The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Defining poverty and the things that matter in life ... > Comments

Defining poverty and the things that matter in life ... : Comments

By Anne Hampshire, published 13/4/2007

Poverty, or the failure to share in the prosperity of a nation, is not just about a lack of material goods.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
I wonder if the research could include a study of "who" is

identifying "what" as an essential item. For example if the research

subject already has secure accommodation, will they identify this as

an essential item. Could "how" one acquired secure accommodation

influence their views on "what" is an essential item? Are there items

that people take so much for granted that they fail to see how

essential these items are in their lives? What about people who have

experienced a deep loss of items which are not ordinarily considered

materially essential but the grief of that loss has had such a deep

affect on their psychological well being, that they become depressed,

losing their appetite etc (stop seeking to acquire the items

considered essential for healthy living such as food?). And then

there are those who may have what appears to be over and above the

level of material wealth essential for most, but are burdened with

such deep insecurities about possible loss, that they seek to

accumulate material items in order to settle their fears for the

future?
Posted by vivy, Friday, 13 April 2007 10:15:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lack of political power leads to lack of economic power. nothing will be done for people who can not reward the doer, and who do not resemble the doer enough to inspire fear of like treatment. hence the position of kooris in australia.

australia is a very backward land, in a state of retarded political evolution. there is much talk of democracy and mateship, fair go and rule of law. but it's empty talk, the talk of children trying to appear grown up while not understanding what the words mean or how they relate to action. it's no use talking of what should be done, if you don't know how to do it. people who do urge action by 'someone' may be well intentioned, or they may just be earning a living by pressing the 'social conscience' button.

instead of talking about poverty up to the point of "something should be done" and then washing your hands of it- tell us who should do something, and what, and most of all- tell us why they should modify their behavior to do it. that's the hard part- any fool of a handwringing do-gooder can cry:" the gummint otta..".
Posted by DEMOS, Sunday, 15 April 2007 11:52:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess I am curious enough to have wished I had been sent one of those random questionnaires that the author says received some 2700 responses. These are presumeably the people who are not regular clients of the welfare agencies that were co-participants in the survey. However the randomness would not exclude such clients.
For starters I would be interested in the response rate or what was the total number of questionnaires sent out.
It must be reassuring that both groups - the clients and the random responders - coincided in their expressed desires and that those desires fall into the familiar category of food, shelter, warmth etc.
I would hope that the random questionnaire enabled people to expand on their thoughts and not just give a yes/no/don't know response. For those non-clients of the agencies it would be interesting to know why they were so as it must be apparent that these agencies (including St Vincent de Paul - not mentioned as a participant) are well resourced and pretty generous in their ability to give material support. I live next door to such an agency and can vouch for the willingness of that generosity but could also understand why some would not seek it. For example a lack of privacy in fronting the agency.
I would suggest that the recent experience of the Country Women's Association being the conduit for federal drought aid to rural families is revealing. The initial money plus a Woolworths 'days takings' disappeared very quickly and moves are afoot to do a repeat, indicating a severe need for such assistance from folk who would normally not be agency clients.
While I doubt the CWA kept a detailed tally of what people intended using the cash for, nor perhaps if it was so used, the whole exercise might be another contemporary research tool on what constitutes poverty in Australia in 2007
Posted by jup, Sunday, 15 April 2007 11:48:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regrettably such surveys do not reach their target so any interpretation is meaningless. The main reason for this is one of perception. It is impossible for anyone designing such a survey to "define" poverty: it has to be experienced.
I see the interactions between service delivery agencies and their clients; it is a train wreck.
At the street level, sustenance provided is welcome, but it is largely a hollow gesture. The poverty persists and perpetuates itself.
Posted by clink, Monday, 16 April 2007 2:46:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Defining poverty is a relational exercise. Poor compared to what or whom ? Maslow's Hierarchy of needs is useful in understanding the progression of "needs" towards "wants" . It is broadly accepted that not all of one's "needs" for fundamentals must be satisfied for one to start taking an interest in reaching for the next level. And pretty soon that includes wants - but maybe these are actually needs if people are to be effectively nurtured and encouraged to progress independently to where they want (need?) to go. One thing is for certain - where welfare kicks in , it MUST be recognised that mere sustenance of body is not enough - the soul should have attention too! Emotive arguments about children and infirmity are red herrings ...... in this society we are EACH AND ALL eligible for community support through hard times, unless we disqualify ourselves with a bad attitude or lack of intent. A socialist view is that each of us should be able to live as well as possible, through sharing of product and wealth. A liberal (free) view is that we should each be supported in achieving participation that enables a good standard of living. Defining poverty is always a subjective exercise - recognising how poverty occurs and intercepting the individual along the path to poverty is more important. So, John Howard's view that participation (a job) is the key to avoiding poverty is pretty right.
Posted by DRW, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 5:30:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ONCE UPON A TIME, work was simple, and a safety net existed to cushion the inevitable perturbations.
That safety net is now "fixed" above the heads of the unemployed.

