only a high school education, however she is working for Woolworts night filling. She doesn't waste the megre wage she recieves, but finds herself homeless. Living with friends for a limited time is homelessness. The rents of property so far have been too expensive for her, we search the net every morning and night, to see if a bargain comes up.

I understand that not having lived in poverty yourself it is difficult to relate, much the same as depression, unless you have been there, it's virtually impossible to understand. She also is medicated for a mental illness. I just wondered if you had any suggestions on how to get the poverty stricken out of that situation, this young lady is responsible, and budgets well, but doesn't have enough money to even rent?

In Townsville we have in excess of 1,000 families who are classified as homeless, living with relatives or friends, or in tents in caravan parks, from a population of 160,000 people, it must be a huge problem Australia wide, what can we do if we can't earn enough money to pay rent?

SHONGA “She like I have only a high school education,”
that has nothing to do with it.

It is not someone’s level of education which makes the person, it is their spirit and attitude.

No one should every assume they are limited by the education they received, it can always be gained later when they are more “receptive”. What makes the difference is “Attitude”.

I would not presume to suggest what any one person should or could do with out a better understanding of circumstances, other than ask a view basic questions

Single Mum. where is Dad? Where is family network (parents)?
I agree living with friends is homelessness. My girls know the place of last resort (where they will not be turned away from) is my door, not that they need it but they know it is there.

“I understand that not having lived in poverty yourself” don’t assume that, never “absolute poverty” but hand me down clothes, second hand furniture no discretionary income. I have also had to endure periods in my life when I worked only one month out of six and “earned” accordingly (2002).

“what can we do if we can't earn enough money to pay rent?”

My only suggestion is get a plan which will enable them to earn more. The plan might be to change how they work, try something new, acquire skills. Mix with other folk who have moved up the economic ladder by their own efforts and get inspired by them.
It is not easy. It is hard but I know of no other solution.
A poverty trap is to fall into a pension scheme where the state supposedly cares for individuals but such support will always be limited to what someone else decides is what is the bare necessity ie. “subsistence”.
The difference between existing and living is to have opportunity / vision to move above subsistence level.
People can only do that for themselves.

Best of luck with it.

Col,
Firstly, thank you for your contribution, I really appreciate it, I worked 3 jobs myself at one time, but I didn't have a child. The father is in Melbourne, couldn't handle the responsibility, her family is a disfunctional one in Melbourne, which is why she is up here looking for work, as she had no luck in Melbourne, and it's booming up here. Still positions are limited unless you either have a good education or qualifications. She was to do a T.A.F.E. course when she got the Woolwoths job, hoever if I may take the last part of your previous post.

This maybe something she can work with, I understand you are not a social worker, but the mere fact that you have answered these posts shows me that you have a good deal more compassion than I had previously given you credit for. Also I apologise for the assumption I made that "not having been poor yourself" it was meant as a matter of fact type statement, not an insulting one, thanks for your help once again Col, really appreciated, Regards, Shaun.

Col

I like this compassionate side of you. And I agree with what you say. We have obviously misunderstood each other in the past.

Perhaps each of us identified the other with an incorrect stereotype. Like two red rags to a pair of bulls.

I am neither on the left nor the right of politics and therefore am hard to classify.

SHONGA, your friend is welcome, my advise is free but I trust she will find it more useful than most things which come for free, it is the same advise I gave to my daughters.

I would encourage your friend to get back into a TAFE course and “skill up” to meet the challenge of new opportunities which abound for all of us.

She needs to develop some life goals but she needs also to develop a plan to achieve those goals.

Wherein, the goal is the “what” and the plan is the “how”. No point in having a goal without a plan, nothing is ever achieved without determining a method and there is no point in having a plan without a goal, nothing comes form activity and method which is not focused on an outcome.

Remember it is her life, she can only do it for herself. No one will do or live it for her, we are all be too busy doing our own thing.

Oh and one sure thing, something which helps avoid the downward spiral of depression is to aspire to a place which is better than where you are. If you are so busy building what might be, you do not have time to be depressed about what isn’t.

Oh poverty, I did not take it negatively, it is not something which I dwell on, too depressing (see above).

Logic – maybe so.

Col,
We may disagree on some things, but we are as one on others, thank you for that "free" advice, the Beetles once sang "the best things in life are free" from where I stand, that's the "best" advice I have had from anyone, thank you so much.
Regards, Shaun.