America's farm work's dirty secret

Agriculture has long been US industry's most profitable sector – at the expense of a virtually unindentured immigrant workforce. Most farm work in America is performed by immigrants, most of whom are undocumented and therefore exploitable. The big agribusinesses hire these immigrants need an unfettered supply of cheap foreign labor, because they cannot find Americans willing to do these jobs.

These jobs entail hours of backbreaking work in terrible and often dangerous conditions, subsistence wages with little or no time off, and none of the protections or perks that most of us enjoy – it's hard to see why anyone with other options would subject themselves to a life that is barely a step above slavery.

Agribusinesses find the guest-worker program's pitiful protections such a burden that they have mounted a relentless campaign to undermine them, and for the most part, work around them anyway; they hire undocumented workers instead. At least 51% of the workers hired by agribusinesses are unauthorized immigrants.

The agribusiness sector has gotten away with exploitative and illegal practices with ridiculous threats that should the supply of cheap labor dry up in the US, they will outsource our food production to China. Even if they have to pay workers higher wages, somehow there will be fewer people willing to do the jobs. The other scare tactic is that if they have to increase their expenditure on labor, those costs will have to be passed on to the American consumer. However there was no evidence of a labor shortage in the agricultural sector, so far. And agriculture has had a surplus of available workers for decades.

Agricultural industry has recorded a nearly 80% average annual increase in profits – more than all other major industries. These record profits are due to the fact that real wages for farm workers have remained stagnant over past few decades. A 2011 report by the Economic Policy Institute found that an increase in farm workers' wages of 40% would result in an annual rise in household spending by the American consumer of just $16.

Consumers have long since showed a willingness to pay more for organic meat or chicken because they don't like the idea of animal cruelty. To be called organic, the animal must be fed organic food (grown with no pesticides), receive no antibiotics and be given access to the outdoors.

Intensive parenting

Intensive’ parenting is now the norm in affluent & middle classes in many countries. How you raise your child will have a profound effect on their whole life. The style of child-rearing that most aspire to takes a lot of time and money. Supervised, enriching playtime; frequent conversations about thoughts and feelings; patient, well-reasoned explanations of household rules and extracurricular's. Lots and lots of extracurricular's are the hallmarks of a 'intensive parenting' style that has been common in upper-middle-class for at least a generation. Intensive parenting is child-centered, expert-guided, emotionally absorbing, labor intensive and financially expensive.

• Parenting is a skill, best understood by experts and very rarely by mothers and fathers. Parents are constantly informed that what they do - not only matters but also determines just about every dimension of their children’s lives. 
• Intensive parenting was identified as a middle-class phenomenon in the 1990's and 2000's. The desire and pressure to give kids every means possible to succeed: the best education, music lessons, sports groups, language skills and corresponding anxiety with limited financial means, the family budget and parent time between all kids is stretched, and so are their opportunities.
• The approach of concerted cultivation and contrasted it with the accomplishment of natural growth, which entails much less parental involvement and which is found to be more common among working-class and poorer parents. 
• It is not being poor, but poor parenting that is held to account for why children are ill prepared for school. A dad’s interest in his child’s schooling is strongly linked to academic success.
• If parents from different social class backgrounds are engaging in different parenting practices is not because those parents value different parenting practices because intensive parenting requires an abundance of time and money and some families have more resources than others. 
• Poverty not only limits parents’ ability to pay for music lessons etc, but is also a major source of stress that can influence parents’ energy, attention, and patience when interacting with children.
• Few decades ago, parenting by families with sufficient means started engaging in intensive parenting, and then everyone else followed and that elite culture gradually became mass culture.
• Intensive parenting is a style of child-rearing fit for an age of inequality, indicative of a stratified past, present, and future. The past: The tilt toward intensive parenting originated from parents’ anxieties about their children competing for education and jobs. The more extracurricular's, the better the odds of getting into an excellent college and of securing one of the high-paying jobs. The present: Intensive parenting is an ideal that’s currently out of reach for many families. The future: Practiced as it is by some families might widen inequities in future generations.
• Many children benefit from intensive parenting teaching them how to manage their time and assert their individuality. But heavily involved parenting can at the same time stunt kids’ sense of self-reliance, and over-committed after-school schedules can leave them exhausted. 
• The parents who overdo it increase the risk that their children will grow up to be depressed and less satisfied with life. And for parents, the intensive ideal can lead parents to fear that they aren’t doing enough to give their child the best future possible.

