Let's End Poverty!
by S. Cosburn Mortimer,
research director of the Bankers' Alliance for Responsible Freedom
November 1, 2006Any socially concerned citizen wants to alleviate the plight of the poor. Poverty blights people's lives, restricting their opportunities not only to benefit from society themselves but also to provide benefits to society. Paradoxically, despite the recent resurgence in the economy, poverty remains as serious a problem as ever.
However, a recent report from a task force struck by the Bankers' Alliance for Responsible Freedom finally provides hope that poverty might be eradicated. The task force examined several distinctly different proposals for dealing with poverty, and carefully weighed the advantages and disadvantages of each. In the end, one approach seemed to offer by far the greatest chance of success.
This approach envisions adopting a tactic which has proven wildly successful in the corporate world. Application of this tactic there has produced immediate turnarounds in corporate fortunes – that is, the corporations have become less poor, which is exactly the effect we want to produce in society.
Furthermore, this tactic has worked in national affairs when informally applied in the past. For example, Ireland, which was encumbered by eight million starving poor in the middle of the nineteenth century, now has, following application of this tactic, a well-fed population of five million.
The tactic is downsizing. The success of this tactic in business is undeniable. Scarlet corporate bottom lines have changed colour overnight as a result of its application, and we can expect the same success from applying it to social problems like poverty.
Corporations downsize when they do not have enough resources to support a workforce of the current size. Countries downsize when they do not have enough resources to support a population of the current size. The difference between corporate and national use of downsizing is that in national use it is referred to as emigration and is informal rather than formal. The task force recommends a more formal use of the strategy.
Much commentary about downsizing concerns the supposedly sad fate of the employees or citizens let go. In fact, downsizing offers those employees or citizens tremendous opportunities for personal growth. The examples of Ireland and of Scotland, another country which downsized, demonstrate these opportunities clearly. The descendants of the Irish and Scots who left as a result of downsizing strategies are now far better off, on the average, than those who were "fortunate" enough to stay at home. Canada and the United States are enterprises founded by downsized Europeans, and the standards of living in Canada, the United States, and Europe are all now higher than the European standard would have been if supposedly more humane policies had been followed and everyone had stayed at home.
The task force therefore recommends that the poverty downsizing program be carried out with determination, and in the style of the most successful downsizing programs of the past. Those of the downsized who are working, for example, would receive full severance packages from their employers. Those who were receiving one form or another of social benefits could receive a severance package modelled on the corporate packages.
The task force also recommends that exit counselling be offered to the downsized poor. Motivational, financial, and entrepreneurial advice would be provided, although because of the numbers of people involved personal counselling would not be offered, and the advice would be provided in printed form.
This would, however, give the downsized something to read on the plane. The cheapest exit strategy would be like the corporate strategy – simply escort the downsized person to the nearest exit. However, in Canada the nearest exits are either to the United States or, in some parts of Newfoundland, to territorial possessions of the Republic of France. Although both these countries have benefited greatly from offshore downsizing, their current policies discourage it, and it is unlikely that all the Canadian downsized would be able to leave through these exits.
Instead, the task force recommends chartering planes and delivering the downsized to the island nations of Southeast Asia. The current recession in these countries means that the downsized, with their severance packages, would be eagerly welcomed there, and the less affluent lifestyles of these countries offer the downsized greater opportunities for successful investment of their packages.
Other countries would probably welcome downsized Canadians, but conditions there would be less promising. In Australia, for example, English is less widely spoken than in the Philippines, Singapore, or Indonesia.
Meanwhile, in Canada one of the first effects of downsizing would be a tax cut. With the poor gone, the well-known costly effects of poverty – crime, poor health, and so on – would no longer have to be dealt with. Benefits programs would also be paying out far less than before. The funds used for dealing with the effect of poverty would be redistributed among the population and invested by them in any number of productive activities which would help revitalize the sectors of the Canadian economy suffering from the current commodities boom.
As a result of this policy the poor would be better off, the people still in Canada would be better off, and the future for both groups would be rosy. We urge the Canadian government not to be shackled by outmoded conceptions of philanthropy – if you really love the poor, set them free.
(For more articles by S. Cosburn Mortimer, click the Comment link below.) Let's End Poverty! © Coolth, 1999, 2006
Click the banner or click here for Actual Analysis
Commentary | Home