Under the WELFARE-TO-WORKCHOICES regime, work is devalued to the point of being a liability.
Work once allowed for the traits of initiative and self discipline. An individual achieved an integrity born of self-worth through personal imperatives.
It is now very much an "obligation", with various vendors, including Mission Australia, encouraged and empowered[Paid] to treat clients as commodities.
It was Mission Australia I think, that conjured up MATHEW 25 as an ethos for their government work. Very different now!
The most generous people I meet are those least able to give.

Howard's prescriptions have an air of condescension that only the poor can understand.
Posted by clink, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 2:46:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with Maslow's hierarchy of needs is that it does not take into account that some people have reached the top of the hierarchy and find themselves falling down to the bottom (such as immigrants forced to leave affluent social circumstances etc). Once you have reached the top of the hierarchy (encountered self actualisation) and then find yourself having to start all over again, the hierarchy loses its order. People who have nothing, find that their needs were shaped when they had everything. Basic necessities such as food and shelter can seem less important than social identity, to those who "once had everything".
Posted by vivy, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 4:23:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anne Hampshire:

From what I can gather from the latest research into the 'p' lexicon, it's just another low key Public funded ' cheque-book-grant - bureaucratic ' undertaking by SPRC - UNSW to lend credence to their Academic miasma.

Everybody knows there's poverty in our midst; that the afluenza enjoy their ' ill-gotten-gains ' not from shear hard yakka, 12/24 battles-with-the-ungrateful-public; non-stop frugality; and year long skirmishes with the ATO..etc. It seems highlighting the 'disadvantage-near-do-well ' will gain kudos, probity, and even earn imprimatur brownie points amidst the intelligentsia - even if nothing else will ?

The cognoscente are looking for a crutch.

Obesity, dementia, social ostracism, ad finitum, is too much for the recondite mind. Living amongst the insulated scholarship; bereft of the need to equate paucity with the high life; nor seeking an excuse to holiday Overseas on sabbaticals - they have got to be joking.

The author goes on to say 2700/670 respondents replied to her survey, with various answers to 3 simple questions. Not particularly news-worthy except who/what/where were the recipients. Did they bother to send the questionnaire to the indegene's in Palm Island, Redfern, Cherbough or reserves in Cooktown or Arnhem Land ?

Ninety per cent identified with children's activities. None identified with basic necessities. Which suggests the whole shenanigans was a waste of Taxpayer's resources. In truth, it didn't address destitution, beggary, squalor, starvation, slums or myriad schadenfreude of poverty ! moreover, the make-over is flawed and in contempt of the truely impoverished underclass. It is one thing to access ' essentials' in stark contrast to bare necessities.

A prima facie case of specious reasoning. Indeed.

This survey parodied a similar attempt by the Catholic Diocese of Brisbane to address issue's plaguing the ' surf, sun and sand ' holiday image destination on the Gold Coast. All manner of congregation were asked to fill in the 15 point questionnaire. Presumably, it sought to seek answers as to who/what/where couples defined their social economic status. There may have been a agenda to gauge what people could afford in the second collection, or irrevocably pledge to
Posted by dalma, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 4:51:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
to the Church's bottomless Budget expenditure - whatever. We are still waiting Pontifical disclosure.