That parents exercise enormous influence over their children is not in doubt but they do so not simply through their so-called parenting skills but as members of a distinct cultural, social and ethnic community. The quality of children’s lives and their future prospects is influenced by many variables other than the behavior of their parents. This style of intensive parenting consumes parents' lives, but there isn't much benefit for the children, either. It is better to give kids the best opportunities a parent can, within their means, while still allowing the child to develop a healthy sense of independence and responsibility.

There is no job more important than parenting. 
Treat children like king till 5 years, like a slave until 15 years and like a friend thereafter.
You can't create a world for your kid. But you can prepare them to face the world. 

Children learn from parents by imitating them up to the age of 7-8 years and there after from peers in school and outside. Although learning from other's experiences is fastest, cheapest and easiest, usually most people, especially children, learn through their own mistakes which are expensive, time consuming and embarrassing. Parents must imbibe values in their children by their exemplary behavior. 'Don't do what I do, do what I say' attitude is usually counter productive. Investing in children is a positive thing, but it’s also unclear how much of children’s success is actually determined by parenting.

Inequality

What political parties are fighting about, is how to achieve a more egalitarian society, where everyone has an equal opportunity of reaching the top. There are too many children without equal opportunities for success. World inequality continues to grow. In  the past three decades, 28% of the increase in real incomes in North America and Western Europe was captured by the top 1% of earners. The top 1% of India's population holds nearly three quarters of the nation's wealth.

• The majority view seems broadly to want to tax earners and owners more heavily; to take away from some so others can have more. It’s easy to convince people that this is the quickest, actually the only way.
• Inequality is not in itself unfair. We all know that rare skills possessed should be rewarded better. Building assets for poor people is extremely important. 
• The surest and quickest way to ameliorate inequality and diminish poverty is radical economic transformation at all levels of government, the entire bureaucracy and the state-owned companies, so that it would spend every single available rupee of taxpayer money on development and upliftment; that state organs’ efficiency and productivity are increased radically; and that corruption is eradicated.
• The middle class wealth reached its peak in the mid-1980s. But it’s been ravaged by stagnant incomes, unstable property & investment markets and growing consumer debt. 
• Many developing nations have targeted poverty alleviation. While China has achieved poverty alleviation on an historic scale, the obstacles - bureaucratic inefficiency and failed policy implementation remain. India has made progress in alleviating poverty, although it lags significantly behind China. 
• Inequality hampers growth by leaving human potential unrealised. The middle class provides market for consumer goods and services, which in turn creates jobs. The cycle is interrupted when profits are excessively retained, rather than reinvested into further capacity – such as health and education sectors. 
• More than 20% of  Indians are poor. India saw the fastest rise in inequality between 1980 and 2016, and 55% of the country’s income share is in the hands of the wealthiest 10%. Across the developing world, blunt policies are not only proving ineffective at reducing poverty, but also widening the wealth gap. 
• Most national level policies are either ham-fisted or intentionally ineffective. They tinker at the margins with transfer payments and social programmes, while failing to address structural causes such as gaps in educational achievement and public health. 
• Failure to improve basic services is one of the most glaring gaps in inequality policy. Private sector and philanthropic intervention, while helpful, is no substitute for equal access. India spends only 1% of GDP on health services, compared with the world average of 6%. 
• The policy ineptitude by the governments in the US and India are in thrall to discredited claims about “trickle-down economics” and have passed sweeping tax reforms that substantially favour corporations. 

