This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_007D_01BE0252.DF974840
charset="iso-8859-1"
MBS suggested that...
"A more renegade thought is that it is a mistake to zero in on poverty in
the first place, rather than put the condition of the working class first.
If the class is well-served, so too will be the poor"
On the contrary, I find the issues of welfare, minimum wage, homelessness
very useful politically.
Here in Canada, as I'm sure in the U.S, the dominant ideology has long been
that "ain't nobody here but us middle class" and the average worker, the
average citizen has long bought into it, with some encouragement from our
American business unions. Discussing 'poverty' issues, (relation of minimum
wage to working wage, political functions of welfare. etc.) is a very useful
means of undermining the standard 'business union' mentality.
After much work, some of the main unions are now supporting (financially,
and to a very limited extent politically) the most radical of the
anti-poverty organizations, OCAP. And it's no coincidence that one of the
most progressive unions in the country, the Canadian Auto Workers,
frequently invites one of the main OCAP organizers to it's labour education
seminars
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 3:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:700] redefining the poor out of existence
The trick is in what the new trend is. That many people comprehend a
statement like poverty was x this year (either absolute or relative) is
debatable, though clearly extreme levels would be fuel for comment. But a
statement like, "poverty (however defined) got worse this year" may more
often provoke interest.
I agree that in general the switch from relative to absolute is a step
backwards. Though if the absolute standard commands more respect than the
relative one, it could help in winning support for more aid.
A more renegade thought is that it is a mistake to zero in on poverty in
the first place, rather than put the condition of the working class first.
If the class is well-served, so too will be the poor.
MBS
------=_NextPart_000_007D_01BE0252.DF974840
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D496164613-28101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D130582720-27101998><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff=20
face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D496164613-28101998><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
class=3D496164613-28101998><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2>MBS suggested =
that...</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D130582720-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D496164613-28101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>"</FONT></SPAN>A more renegade thought is that it is a =
mistake to=20
zero in on poverty in the first place, rather than put the condition of =
the=20
working class first. If the class is well-served, so too will be =
the=20
poor<SPAN class=3D496164613-28101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>"</FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D130582720-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D496164613-28101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D496164613-28101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D496164613-28101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2>On the=20
contrary, I find the issues of welfare, minimum wage, homelessness very =
useful=20
politically.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D496164613-28101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D496164613-28101998><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>Here in Canada, as I'm sure in the U.S, the =
dominant ideology=20
has long been that "ain't nobody here but us middle =
class" and=20
the average worker, the average citizen has long bought into it, with =
some=20
encouragement from our American business unions. Discussing 'poverty' =
issues,=20
(relation of minimum wage to working wage, political functions of =
welfare. etc.)=20
is a very useful means of undermining the standard 'business =
union'=20
mentality. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D496164613-28101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D496164613-28101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2>After=20
much work, some of the main unions are now supporting (financially, and =
to a=20
very limited extent politically) the most radical of the anti-poverty=20
organizations, OCAP. And it's no coincidence that one of the most=20
progressive unions in the country, the Canadian Auto Workers, frequently =
invites=20
one of the main OCAP organizers to it's labour education=20
seminars</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
[EMAIL PROTECTED]=20
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]<B>On Behalf Of</B> Max=20
Sawicky<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, October 27, 1998 3:34 =
PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [PEN-L:700] redefining =
the poor=20
out of existence<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D130582720-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>The trick is in what the new trend is. That many =
people=20
comprehend a statement like poverty was x this year (either absolute =
or=20
relative) is debatable, though clearly extreme levels would be fuel =
for=20
comment. But a statement like, "poverty (however defined) =
got=20
worse this year" may more often provoke =
interest.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D130582720-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D130582720-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial size=3D2>I=20
agree that in general the switch from relative to absolute is a step =
backwards. Though if the absolute standard commands more =
respect than=20
the relative one, it could help in winning support for more=20
aid.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D130582720-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D130582720-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial size=3D2>A=20
more renegade thought is that it is a mistake to zero in on poverty =
in the=20
first place, rather than put the condition of the working class =
first. =20
If the class is well-served, so too will be the =
poor.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D130582720-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D130582720-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>MBS</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D130582720-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_007D_01BE0252.DF974840--
[PEN-L:711] RE: redefining the poor out of existence
Robert Mac Diarmid Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:10:57 -0500boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007D_01BE0252.DF974840"
