Xayma
Lacking creativity
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
- Messages
- 5,953
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
braindrainedAsh said:http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...ow-poverty-line/2005/05/14/1116024407236.html
But out of curiosity I'd like the see where Felix got that stat from... it was a bit slack of the SMH to run that as a headline without any backup of where the stat was from, they just took it as hearsay from Felix (who, you know, has a bit of an agenda!).... not entirely responsible reporting.
So yes, what do you all think the solution could be? Or do you deny that our universities are going down shit creek without a paddle or even a boat?
Source: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/5D709B83B7F7C25ECA2569DE00221C86ABS said:Poverty and inequality
In its 1990 World Development Report, the World Bank used a poverty line for each country set at the equivalent (in 1985) of US $370 per person per year. On this basis - equivalent in Australia to around $10 per person per week - there is virtually no poverty in Australia. However, the World Banks' focus was on absolute or subsistence poverty - not having enough income to be able to secure minimum levels of food, clothing and shelter.
In rich countries like Australia, poverty is conceived in relative rather than absolute terms. This implies that poverty is defined not in terms of a lack of sufficient resources to meet basic needs, but rather as lacking the resources required to be able to participate in the lifestyle and consumption patterns enjoyed by other Australians. To be relatively poor is thus to be forced to live on the margins of society, to be excluded from the normal spheres of consumption and activity which together define social participation and national identity.
The acceptance of poverty as a relative concept means that poverty and inequality are related. Relative poverty can only exist where there is inequality, but this does not mean that poverty and inequality are the same. Not all forms of inequality will imply relative poverty, only those in which some individuals or groups fall well below the average. The eradication of relative poverty will require some reduction in inequality, but how much and at what cost will depend upon the nature and severity of the poverty problem.
So even taking a monetary definition of poverty in Australia (later in the same piece):
Source: As previousABS said:Table S2.1 presents the poverty lines for income units in the workforce in the March quarter 1995.
.
.
.
(Poverty lines for those not in the workforce were around $41 below those shown in table S2.1 for each income unit type). Housing costs vary with family size, but range from around $70 a week for a single person up to $106 a week for a couple with four children.
S2.1 POVERTY LINES FOR AUSTRALIA, MARCH QUARTER 1995(a)
Single person
Including Housing: $215.6
Not including Housing: $145.1
Source: Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 1995, Table 1
Which would place me (adjusted for inflation) (and many students) below the poverty line. Yet I still survive quite well. I can go out, I can eat and I can get clothing (it must amaze many university students that there does exist places such as Target).
So while it may be considered to be in poverty, it is far from uncomfortable.