The statistics from the ABS albeit the Hendersen Report go a long way to quantify the bacic wage relative to the CPI index - which makes little sense to the down-and-out.

Stomach hunger pains, lack of medication, depression, overcrowding, chronic housing shortages, alcoholism, substance abuse, physical intimidation.. the list is endless. These are the face's of the underpriviledged and neglected - have you ever asked but once their impressions of Australian Society ?

Predictably, the survey addresses the white middleclass - otherwise Ms Hampshire would have elucidated the more obvious. Me thinks - the tongue-in-cheek expose is a cheap chimerical excuse for the high-brow to look down on their contemporaries and do some 'chest-pounding'. The them-and-us sydrome is alive and well. Our society, for all it's rhetoric, marginalizes the asceticism of poverty i.e stigmatises the down trodden. It behoves the rich to poke fun at the poverty stricken. Trouble is, we could all easily fall prey to this delusion.

Whatever the outcome of this research, spare a thought for our Aborigines. The survey should address the issue post haste. It is 200 plus years in the making and despite the moral/ ethical implications, the University of NSW should wax lyrical.

Ciao
Posted by dalma, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 5:09:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Demos,
Mate you are spot on, poverty should not exist in a country the World Bank describes as the "wealthiest nation on Earth" trouble is the wealth is so concerntrated in very few hands. Perhaps we need a re-distribution of wealth in favor of the many, and against the few, so everyone can again feel as though they live in "the lucky country" if not, what is our next move?
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 3:09:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Demos,
I don't believe Australia is a backward country at all. The way is open for anyone and I mean anyone seeking a better life than that which they currently enjoy/endure to pursue it. What that constitutes can be subjective as mentioned.
The "gummint" is not responsible for poverty. If the government did not take time to measure that which was minimum for continued subsistence in terms of food, shelter and clothing we would have no clue as to who was above or below the poverty line as measured.
One could argue that corporate profits and greedy shareholders are responsible. Others would argue that the beggar and the rich man have exactly the same number of hours in the day available to them. With rights comes responsibility. A man with a dream will not be denied, regardless of circumstance.
Personally, I am always happy to help anyone willing to help themselves. I too often come across whingers and moaners who back off from an opportunity to improve their lot because thay may have to expend a little effort or lose some TV time. Go look in the housing commission areas. Count the satellite dishes and foxtel connections.
It's symptomatic of a slack attitude. Lack of education is no excuse. Substance abuse is no excuse. That's a decision. I and perhaps you have had the same options presented to us and chosen a smarter path.
I'm by no means the sharpest tool in the shed but I know enough that personal progress is achieved through self-education, whatever it takes.
I've had times in my life when baked beans were a marvellous meal. It was no-ones responsibility other than mine to change that if I wanted to. I chose to change. No one stopped me. They too were willing to help someone helping themselves. That choice is open to all.
Posted by tRAKKA, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 4:58:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tRAKKA,
Why then are there so many HOMELESS PEOPLE IN THE WEALTHIEST NATION ON EARTH? You aren't sure, well I'll tell you uneven distribution of money for effort. You are living under a delusion, you should get out more, not to fancy snob class sites, but into reality.
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 5:29:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Shonga,
I appreciate your passion.
Are you homeless? No?
Why is that? Some decisions made, perhaps?
I'm not delusional, sir. I'm a realist.
Ask any of these homeless people who's responsible for their plight and they'll blame someone else. No accountability. OK? Clear? Good. Don't talk nonsense. As I said in my previous post I am only too happy to help those prepared to help themselves.
Redistibrute the wealth? Solirawity bruvver!LOL
What a bunch of outdated socialist clap-trap! In 5-10 years it would all be back to square one. And you know, the ones without would again blame the ones with!
Sorry but I don't subscribe to your views.
Posted by tRAKKA, Thursday, 19 April 2007 8:38:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd like to see the actual questionaires as proffered to the participants in this exercise. An addendum to the article perhaps?

Rereading Ross Gittins' article, and noting the methodology used in the survey, I'm not surprised by the results; Lists of essentials, tabulated in descending order, and with the empty precision of statistics. It's one thing to wish for these things, hence the parallel response; but it's quite another to be so preoccupied with survival that priorities don't allow for such frivolity.
Those who implemented this should be very concerned, rather than be placated by the response.

