Do Food Banks Benefit the Poor, or Employers?
It seems to me that the original intent of the food bank was to provide temporary emergency food to people and families in distress - a loss of employment, a woman escaping an abusive relationship, an illness or other calamity - in a short term fashion until stability was once again achieved.
However, I have heard the fastest growing group of users are the "working poor"; people who earn too little tomeet their basic needs. Paradoxically, most work for corporations that have been reporting huge profits since their bailouts in 2009, and are paying their executives exhorbitent compensations.
So, why are food banks subsidizing the wealthy? Why should I give to my community food bank, just so some greedy, rapacious, insatible CEO can get even more by paying the very ones who built the value of the business even less?
Take the case of my brother. Recently he was laid off his $70K job, and the only ones available pay about $12/hr - and no more than 35 hrs/week. He has 3 kids, a house he's been in for more than 10 years, not much in savings but no real debt aside from the mortgage. $420/week is not going to cut it, yet one prospective employer actually told him to use the food bank - most staff do! And this S-O-B drives an Escalade.
- simplicitusLv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
(1) Even if you are correct that "the fastest growing group of users are the "working poor"", that doesn't mean that most of the users are the "working poor". Do you actually have the numbers of last year vs. 10 years ago, etc.?
Anecdotal evidence and hearsay doesn't count here. This is the Economics section of Yahoo Answers. We want data.
(2) And even we do take the case of your brother. Would he and others like him be better off we didn't donate to to food banks? Would the escalade-driving boss actually be affected by our not donating? Would Walmart's?
The classic term for what you are proposing is "to cut off your nose to spite your face".
(3) Yes, there is a major problem with income inequality in the U.S. But this is hardly the way to address it.
The biggest part of the problem is the control the rich have over the government policies.
Government policies are the biggest factor in income inequality (about twice as significant as education level, which is #2). All market economies have about the same (very high) levels of market income inequality. It is government policies (progressive tax structures, public services, other forms of redistribution) that determine the inequality in disposable incomes:
In the U.S. Wall Street and the rich have a great deal of influence on government policies, especially through the Republican party, which has a majority in the House and enough to filibuster every bill in the Senate, but also through the Democratic party whose policies are now right of where the center was only 30 years ago. (Even Nixon was more liberal than the Obama administration)
I know less about Canada, but three elements are clear:
A. The role of the government in income inequality and the growth rate of the economy are the same. (Higher income inequality also reduces economic growth)
B. While Canada's situation with respect to income inequality is not as bad as the U.S. situation:
It is nowhere near as good as that of the Scandinavian countries, which are also more prosperous than Canada.
C. Canadians elected a Conservative government that is pushing for austerity. That hurts the economy and hurts the poor more than the rich.
Europe started on this austerity kick earlier than Canada, and look where it has put them:
So who did you and your family vote for? Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?
- Anonymous4 years ago
1Source(s): Food That Last Forever http://renditl.info/UltimateSurvivalFood
- janellaLv 44 years ago
When you weren't working there then you definitely have to prove that you've got been in different areas - receipts, tickets, meetings with other folks. Are trying contacting ancient work colleagues and see if they're going to help your declare - your ex-business enterprise will have to be competent to show that you have not been in receipt of any gains and their books will have to exhibit the identical. If it was a cash handiest job then it can be trickier - you truly ought to in finding evidence that on days that any one else signed you in that you simply were elsewhere - at the bank, on vacation, at an interview, with loved ones and buddies and many others and so on. Appear for any bills - telephone fees and so on which might be priceless to exhibit you had been at dwelling - gather witnesses both from your ancient office and independant folks. Go by way of your diary and notice what's there that may aid. That's your high-quality guess. Additionally - if your job concerned assembly men and women then discover who has been doing all your job meanwhile and any shoppers can confirm that it wasn't you.
- 8 years ago
This is the hypocrisy of the wealthy. They want the public purse to guarantee subsidized utilities, municipal taxes, markets, loans, even earnings in order to locate a plant or business in a community. Then, they start to blackmail the community by threatening to relocate if they don't get even more! Of course, they "promote" that individuals ought to be responsible for their own uses and activities, advocating for user fees to access public services, and dismantling the public health and education systems. They encourage governments to borrow (from them, of course) as well as susidize their businesses, then foist the debt on all of us.
Just so they can raise their children in pampered Disney worlds of gated communities, private schools, and exclusive resorts.
They are like a parasitic infection, and care nothing for their country or society.