[HN Gopher] Global economic inequality: what matters most is whe...
___________________________________________________________________
Global economic inequality: what matters most is where you are
Author : raviparikh
Score : 44 points
Date : 2021-12-10 15:43 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ourworldindata.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ourworldindata.org)
| pydry wrote:
| If I was going to write some propaganda to try and whitewash the
| staggering amount of wealth and power is held by American
| oligarchs this is what I would do:
|
| 1) Write an article about income inequality. Wealth inequality is
| 100x worse than income inequality - http://metrocosm.com/wealth-
| vs-income-inequality/ but if you just smoothly transition from
| talking about _economic_ inequality to income inequality, not
| only is it not as bad, the _reader_ becomes a much bigger part of
| it and hence you become less of a part of it.
|
| 2) Ignore PPP entirely. If a Slovakian gets paid 5x less than you
| do in New York and also has 5x cheaper haircuts, you should
| probably feel a bit guilty about that.
|
| 3) _Focus on personal responsibility_. This is an effective
| technique. It was used to turn jaywalking into a crime in the
| early 20th century. It was used to make the litter epidemic of
| the mid 20th century Not McDonalds Or Coke 's Fault. It was used
| to shift responsibility from Oil supermajor CEOs on to suburban
| white middle class soccer moms and voila - reduced pressure.
|
| Just remember, as the article says: "If you want to reduce global
| inequality and support poorer people, you do have this
| opportunity. You can donate some of your money."
| ahelwer wrote:
| I've been thinking - continually I hear the way to help with a
| problem is to donate money to a charity. But is there a single
| social ill that has actually been solved (not ameliorated -
| permanently solved) through a bunch of individuals donating
| money to a charity to solve it? Is there any track record of
| success whatsoever?
| mdorazio wrote:
| This is a good question, but it's also kind of tricky because
| many (maybe most) social charities aren't really setup to
| tackle issues that can be _solved_ without continuing money
| input. Let 's take education in poor countries as an example
| - unless everyone stops having children or the underlying
| socioeconomic fabric changes significantly, you're going to
| have an effectively infinite number of children that need to
| be educated, and the only way to do that is to continue
| paying for facilities, teachers, materials, etc.
|
| Other charities, like those that are setup to cure specific
| illnesses, can accomplish their mission on reasonable
| timeframes.
| shashwat_udit wrote:
| Yes. The March of Dimes fundraising campaign provided the
| funding to Salk and Sabin to create the polio vaccine.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > a single social ill that has actually been solved ...
| through a bunch of individuals donating money to a charity
|
| If not, then one of two things are true:
|
| 1) Money can't solve social ills
|
| 2) Not enough people who have the means to do so are willing
| to voluntarily sacrifice to solve a social ill
|
| Either way, that suggests that taxation/wealth redistribution
| solutions is similarly doomed (unless you're willing to do it
| by force).
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Why ignore ppp? Why feel bad if two lives are equal in all
| respects? Non PPP only matters if someone moves countries.
| notahacker wrote:
| The dataset doesn't ignore PPP, it's expressed in
| "international dollars" which is a standard PPP adjustment to
| US levels.
|
| That's not really discussed because it's an utterly standard
| thing to do in cross-country comparisons, but the article
| might have been better if it talked about the fact the data
| is PPP adjusted so the actual dollar amounts earned in the
| poorer countries are even lower, and the fact that PPP
| adjustments aren't perfect so people on $6.70 of imputed US
| purchasing power can still pay rent
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| The parent post argued that the article would have been
| _more_ impactful if it ignored PPP. It also said people
| should feel guilty if they have the same PPP, but higher
| salary without adjusting. This makes no sense to me.
|
| This is the point I am pushing back on.
| bee_rider wrote:
| They are describing what they'd do to write a paper to
| "whitewash the staggering amount of wealth and power is held
| by American oligarchs," so, a list of things that should
| appear plausible to the reader, but which are fundamentally
| misleading. Ignoring PPP is a great way to get numerical
| differences without QOL differences, as you point out.
|
| I haven't gotten to the article yet, but I'm pretty sure this
| is intended as a criticism or the article.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| But ignoring PPP does the opposite of whitewash the
| accumulated wealth. Ignoring PPP makes the disparity
| greater, not less
| bee_rider wrote:
| Increasing the disparity between countries reinforces the
| argument "conditions in your country are so great, stop
| talking about your internal income inequality" which is,
| I think, what the original comment was implying to be the
| point here.