Poverty too is increasingly now a police matter.
That is this Nation's preferred response to society's ills.
Posted by clink, Thursday, 19 April 2007 2:19:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tRAKKA,
The old saying that "The worker is his own worst enemy" is still true, still protecting the billionaires believing one day they will become one..ha,ha,ha,...I probably have more material stuff than you do, what seperates us is that I remember where I came from, and realise that there are still many families left behind, it has a word, no not selfishness, that's you, the word is compassion for your fellow man, which you seriously lack.
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 19 April 2007 4:04:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shonga,

Spoken like a true socialist, or given your "material" statements more like a "Balmain basket weaver". (Consider that statement for a moment. If it were true, you've hoarded whilst knowingly leaving "...many families..""..behind...". And you have the hide to call me selfish!HELLO!)

People don't get left behind, they just don't keep up. It's a choice. What seperates those who do change their circumstance from those who don't? Desire for change and work ethic, that's what.

You call me selfish. The people I've stewarded don't think so. They're as grateful as I am to the one who guided and encouraged me.

You don't even stop to consider that a greater disposable income allows greater benevolence to "...your fellow man...".
You assume that it's all for me. IN-CO-RRECT. Home truth. I have no success unless I help make others successful. OK?

YOU lack compassion to your fellow man.
YOU reinforce their belief that they can do no better.
YOU give them no cause to question their own beliefs about their own abilities.
YOU are being selfish by not being ALL that you could be and extending a helping hand to the"...many families left behind...".
Challenge yourself, I dare you. Or do you have a really heavy TV schedule?
Posted by tRAKKA, Thursday, 19 April 2007 5:47:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tRAKKA,
I think that you are being a little unfair. You are right in saying that people need to believe in themselves and their ability to change their circumstances. But these beliefs have to be met with real reward for hard work. Many people feel as though it doesn't matter what they do and how hard they try that they are running on a treadmill sweating heavily and getting no-where. Some (maybe even most) have reached the conclusion that a heavy television schedule is far more rewarding than working hard chasing carrots that move away the closer they get to them. Many people (not all) have given up trying. Those who have succeeded (and this offcourse depends on how we measure success)are often the social exception. None the less, we need to teach people to believe that they can achieve if they work hard and then - MAKE IS SO.
Posted by vivy, Thursday, 19 April 2007 6:02:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tRAKKA,
I think that you are being a little unfair. You are right in saying that people need to believe in themselves and their ability to change their circumstances. But these beliefs have to be met with real reward for hard work. Many people feel as though it doesn't matter what they do and how hard they try that they are running on a treadmill sweating heavily and getting no-where. Some (maybe even most) have reached the conclusion that a heavy television schedule is far more rewarding than working hard chasing carrots that move away the closer they get to them. Many people (not all) have given up trying. Those who have succeeded (and this offcourse depends on how we measure success)are often the social exception. None the less, we need to teach people to believe that they can achieve if they work hard and then - MAKE IT SO.
Posted by vivy, Thursday, 19 April 2007 6:02:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vivy,
I'm sorry if I seemed a little unfair. In the context of the sarcastic attack I feel it was warranted."...Sew the wind, reap the whirlwind..." if you like. Your tone seems to indicate a person of some balance.
I don't disagree that some people give up when they feel that they are going nowhere. It's still a choice. If I may draw the analogy of the olympic swimming hopeful who strives to beat their personal best by .5 second at the next olympics and spends the next 4 years day in day out striving incessantly, alone, gazing at the black line at the bottom of the pool equipping themselves in the hope that their effort will pay dividends. It is only one example, for sure, but that to me is herculean. In the face of adversity champions don't quit.( A movie that is good viewing on this subject is " A Knights Tale" with Heath Ledger). Obviously not everyone will persevere. For a funny thought, imagine if James Cook had landed on Hawaii first, eyeballed the lifestyle and thought "Bugger it. This'll do!"
As you say success is measured different ways. Monetary success is one way for sure and probably the most obvious to most. The serendipities that come as a result of achieving financial security are just as good if not better. I'm not sure I can properly express the feeling that comes from believing in someone and helping them overcome limiting self-belief and then seeing them go on and do the same with others. What good is monetary success if you can't share joy with others?
Our microwave society unfortunately has become accustomed to immediate gratification and expects the harvest straight after planting.
The TV schedule? Another choice. Don't get me wrong. I love my HD plasma and I love motor racing but I made a pact with myself that it's "a reward for effort" scheme.
Yes, make it so. Picard, out.
Posted by tRAKKA, Friday, 20 April 2007 9:32:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So are you now reduced to defining success ?!?

