The poor have some answers

Ramesh Sujanani, Guest Contributor

It seems to me that the 'lot' of the poor these days is becoming increasingly worse. The cost of basic food: rice, flour, salt, and grain is becoming less attainable to persons without much income, and most basic items are now being taxed out the reach of the indigent persons.

At one time, more consideration was given to the unemployed and their inability to access food. Taxes were removed, income was revised, and education and health care was subsidised more than it is today. We cannot conclude our population of 2.8 million presents a growth burden, when 10 years ago it was 2.5 million; population has not increased that much to create a sizable strain.

What about the purchasing power of the impoverished? Two years ago, the minimum wage was $4,000, and the exchange rate was around USD 65.00, at J$ equalling USD 1.00; so $4,000 worked out to be USD 61.50.

Wage increase necessary

Today, the $5,800 minimum wage translates to $52.73 USD, a loss of 20%. When adjusted for tax payments on basic commodities, we lose a US$6.73 further, making the net pay around $45.50, a loss of 26%, the latter rates calculated at J$110 to the USD. An improvement in minimum wage needs urgent consideration.

It is pointless to share blame between governments and parties. Both mismanaged the economy to a point that we are being ridiculed by nations of our size and of fewer resources. There are benefits and subsidies offered by government, and I can think of a few, but these add and subtract so quickly, it is not too easy to ascertain which are in effect and which have 'run out'.

A few, but effective solutions have emerged from a comparison with other similar nations, who bear the burden of invasive poverty, and I will compare efforts of countries that are active in the alleviation of poverty:

1. Revise a defunct minimum wage, so that the wage earner is freer to join a broader economy with less poverty. Brazil and the United States have both taken these steps. The contradicting argument about the preservation of jobs with lower wages is old and tired; and has proved inaccurate. (NY Times, editorial board).

2. Providing income savings programmes directly to the poor, especially women. Consider 'Bolsa Familia' (Family Grant) in Brazil, which gives a weekly stipend to women to purchase supplies and look after children, and is to be credited with a rising standard of living. The USA has a food stamp programme, which the Democrats are fighting to keep. India has a food security programme which effectively donates 5 kilos of food grains to the poor, every month, from a surplus stock which otherwise would spoil.

3. Then, women empowerment: By lending small amounts of money to women in families to take on an ancillary occupation, say sewing, cooking, running errands and taxi businesses, among other household tasks. Bangladesh and Africa, through their Garmeen Banks, have turned this method into success for themselves and others, with small, monitored loans from the banks.

Small business support

A similar programme called 'Kudumbashree' (meaning family prosperity, in Malay the local language) in the Indian State of Kerala, encourages women to run their own businesses: small schools for disabled children, pepper mills, taxi services, and handicraft shops, among others.

Money is loaned to the women by an organisation like a parish council, which uses a three-tier system of accountability. This arrangement has proved quite successful; it is not a state government programme, and is unique as it uses an older form of administrative supervision, like our parish council; which in Jamaica today looks after the old and infirm, and could be made capable to do the job of small-scale financing.

Email feedback to ramsuji78@gmail.com.