|
| Looking at the article, it uses the term "international
| dollars" instead of "PPP adjusted dollars," so I think
| the original comment just missed that the dollars are
| actually adjusted.
|
| It makes sense if you read the original comment as a
| criticism of the article ("whitewash the staggering
| amount of wealth and power is held by American oligarchs"
| is, I think, pretty clearly a bad thing to do) which just
| missed that the dollars in the article were adjusted.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| yeah, it sounds like we interpreted "whitewash the
| staggering amount of wealth and power is held by American
| oligarchs" in different ways.
|
| I took it as minimizing the disparity between rich and
| poor countries.
|
| I don't know how to reconcile your interpretation with
| the idea that someone should feel guilty for having a
| higher dollar income but the same PPP income as someone
| else.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| What does PPP stand for in this context? I was confused by
| his example, too - it seems like he's suggesting that if
| somebody is paid less but has a proportionally smaller cost
| of living, I should _still_ feel bad about that? Am I being
| insensitive for not? I feel sorry for people who are living
| in squalor, not people who have similar lives to my own.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| PPP = Purchasing Power Parity. It is exactly as you
| described. We have the same purchasing power if in my city
| I make $10/day and a beer costs me $10, while in your city,
| you make $5/day and a beer costs $5.
| atemerev wrote:
| This is an obvious driver for migration: why settle for living in
| a poor country, if you can migrate to a country with orders of
| magnitude richer opportunities? I really wonder why the global
| migration rate is only 3%.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Because migration is difficult, unpleasant, and usually
| illegal.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| Since when is moving to different countries illegal?
| beebeepka wrote:
| People with guns and boots make sure it stays low.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| My guess is the richer countries make it hard to migrate to
| them. USA is relatively easy to migrate to compared to
| basically anywhere in western Europe, UK, Canada, Japan, or
| South Korea.
| gassiss wrote:
| I don't know about the others, but Canada is probably the
| easiest developed country to immigrate to. You can basically
| get a green card before you even land
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Usa is harder
| rowanajmarshall wrote:
| > USA is relatively easy to migrate to compared to basically
| anywhere in western Europe, UK, Canada, Japan, or South Korea
|
| I dunno about that, as a professional developer in the UK
| it's _way_ easier to immigrate to Canada or Australia than
| the US.
| lambic wrote:
| They're commonwealth countries so that has an impact, but
| yes USA is hard to get into.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| What's interesting with Canada and Australia is that they
| use a point system... that never actually checks for
| employability.
|
| So you end up with "senior engineers" in Canada/Australia
| driving taxis and not ever being able to land a job as
| engineers, even though they got enough points to immigrate
| by being one, at least on paper.
|
| In the US, someone has to be able to get a job above market
| rates (so convince an employer and the government that his
| skills are required) before even being considered for
| immigration. So I wouldn't say it's harder, at least for
| someone really qualified.
| rowanajmarshall wrote:
| > they use a point system... that never actually checks
| for employability
|
| Well, they both give major points if you've got a job
| offer so I wouldn't say that. But right now (COVID aside)
| I could apply to Australia, get my visa and be living in
| Melbourne inside 6 months, then citizenship in about 4
| years. For the US, I'd have to:
|
| - Get a job with a US company here
|
| - Work there for a year and hope they're willing to
| transfer me on an L1 visa
|
| - Hope the US Immigration RNG comes up with my name
|
| - After working for a while, transfer onto an employment-
| based visa while hoping I get sponsored for that too.
| atemerev wrote:
| USA is one of the hardest countries in the world to immigrate
| (and still one of the most attractive).
| Jensson wrote:
| If you include illegal immigration then USA is probably
| easier than most other western nations. USA is very
| accepting of illegal immigrants for some reason.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| You know it never really occurred to me before this, but
| is there anything more American than working hard to
| skirt poorly implemented rules in order to enrich
| yourself and those around you?
|
| Am I talking about illegal immigrants or Uber?
| Jensson wrote:
| That is a good point. California is top both on tech
| start-ups and illegal immigrants.