Look'ut me ! Look'ut meeaH ! Look at my stuff !

Julius Sumner Miller once demonstrated what happens when a large balloon and a small balloon are joined by a tube that allows air to move between them. He also demonstrated nuclear fission.

You probably have broadband too, don't you !
Posted by clink, Saturday, 21 April 2007 12:21:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
clink,
When I read tRAKKA's post the thought that he may be showing off never crossed my mind ! You either have a plasma tv and hide it when your friends come around, or you do not have one and are deeply resentful of everyone you know that has. Whatever the case you need to get over your pretensions!
Posted by vivy, Saturday, 21 April 2007 12:55:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vivi,
I thought this was an opportunity to discuss poverty. I have neither plasmaTV nor plasmaTV envy. My previous comment was not directed at anyone in particular. Perhaps it was intended for the likes of CIS or IPA, who regularly seek to belittle the problem. With a federal budget coming on , expect CIS' Peter Saunders to suggest his usual remedies.
Posted by clink, Saturday, 21 April 2007 3:18:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
clink,
Poverty is a serious problem but most people want to feel good about their consumption decisions. They do not want to be reminded about how the poor go with out etc...We need to bring everyone's standard of living up, rather than dragging some people down.
Posted by vivy, Sunday, 22 April 2007 2:06:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I fail to understand why some would suggest that everyone be measured a success or failure by their material goods. Poverty is not a condition of not having material goods. It's a poor judgment on their lack of material goods. Poverty in Australia is more a guilt trip by the left for having "succeeded"(?). I have spent nearly the entirety of my working life earning below standard wages and hovering around what the government calls "poverty" because of under the average annual earnings. I would never categorize myself or my family as poor or living in poverty.
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 22 April 2007 3:01:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi clink,
It was not my intention to appear to be saying "...look at moie, look at moie...".
I'm sorry that you gained that impression.

Yes we do have broadband because our business is more easily done using it. It is a useful tool not a status symbol. Likewise the plasma is also good for presenting business audio visuals (as well as motor racing!) to larger numbers than would be comfortable using a laptop.
We don't have foxtel or the like because it is dross.

I will reiterate that the "poverty" line is determined by governmental agencies as being the general minimum acceptable requirements for safe, secure, healthy food, clothing and shelter. It may not apply to all, particularly those living a self-sustaining lifestyle.
I will reiterate that the beggar and the richer man both have the same number of hours in the day. It is what they do in them that makes the difference.

There are probably any number of people who are comfortable and happy whilst living near or below the "poverty" line. I think that the only ones making a fuss are those feeling (oddly) guilty about their own success, whatever that may involve, or those who want someone else to fix their "problem".
Posted by tRAKKA, Monday, 23 April 2007 10:30:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tRAKKA,
I'm no Balmain basket weaver, I have a home with all the trappings 2 cars etc, owned outright, debt free, you are a speculator and a poor one at that. You and those of your ilk just don't get it I won't waste any more time on your ignorance.
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 23 April 2007 12:59:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Temper, temper shonga!!

You incorrectly assume a great deal about me and give it a negative slant, which based on previous offerings from yourself is not unexpected!
Hmm...socialist outlook with material wealth. Definitely a Balmain basket weaver.
I don't get you. You're obviously unhelpful, either by design or ignorance. That's your choice. Speaking on behalf of the ilk and myself, please don't waste any more time. Go away. Quickly.
Posted by tRAKKA, Monday, 23 April 2007 1:54:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.centreflunk.com/
Posted by clink, Thursday, 3 May 2007 1:42:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy