Net neutrality is the basic concept that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally. That service providers should not discriminate on the basis of user, website, platform, application, equipment or mode. On this day of action, I want to take a look at the role of money and language in this important fight.
Yes, and no. Now we know what it means to be poor, we can talk about what it would take to end poverty.
You may remember that ‘absolute’ poverty is defined ‘in terms of the minimal requirements necessary to afford minimal standards of food, clothing, health care and shelter’. Meanwhile, ‘relative’ poverty is defined ‘relative to others in a country; for example, below 60% of the median income of people in that country.’
One of these can be eradicated, but the other is a different story…
From ‘time is money‘ to ‘tightening our belts‘, we’ve examined quite a few money related expressions and metaphors on Enrichmentality. But does such language have any real power over how we think – and act?
Are rich people rich because they’re smart?
Or to put it another way, are you not rich because you’re not smart enough?
According to a study conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 69% of people believe ‘there is enough opportunity for virtually everyone to get on in their life if they really want to’. In other words, if you’re poor, it’s your fault.
In the 2016 US election (which was itself somewhat like a game of ‘Cards Against Humanity‘), candidate Hilary Clinton was accused of playing the ‘woman card’ by rival Donald Trump. In reaction, her campaign actually produced such a card. It boasted the dubious ‘benefits’ of lower wages, More expensive health care. No family leave, and ‘limited access to your own reproductive rights’. (Arguably no family leave is a circumstance that affects men as much as women. Framing it as a women’s issue only worsens the burden).
These cards were sold at $5 to fund Clinton’s campaign. Ironically, this resulted in Clinton literally playing the ‘woman card’ in her fundraising. But (aside from campaign funding) does it actually pay to play the ‘woman card’ in a financial sense?
In my previous post, we looked at physical differences and social expectations that result in men and women paying different amounts for everyday living. But in addition to expectations for women to spend more time and money on cosmetics and personal care, there may be another, more insidious reason for the difference in spending… the so-called ‘pink tax’.
Over 400 years BC, a massive seam of silver was discovered in the mines in Athens. Naturally, how to distribute this new-found wealth provoked great debate. Aristides, a statesman of the time, proposed that the profit be distributed among the Athenian citizens.
The way in which natural resources – not only mining, but water, natural forests, arable land, and the sea – are allocated has always been and remains a major concern of humanity. In Australia, a combination of the mining boom and the global financial crisis is said to have caused a two-speed economy that saw some grow very rich while others became poorer.
Even more alarmingly, there exist companies who have designs on natural resources which everyone should have a fundamental right to – those resources needed for survival.