| reidjs wrote:
| It's hard to get up and move away from everyone you know just
| to chase wealth and financial stability. Your relationships
| with people are more important than money. It's not easy to
| learn a new language, gain citizenship, get a job, and
| successfully do the thousand other things required to migrate
| to a new country.
| notahacker wrote:
| To add to which, the people who are most likely to get visas
| to move to much richer countries tend to be the ones that
| start off in their own country's upper middle class (allowing
| them to tick all the right educational boxes to become
| software developers or nurses, or at least have savings to
| pay people smugglers).
|
| They can _still_ be materially a lot richer and often enjoy
| many other lifestyle benefits from moving overseas even if
| they have to drop down the status ladder and forget about
| owning land and having servants, but it does make the
| decision a bit more of a tradeoff than a salary comparison
| might suggest. The option of moving isn 't really there for
| the people who are so poor there's no upside to staying in
| their own country.
| golemiprague wrote:
| That really depends on geography, if you border with a rich
| country also the poor people can migrate illegally just by
| crossing the border, that's what happening with Mexico and
| the US or Africa and Europe. But indeed those people don't
| always do so well in their new country, it just creates
| more problems. In general migration is not such a great
| solution because once too many people migrates from the
| same place it just creates a nation within a nation and you
| are setting the country for the next civil war, whether
| proper war or low key between all the different groups. The
| best way to solve the issue is within each country, China
| did much more to alleviate poverty for a huge number of
| people comparing to what migration achieved.
| bobthechef wrote:
| Exactly. This is one of the (many) problems with the vulgar
| "homo economicus" view of human beings. Culture and
| nationality are likewise factors. Moving to another country
| is difficult. You are moving to an alien culture with an
| alien language where you will be unfamiliar with a whole host
| of social realities, some of which may contradict what you
| believe. That's why immigrants usually create ethnic
| neighborhoods[0] and it is only their grandchildren onward
| who are fully assimilated into the adopted nation, usually
| facilitated through intermarriage which tends to water down
| ethnic ties.
|
| [0] Tangentially, it is an interesting question how long the
| ethnic European neighborhoods, nostalgically portrayed in
| movies like "The Godfather", that began to dissolve around
| WWII could have lasted. According to one view of what is
| commonly called "white flight", a major factor was the WASP
| ruling class' social engineering and ethnic cleansing of them
| out of existence by dispersing them across the suburbs which
| hastened their assimilation ("into what?" is itself a
| question worth pursuing; a WASP-constructed "identity"?). The
| reason this migration out of the cities coincided with the
| civil rights movement, according to this view, is that the
| Great Migration of black sharecroppers from the South was
| effectively an instrument of mass migration into ethnic
| neighborhoods. Mass migration always fragments the peoples
| into which the migration flows. So, given this
| interpretation, this was not some manifestation of racism,
| but of disintegrating neighborhoods (the "white guys"
| throwing rocks in Marquette Park were apparently Lithuanians
| who felt that their community was threatened by this
| migration). Many of these neighborhoods were also Catholic,
| and with falling birth rates among Protestants following the
| 1930 Lambeth Conference, the idea of Catholics outbreeding
| them was not something they cared to endure.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| By moving to far better country you gain much more than just
| money. Its tons of things usually, that completely redefine
| overall level of quality of life. Health care, social care,
| low crime rate, better schools for children and generally
| much better environment for them to grow up and have better
| lives (again, not in monetary sense, this comes just as
| consequence of the rest). It can be very stimulating.
|
| Its a huge step, too big for way too many people, but
| definitely worth it for many others. It looks much worse from
| far than actually doing the steps though, you break them down
| into atomic parts just like any other problem solving.
|
| I've done it twice and when looking back to those 10/15
| years, it was the right choice, probably the best in my life.
| But its best done before starting family.
| atemerev wrote:
| I have lived in 5 different countries, with residence permits
| and all (Russia, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Denmark -- and
| also a few months in the US). While it was certainly not
| easy, I gained a lot from this experience (new relationships
| and networking opportunities in particular).
| vietthan wrote:
| 0.03 * 7,900,000,000 = 237,000,000 . Btw, that's not a rate,
| just a hard count by the world Economic Forum.
|
| That's a lot of people. There's so many variables when it comes
| to migration that an individual has to face, a percentage that
| high is actually quite significant. Rising quality of life also
| means immigration pressure isn't as high.
