Introduction
Canada has remained steadily classified by the United Nations as a unique of the ten best countries in which to reside. This is so because the average earnings are high, there is lengthy life anticipation, the populace is healthy, and the populaces are energetic and safe. That said there is a part of the inhabitants who spend their life at the verge of worry, hardly capable of gathering sufficient money to sustain a decent life. Poverty in Canada is old and new. It is old because it has always existed, and it is new because it is not commonly defined as a problem until more recently.
Poverty persists in Canada amid apparent wealth generated in particular by the petroleum and financial industries. Inequality in income distribution is increasing to the detriment not only for the impoverished but also the entire society. The current trajectory of the Canada economy is socially and ecological unsustainable. This paper seeks to examine the meaning of poverty, identify the poor and the wealthy in Canada, and examine the various sociological perspectives of poverty.
The measure of poverty and prosperous in Canada
As late as 1950, economist presumed that, North Americans were steadfastly improving. They were generating more, and wages were snowballing. The problem about poverty was not whether but when it would be eradicated. Though sociologist has always recognized paucity as a problem, surveys exhibited that not till 1960s did the civic begin to ascertain poverty as a grave problem. At present, however, paucity in Canada is a distress for many Canadians. The standpoint of Canada survey probed the Canadians to rank their trepidations on the different social subjects. More than a half of Canadians articulated sturdy concern about child poverty, and a substantial percent is fretful about destitution including lack of sustainable shelter. At the same time, only a less than ten percent of the populace is unconcerned about destitution or homelessness. The government has no authorized poverty streak, though statistics in as 1960 has used Low Income Cutoff (LICO).
Tools of Measuring Poverty and Wealth in Canada
The following are the foremost poverty and wealth measure presently being discussed on in Canada in an effort to define poverty.
Low Income Cutoff (LICO)
The Low Income Cutoff is determined by both pre and post revenue. It is centered on the size of a household and the size of the community and processes the normal earnings spent on provisions such as nourishment, sartorial, and shelter. Conferring to statistics the average household devotes 35 % of their pre-tax wages on provisions. Persons who spend 20% more than the average that is any household that devotes 55% of their salary on provisions are reflected to be below the poverty line by LICO.
LIM (Low Income Measure)
LIM is often used to globally measure poverty; it describes deficiency as being considerable poorer than standard set. The LIM is based on family size and the state median adjustment family income. According to LIM, a family of two adults and two progenies whose earnings feel below $ 31,000 is considered as poor.
BNI (Basic Needs Index)
The Basic Need Index was created by Christopher Sarlo; BNM defines poverty using the idea that poverty is the lack of capability to sustain and maintain basic physical wellbeing. To be poor using BNM approach is to have wages below $18,586.
MBM (Market Basket Measure)
Introduced in May 2003, the Market Basket Measure formed by the State Council of Welfare through the Human Resources and Development Council as an effort to mediate the variances between definitions centered on subsistence (BNI) and social inclusions (LICO). The calculations centered on 29 communities in ten provinces and a house hold of four. The calculations are modified according to changes in the size of the household. The MBM generates a basket comprising five groupings; nourishment, sartorial and footwear, housing centered on the normal cost for a three or two bedroom apartment, cost of a monthly transit pass, and a small grant for refreshment and entertainment.
Canadians in general fail to recognize poverty as a social problem. One reason that makes numerous people not to recognize poverty is the fact that they can’t understand the difference between relative and absolute poverty. They insist that even the lowest earning families in Canada are not really poor because they fare well than the starving citizens in other countries. Therefore, the standard for evaluating scarcity in Canada must be assessed in relation to the standard of living achieved by the mainstream of Canadians.
The Sociological Problems Facing Wealth and Poverty
Wealth and poverty are not disseminated similarly amid various social groups. Most of the Canadians are neither well-off nor underprivileged, but the odds of being in one of these alliances are more for a precise social group. For instance, the probability of being poor for ladies, and persons over the age of sixty five is very high than all the other age groups. Other factors that may result to low income include unemployment and level of education. Households whose income recipient did not progress from high school are further probable to wallow in poverty than twice compared to the ones that have college diplomas or university degrees.
Poverty is also associated with race and ethnicity. Just over seventy percent of the poor communities in Canada comprise immigrants, first nation persons, and visible minorities. Newly arrived immigrants residing in enormous towns are twofold as probable to live in scarcity. Almost 35 percent of firsthand migrants in 2004 receive low wages scarcely to support themselves. The first Nation’s person’s wages are 34% below the state average. Visible minorities groups are among the poorest with more than half living in poverty, compared to 10% of the Canadians are white British or have a European origin. Poverty rate is high amid Central Americans, West Indians, people with multiple South Asian backgrounds, and Jamaicans. Ornstein believes that racism in a substantial part explains the scarcity amid these categories; although most are working they are stuck in low recompensing jobs. For instance, there are only a few rich black Canadians; this is due to low incomes in regard to discrimination in finding of jobs, education qualification, and job discrimination in obtaining progressive higher ranks.
The meagerness of financial resources deprives the poor of freedom to pursue a complete and happy life. Some people argue that lack of reserves can or should be equated with lack of happiness, many of the poor people not only in Canada are carefree, spontaneous, and even better off without the worries that come with wealth. This assertion is generally used by the wealthy people to ridicule the poor. People who are poor have a low expectancy period of about 50 years in Canada, and still in the same country there are wealthy people who live up to 80 years, a difference of 30 years. There is, in fact, a positive association between salary and professed pleasure. Studies of insolences globally show that portion of persons who refer to themselves as happy is lowest in those with lower income, and increases respectively among the middle and the upper revenue earners, this also explain why the wealthy group lives happily. Poverty brings more desperation than happiness and more fear than the fullness of life.
Poverty and wealth also face a social problem of discontent and despair. There are numerous problems of frustration of poverty and the wealthy individuals who want to keep accumulating wealth. These frustrations are due to resident in crime ridden neighborhoods, in sufficient health care, consistent financial strains, poor nourishment, lack of opportunities for betterment. These financial frustrations are so overwhelming that the impoverished or rich person may suffer depression. A good example is that of an expectant mother who earns so little; she has a high possibility of being depressed and consequently affecting the development of the baby. Despair does not solitary affect the poor in the society for the poor people it is also experienced by the rich and wealthy persons who are still in pursuit for more and more wealth accumulation. Unlike the rich individuals, the poor lives in an unpredictable world of fear. The chronic uncertainty of their lives means that they live in fear. These fears are clearly evident in Canada in that the poor are mostly the victims of violent crimes and are less likely to be victims of theft to personal resources. Proper household costing over $ 60,000 attracts target for property crime since there is valuable jewelry, materials, and a greater probability of cash reserves. Contrary to the poor house hold which attracts violent criminals since they have nothing of value. Approximately, 60% of Canadian families have someone who has experienced family violence. The overall fear of neighborhood crime in Canada is associated with income, though most Canadians tend to think that crime in the past decade is stable, in comparison to those from wealthy house hold, low income Canadians are twice likely to believe that crime is more predominant in their neighborhood than others. As well, house hold revenue has an effect on feeling of individual safety. In Canada, persons with lower earnings feel unsafe to walk around at night, using public transit system, and generally fear of being a victim of violent crime.
Every human being has a right to dignity; however, the poor the right to dignity is violated by the Canadian ideal worth of each person and the pattern of association amid the meager and the rich in the society. At the best, the unfortunate is treated paternalistically. At the worst, they are treated with contempt and rejection, and are often censured for their predicament. The loss of dignity is demonstrated in a number of myths about the unfortunate, which employs the fallacy of personal attack to discredit the unfortunate and legitimate a reluctance to fund programs meant to help them. The first myth asserts that the reason behind the unfortunate group is that they are lazy. To alter that the poor are lazy justifies the rich’s contempt and denial of individual or societal accountability to deal with poverty. The second myth that robs the poor their dignity stipulates that the poor people on welfare live a well-structured life. The truth is that there is no self-respect in seeking survival on welfare payments. Another myth that the unfortunate are humiliated by the rich by altering that the poor are societal parasites; this myth asserts that the cost of sustaining the unfortunate is depriving the rich by mounting takes and concurrently decreasing their habitual of life. Additionally, it is important to note that these welfares have achieved remarkably little in reducing inequity, and the standard of living for the middle-upper and the upper class citizens is still high as ever. Also, the non-poor ignores the fact that the persons on welfare are mostly the non-able bodied workers meaning most of them are the aged, progenies, mothers of small children, and the disabled.
Introduction of food banks as a welfare system in Canada to address the problem of hunger and malnutrition among the citizens. The food supplies are inconsistent since they depend on donations from the non-poor and the community. As such, the food quality might be low. Since the food resources are low, food banks may be limited in the amount of food distributed and, in the worst case scenario, the people may face be forced to leave without food, thus having little control of what and how much to eat. Food banks are, in essence, charity. They do not address the larger issue of eradicating poverty so that people will never go hungry. However, going to a food bank is considered as disempowering and degrading by most people in Canada.
Conclusion
There are several eminent issues regarding poverty and wealth in Canada. Poverty as it is seen is not as bad as in some part of the world, therefore, in evaluating the poverty or wealth in Canada can only be possible in terms of the standards of living obtained by the majority of Canadian. However, poverty seems to be the main issues that evoke social problems that include housing, crime, nutrition, employment, race, and ethnicity. Neither poverty nor wealth is equally distributed amid the population. Chances of being poor or rich mostly depend on the level of education, gender, age, and race. Problems faced by the poor include homelessness which associated with poor health, despair and fear, loss of dignity, and undesirable living conditions. Among the structural factors that contribute to poverty is the distribution of power and wealth in the state. The economy also mechanism against the deprived in three customs; by permitting the deliberation of prosperity, by trapping the unfortunate in a malicious circle, and by assuring an exact percentage of people will be unable to get jobs that pay more than the poverty level wages. Attitudes and value of both and poor contribute to the social problem. The philosophy of prosperity and paucity asserts that chances are accessible to all and that positive particular potentials such as hard work and aptitude aid an individual to grab the prospects.
References
Bourne, L. S., & Ley, D. F. (2004). The Changing Social Geography of Canadian Cities. New South Wales: McGill-Queen's Press.
Kendall, D. (2012). Sociology in Our Times. New York: Cengage Learning.
Lauer, R. H. (1976). Social problems. Dubuque: W. C. Brown Co. Publishers .
Moré, Í. (2011). The Borders of Inequality. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Tepperman, L., & Curtis, J. ( 2011). Social Problems: A Canadian Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bantjes, R. (2007). Social Movements in a Global Context: Canadian Perspectives. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Blais, F., & Hutchison, J. ( 2002). Ending Poverty: A Basic Income for All Canadians. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company.
Gordon, D. (2000). Breadline Europe: The Measurement of Poverty. New York: The Policy Press.
Heisz, & Mcleod, A. (2004). Low Income in Census Metropolitant Areas. Canada: Analytical Study Branch.
Mitchell, D. J. (2002). W.A.C. Bennett and the rise of British Columbia. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.
Mooney, L. A. (2011). Understanding Social Problems. New York: Cengage Learning.
Mooney, L. A., & Schacht, C. (2012). Understanding Social Problems. New York: Cengage Learning.
NSACSW. (2002). Problems of Inequality. New York: University of Toronto Press.
Ornstein, N. J., & Mann, T. E. (2004). The Permanent Campaign and Its Future. New York: American Enterprise Institute.
Phillipson, C., & Allan, G. A. (2004). Social Networks and Social Exclusion. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Polèse, M. (2010). The Wealth and Poverty of Regions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Poverty, P. o. (2003). Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.
Regan, S., & Paxton, W. (2001). Asset-Based Welfare. New South Wales: Institute for Public Policy Research.
Roberts, L. W., Clifton, R. A., & Ferguson, B. (2005). Recent Social Trends in Canada. ON K0J: McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP.
Westhues, A. (2006). Canadian Social Policy. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press.
