The Cruelty of Poverty

By Penny Costoglou

Published March 2001

The economy is booming, econo­mists say. This is true, and ideally there should be more money spent on social programs. But the statistics speak for themselves. In 1991 the number of people living in poverty in Canada was 16%, while in 1998, the poverty rate was 16.4%, the lowest it’s ever been since 1992. But should we celebrate? Hardly. The small drop in poverty was a dismal showing for a wealthy coun­try in its seventh consecutive year of economic growth.

Some other grim statistics: in 1991 the percentage of poor, single, unat­tached people in Ontario was 31.8%. In 1999, the percentage of poor people in Ontario was 31.1%. This change may be minimal but the total percentages are more than enough to raise concern about the outcome of low-in­come people.

Furthermore, in 1999, 40% of single men in Ontario were receiving social assistance, while 38% of single women were receiving social assistance as well. In 1991 there were 8,123 single unat­tached individuals in Kitchener re­ceiving social assistance and an addi­tional 5,143 single mothers. In 2000 there were 8,170 unattached individu­als in Kitchener receiving social assist­ance, (the figures for single mothers were unavailable as single mothers are now with the Ontario Disability Sup­port Program).

People need jobs. Most jobs nowa­days are in high-tech industries, which require a lot of education, or they are in the food service industry, which is part-time and low pay. The manu­facturing industry was gutted by the Free Trade Agreement over 15 years ago.

Unemployment in Canada has been steady during 1990 and 1998. It was 8.1% nationally in 1990 and 8.3% in 1998. The difference is that 1990 was the onset of a recession, and in 1998 the employment rate should have been lower because 1998 was a year of economic growth. In Kitchener the average unemployment rate between 1990 and 1998 was 8.5%. The average unemployment rate for Kitchener in the year 2000 was 10.5%.

The income gap is growing. In fact, social assistance income has been cut by 22%. The disposable income per household in 2001 is $48,842; nation­ally, while the disposable income for people living on social assistance is $520, a negative 93% base. For those fortunate enough to earn high dispos­able incomes can afford the following (national) expenditures. For instance, food is at $6,599, shelter is at $9,998, clothing is at $2,383, transport is at $6,828, and other is at $9,160.

Surely the wide gaps of discrepancy reflect a sick society. The perils of this ill-mannered society affect many in­dividuals differently. Signs of depres­sion for the low-income population are not uncommon. Signs of desperation, loneliness, segregation, racism, and deprivation multiply many fold in the low-income population.

In K-W there were 1,500-2,000 peo­ple without homes in the year 2000, and 4,000 families waiting for hous­ing.

Stricken by the cruelty of poverty, many cannot cope with the pressures of everyday life and end up homeless. It is up to us to include the poor in our global village. Children shouldn’t have to suffer but they do. Women stay in abusive relationships because they cannot afford to move out on their own. Seniors face the difficulty of liv­ing in isolation, and the unemployed work part-time and with low wages because they don’t have the time or money to upgrade their skills.

Social change is important to per­petuate the justice that poor people have lost. We hope it’s sooner than we wish.

Sources: Financial Post Markets Canadian Demographics, Financial Post 2000, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Kitchener-Wa­terloo Record, National Council of Welfare, Historical Labour Force Statistics 1999.