| dv_dt wrote:
| I would love to see data on happiness and leisure time mixed into
| this comparison too.
| WannaFly wrote:
| A person who wrote this is so stupid. "People live in poverty not
| because of who they are, but because of where they are.". No
| exactly because of who they are. Because the majority of people
| in poor countries lazy, not skillful etc. One another person, i
| guess with only academic education, that thinks that economy is
| the horn of plenty, and not collective effort and hard work,
| blood, and sweat of millions of people. P.S. Yes he is.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >>The huge majority of the world is very poor. The poorer half of
| the world, almost 4 billion people, live on less than $6.70 a
| day.
|
| $6.70 a day is 3 and a half times what is considered extreme
| poverty. I guess the site is focusing on the negative side here,
| maybe in order to get more donations, and that's fine, but the
| world wide reduction in extreme poverty in recent decades is
| worth commenting on. From the NY Times:
|
| "In 1990, about 36 percent of the global population -- and nearly
| half of people in developing countries -- lived on less than
| $1.25 a day, the World Bank's definition of extreme poverty at
| the time. (It's now $1.90 a day.) In 2000, United Nations member
| states pledged to cut extreme poverty worldwide -- specifically
| to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, from
| 1990 levels, by 2015.
|
| Bottom line: The U.N. goal was met. By 2015, the share of the
| world's population living in extreme poverty fell to 12 percent
| from 36 percent in 1990, a steep decline in just two and a half
| decades. During a single generation, more than a billion people
| around the world climbed out of extreme poverty, surpassing the
| goal."
| notahacker wrote:
| > $6.70 a day is 3 and a half times what is considered extreme
| poverty.
|
| The question then is, do you think $6.70 a day (US ppp equiv)
| is actually quite a decent income, or do you think the extreme
| poverty threshold might be a pretty low bar to have set?
|
| (FWIW I think the UN's targets were more closely tied to the
| need to be low enough to stand a chance of being hit - which is
| fine - than Max's editorial is linked to what the donors to his
| data website may or may not already think about poverty.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> do you think $6.70 a day (US ppp equiv) is actually quite
| a decent income, or do you think the extreme poverty
| threshold might be a pretty low bar to have set?
|
| Well first of all, the point I was making was that enormous
| progress has been made, and the article has a very negative
| tone in spite of that. I'm just too old for that type of
| pessimism. Things do get better.
|
| And as far as the bar goes, I don't know that there is a bar.
| There's a quote by a labor union leader named Samuel Gompers
| from over a century ago, "We do want more, and when it
| becomes more we shall still want more". I think that about
| covers it.
|
| The only argument is over how we get there.
| OnlineGladiator wrote:
| > I'm just too old for that type of pessimism. Things do
| get better.
|
| I realize this is a huge tangent, but why do you feel this
| way? Between wealth disparity (admittedly what we're
| arguing here so obviously it's debatable), global warming,
| dwindling finite resources, unsustainable debts (I am aware
| of MMT) - I feel quite the opposite. It feels like we're
| robbing the future to benefit the now.
|
| I realize we could easily go back and forth with lists of
| "this is why things are worse" and "this is why things are
| better" but my question is why do you think, as a whole,
| things are improving?
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> why do you think, as a whole, things are improving
|
| I was born in 1970. I know how I grew up. I know what my
| parents living standard was and I know what my
| grandparents living standard was. I have my admittedly
| failing memory, but I still remember.
|
| If you want to believe things aren't improving, I'm not
| going to stand in your way. It's your world now. You own
| it. But god damn, there are reasons I would go back and
| live in 1976 again, but living standard isn't one of
| them.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| Has the living standard of everyone increased equally?
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| Probably not. Going from a net worth of $1 million to $2
| million is probably not as life changing as going from a
| living standard of $1.90 a day to $3.80 a day. Wasn't for
| me.
|
| So probably no.
| Jensson wrote:
| The bar is set so you can eat healthy food and have a dry
| place to rest. You wont get prepared meals or expensive
| wares, but you can afford to eat meat, you can't afford
| western housing but you can afford a hut.
|
| Those two fixes most issues humanity have struggled with
| throughout history. Of course you can add so much more
| quality of life things on top of that, but at least then
| people don't starve or get diseases from sleeping in poor
| places or being malnourished. That is a poor life, but not
| necessarily a bad life, if you can eat and sleep well then
| you can live a good life.
|
| Of course in the western world a hut isn't considered proper
| housing so you can't rent that out, instead people have to
| pay for expensive housing or become homeless. Same with food
| etc. That increases the quality of life, sure, but is also
| the reason you can't live on a few dollars per day here.
| notahacker wrote:
| But it's a pretty imperfect approximation of minimal needs,
| both because it doesn't guarantee a roof and adequate food
| supply everywhere people live on $2 PPP per day, never mind
| clean drinking water and education for the kids, and
| because lots of people at that income definitely do get
| diseases from poor living conditions and diet (and if they
| do, even basic generic drugs are at least a couple of days'
| income). And let's be honest, for the most part we had huts
| and meat in the Neolithic era - expecting unprecedented
| accelerations in economic growth to get people _back_ to
| that level isn 't asking very much!
|
| And my original point wasn't to say that the threshold was
| necessarily _wrong_ so much as to contest the idea that
| there was something unusual about describing people above
| that very low standard as "very poor". Now, sure, the same
| PPP-adjustment imperfections creep in and some people on $6
| a day actually live recognisably lower middle class
| lifestyles (albeit without any foreign travel or car) but
| the whole point of the comparison is _lots of the stuff
| fast food workers in the West can afford - at least if not
| being hammered by student debts or SF rent - is out of
| reach for nearly half the world_.
| Jensson wrote:
| > and because lots of people at that income definitely do
| get diseases from poor living conditions and diet
|
| Many of the poorest countries today have life expectancy
| as USA in the 1960's, and every country in the world
| today have much higher life expectancy than USA in 1900.
| That isn't perfect, but they aren't dying in droves.
|
| I think most in the west really underestimate how far you
| can get on very little.
|
| Edit: I think that western labour puts the poverty line
| way too high. They put it so high that you basically need
| a population to work full time to maintain it, or rely on
| other countries poorer population to work even harder and
| not get paid for it to maintain it. I very much prefer to
| have a slightly lower standard and work way less than
| what modern western labour says we should.
|
| Of course it ought to be higher than hut and food, but
| I'm not sure why it can't be on the same level as modern
| China for example. Poor people in China get educated,
| live long etc.
| aszen wrote:
| A figure like that is meaningless unless u know how many people
| are supported on a pay like that and what is their purchasing
| power and whether they own any land.
|
| I know that many people in my home place earn less than 10USD a
| day and are able to support their families. This is largely
| because they own land and despite the roughest of times are
| able to have shelter and food.
|
| So it's not extreme poverty.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| That should be expected after having decades of free movement of
| capital, free movement of goods, but restricted movement of
| people. That maintains labour arbitrage which leads to wealthy
| countries becoming wealthier
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| Hasn't the global trend been for decades now that poor
| countries are becoming wealthier? The rich countries have had
| very little comparative growth.
|
| https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=...
| andrewmutz wrote:
| Both are growing and getting wealthier. IIRC on a percentage
| basis the poorer countries are benefitting more, but in
| absolute terms the wealth countries are benefitting more (the
| wealthier countries have a lower percentage because they are
| already so wealthy)
|
| From what I've read, most economists say that allowing more
| immigration between countries would improve both the lives of
| the people who move, and those of the destination country. I
| think it is worse for the country that they leave, but on net
| increased immigration would significantly increase global
| economic conditions
| danans wrote:
| https://www.lse.ac.uk/International-
| Inequalities/Assets/Docu...
|
| The rate of growth is indeed faster in developing countries
| than developed countries. This is to be expected given that
| they recently started at a lower level of development.
|
| In rich countries, however, inequality has trended up, while
| in many developing countries it has trended downwards. But
| even that is a mixed bag.
|
| In the largest developing economies (China and India),
| inequality is increasing, so the rich are getting richer
| there faster than the poor are getting richer. Of course, the
| jump for many people from utter poverty to having even the
| basics is a massive one.
|
| It gets more complicated though. In Latin America, inequality
| is generally decreasing despite relatively high growth.
|
| In the developed world, inequality has grown as those with
| investments and/or skills tied to global growth have seen
| their wealth rise, while people lacking either of those have
| seen wealth decline. This phenomenon and the disinvestment in
| public infrastructure that has accompanied it, has been
| credited with the recent populist swing in politics in the
| developed world.
| thow-58d4e8b wrote:
| To underscore how ridiculously rich the rich are in
| developing countries, one can take a look at country sheets
| in World Inequality Report 2022 (1)
|
| Adjusted for price level, excluding the top 1%, and
| focusing on the 90-99% percentile: income in the UK is
| $117k. That's _less_ than in Chile ($130k), Turkey ($149k),
| and comparable to Mexico ($99k) or South Africa ($82k).
| Meanwhile, the bottom 50% in the UK earn 3-10x of what
| their peers in the aforementioned countries do. And UK is
| hardly a paragon of equality to begin with
|
| Another sobering fact from the linked report - of the
| countries where the 90-99th percentile earns surprisingly
| good bucks - all have a large impoverished underclass:
| Israel, Chile, South Africa, Mexico, USA, Korea, Russia,
| Brazil
|
| (1) https://wir2022.wid.world/download/
| csomar wrote:
| You got it backward buddy. If Western countries imported
| workers, they would not need to externalize their industry. As
| a result, third-world countries will remain as poor and
| undeveloped as 30 years ago.
|
| Offshoring basically transferred some of the wealth from the
| bottom middle-class/lower-class to the developing/poor world.
| The arbitrage value went to some lucky dudes who knew how to
| play these international games.
|
| But these days are over. And it's hitting poor countries hard
| and making illegal immigration a more apparent problem.
| [deleted]
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| This is overall a comparison of "Purchasing Power Parity" which
| suffers from a few gotchas.
|
| One thing that complicates this is the value of services provided
| 'for free' by a person's government. The average citizen of the
| USA lives on $75 per day, but might use another $10 per day of
| interstate highways paid for by the government - something the
| citizen of Burundi doesn't get.
|
| Likewise, the Danish citizen lives on $50 a day, but may be
| receiving a free college education and healthcare while the US
| citizen spends a substantial fraction of their income on those
| two.
|
| If you're interested, here is a succinct write-up of the
| phenomenon https://mattbruenig.com/2021/12/08/how-to-compare-
| incomes-ac...
| dahfizz wrote:
| This is only a problem when comparing _disposable_ income PPP,
| because disposable income has taxes deducted.
|
| Disposable income data is harder to collect, and is therefore
| less common. This article uses average income (GDP per capita),
| which compares pre-tax money. The $10/day value that a US
| citizen gains from the roads was paid for out of that average
| income.
| omegaworks wrote:
| I think what this kind of dollar-centered analysis obscures is
| the accessibility of the basic goods that enable life: food,
| water and housing. Sure in a country classified as "poor" by this
| analysis you might not be able to import the finest cheeses from
| France or latest and greatest electronics from the US, but
| perhaps it is easier to feed, cloth and house a family.
|
| > To achieve a more equal world without poverty the world needs
| very large economic growth.
|
| I don't understand how this follows. Our global economic system
| is structured to concentrate wealth, so there is no guarantee
| that growth benefits the poorest.
| dllthomas wrote:
| > > To achieve a more equal world without poverty the world
| needs very large economic growth.
|
| > I don't understand how this follows. Our global economic
| system is structured to concentrate wealth, so there is no
| guarantee that growth benefits the poorest.
|
| The post says growth is necessary; you point out that it is not
| sufficient. Both can be true.
| lcall wrote:
| Maybe also with it is mostly affected by with whom one chooses to
| associate, and the habits and influences one chooses. For
| example, my church has tremendous programs and opportunities for:
|
| * economic status and stability: training at budgeting, job
| hunting, overcoming addictions -- some of the classes have been
| shared in joint programs with the NAACP in the US)
|
| * aids for refugees, families, volunteering, food aid, service
| projects, etc (worldwide)
|
| * higher-educational opportunities for almost anyone globally
| with internet access, including groups who are traditionally
| excluded due to tuition cost or academic experience, knowledge of
| English, etc, and teachings that really help with family
| stability, peace/hope, and generall going forward in life.
|
| * being a personal mentor and being mentored
|
| * etc. It goes on and on.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-10 23:01 UTC)