The idea that we can end poverty even for the existing population, let alone for the 9 billion expected in the future is sheer nonsense, as is the idea that it is all somehow the fault of us Westerners. Most of humanity is in a Malthusian trap, and before the last century, all of it was. Technological advances occurred, but the population just grew to eat up any surplus and restore the accustomed level of misery. The high living standards enjoyed by survivors of the Black Death were not matched until the late 19th century, despite more than 500 years of technological progress, as explained in the lecture on the 14th century in Radio National's "Thousand Years in a Day" series. There are twice as many Ethiopians now as when Bob Geldof launched his heartrending appeals during the famine of the 1980s.

We got out of the trap because development brought changes that made large families expensive for the parents, unnecessary for ensuring surviving children or support in old age, as well as for national defence, and easily avoidable. Unfortunately, education, healthcare, sewer systems, old age pensions, etc. require quite a high level of GNP per capita. See this graph plotting environmental footprint, i.e. consumption, against rank on the human development index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Highlight_Findings_of_the_WA_S0E_2007_report_.gif

No country is giving its people wonderful lives on a tiny footprint. It is clear that we could cut ours in half without really hurting people, as there is a lot of waste, but given the relative numbers, it would make very little difference. It would take the resources of 3 Earths to give everyone a modest European standard of living.

Aid that isn't aimed at helping people get themselves out of the trap is useless. Helping people avoid unwanted pregnancies is an important first step, and Yabby is spot on about the damage that is being done by the religious fundamentalists. I only give money to organisations that are prepared to recognise the problems outlined by Colinsett.

Poverty can be a spiritual issue just as much as a physical. In India Hindus would rather die than eat their beloved grand mothers (sorry cows). In Zimbawe once a great food provider for Africa is run by corruption and the UN sits on its hands because its ruler is black. In our own country much of our welfare money is spent on grogs, cigarettes and gambling.

Giving more money to food agencies is only one small part of the puzzle. A few of our rock stars who adopt the messiah complex (very much like some environmentalist) would have us believe otherwise.

I am sure that your gardener is worth every penny that you pay him, Shadow Minister.

>>As far as executive salaries go this is a pittance. I have tradesmen working for me that with a bit of over time earn more than that.<<

But are you really sure that a manager in a business that has no product save the misery of others, whose main functions are the organization of begging on street corners, sending begging letters and employing roomsful of call-centre jockeys is worth more than your gardener?

I would suggest that any "executive" work that needs to be done can be done in an afternoon by a retired mortgage broker.

For free.

After all, it is supposed to be a charity.

*Any person with that level of talent is worth far more, and is probably donating 80% of his value.
The old adage "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" still applies, (see greenpeace)*

I remind you that the CEO of Lehmans earnt 400 million $ and still
sent the company broke! Meantime Gerry Harvey draws a very modest
salary and his company still thrives. I have yet to see a statistic
which shows that the highest paid CEOs are the best ones.

But in this case, that is not even the point. I once saw an
interview where it was revealed that the CEO of the Red Cross
apparently was earning around 450k$. Thats the last time that I
donated to the Red Cross. If they can afford to pay those sorts
of salaries, they clearly don't need my donation.

If a high salary is needed to motivate somebody working for charity,
then clearly its a business, not a charity.

Part of their "business plan" would be to try and make people feel
guilty about not donating enough to the poor. Its a bit like
the Catholic Church really, selling indulgences. That made them
a great deal of money!

Pericles,

Your attempt to paint me as fat cat shows an ignorance of the real world would probably put you as minor clerk in a gov dept, alien to real world salaries and requirements.

I work for a large organisation with people reporting to me. The tradesmen get paid a market related wage, and often leave for better.

"Executive" work is not the mindless shuffling of paper that you imagine, but generally requires a depth of understanding of economics, people and systems for which your retired mortage broker would be ill equiped.

The wrong person in the job leads to well intentioned but breath taking incompetencies such as the existing NSW gov that has not only squandered peak revenues and achieved very little, but piled up debts for future administrations to deal with.

Yabby,

Your example of Gerry Harvey who holds a majority stake in the company taking only $1m in salary is inappropriate, considering that his wife is also MD and their dividends were about $30m after tax.

As controlling share holders they would appear to be rorting the system if they drew any more, and hardly need it.

The CEO of the red cross who earns $500k would easily earn 10x that in business, and giving up nearly $5m in salary would by most be seen as an act of charity.

If you choose not to donate to them on the grounds you have given why not donate to the NSW labor party who ascribe to the ideals of charitable incompetence that you cherish.

Your small-mindedness does you no credit, Shadow Minister.

>>Your attempt to paint me as fat cat shows an ignorance of the real world would probably put you as minor clerk in a gov dept, alien to real world salaries and requirements<<

If I were similarly inclined, I would observe that your adulation of "executive work" is typical of a lower-middle manager in a large corporation.

Fortunately, I am able to rise above such pettiness.

For what it is worth, I am absolutely certain that the task of running a charity, with no need to understand market dynamics, or to constantly revisit and re-tune product strategies, or to balance seasonal variations in sales and stock levels, or to build and motivate diverse teams to a common goal, does not require "a depth of understanding of economics, people and systems for which your retired mortage broker would be ill equiped [sic]."

On that we shall have to differ, unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary.

And please don't use the "they must be worth it, look how much they are paid" argument.