The twin reforms of demonetization and a goods and services tax may have also stunted job growth by crippling the construction and informal sectors, that employs most migrant workers. Political will  is inexcusably weak. Both the economics and the ethics of inequality demand transformational thinking. But the voice of the poor continues to be drowned out by a global minority enjoying elite status and by the many who aspire to such status.

Law will take its own course!

In public conversations, 'law will take its own course' tag has almost become a cliche. Law taking its own course is the most favorable course any case can take for the benefit of the accused. Corrupt politicians often take refuge under this umbrella to lengthen the courtroom proceedings, buy time and bailout culprits. This terminology in blame game politics implies that who ever is guilty of an offence will get punished as per law. Law will take its own course is meant for the educated people who are afraid of the law, which is not to be crossed over under any circumstances. Upholding the majesty of law and the principle of equality of all before the law, however high or mighty the persons may be, is the bounden duty of the government. In India, we have the best drafted laws but the problem is that the law enforcing agencies doesn't work effectively and the common people are the worst hit. The law almost never takes its own course in India. The state is always up to mischief against the citizen and the judiciary usually does not resist it. The conduct of democracy rests on three core ideas – representation, rule of law and freedoms. A substantive idea of representation goes beyond the minimalist protocol of electing representatives. It includes an idea of representation of voiceless people who do not know how to speak to power, or who do not know how to use existing laws to protect their lands and forests from rapacious loot by crony capitalists. The second feature of democracy is the rule of law and the accountability of those who implement and use law. The rule of law aims to protect and preserve the rights of people, and if these rights are being infringed, to provide recourse and remedies. And finally, democracy functions through a range of freedoms – to speak, express, form associations, dissent, basically through a mobilization and institutionalization of demands, and a competition of ideas and agendas. Dissent is the safety valve of democracy. If not allowed, the safety valve will burst. This is not part of some revolutionary ethic but comes out of a standard understanding of the mechanics of liberal democracy. Truth is self-effulgent. If truth requires evidence, what will evidence that evidence? - Swami Vivekananda

Traits of Mahapurushas (Colossus)

Among virtuous men the jnani is the best. Such a jnani is a mahapurusha — the greatest among the great. A mahapurusha overshadows the rest. The presence of the others will not be noticed when a mahapurusha is present. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna says He is the best in every category. 

Mahapurushas perform all their duties, with a view to pleasing God. They are detached and reach God through bhakti or prapatti. They recite the Pranava mantra. Mahapurushas are not only knowledgeable about the dharma sastras, but also act according to them.

They are also humble. Mahapurushas are never arrogant. Being humble is not easy. That is why mahapurushas are respected - because of their humility. They think clearly and are never in a confused state of mind. Their lifestyle is simple. Their merciful glances can destroy our sins.

It is expensive to be poor

Most wealthy people believe that poor people today have it 'easy' because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return. This is an infuriatingly obtuse view of what it means to be poor - the soul-rending omnipresence of worry and fear, of weariness and fatigue. This can be the view only of those who have not known or have long forgotten what poverty truly means. 'Easy' is a word not easily spoken among the poor. Things are hard, the times are hard, the work is hard, the way is hard. 'Easy' is for uninformed explanations issued by the willfully callous and the haughtily blind.

• It is extraordinarily expensive to be poor. The less money you have, the more expensive many things are likely to cost. When your income is only just enough to cover your basic living costs, even modest unexpected outgoings can push you into debt. 
• It’s no secret that the poor pay more. The poor pay more by living in food deserts, by having to commute longer distances and stand in longer lines to buy or do just about anything, by not having enough cash on hand to shop when items are on sale, by receiving less efficient. At the same time, prices increase every year, even as wages stagnate. For those who struggle to make ends meet, it means paying for anything takes deeper chunks out of their limited income.
• The more affluent you are, the more likely it is you’ll be able to access credit at low interest rates. Poorest households spend about 25% of their monthly income servicing debts.
• Poor people usually have hard time getting credit. Doorstop lenders and extortionate companies target poorer customers because they are the least likely to have other options. 
• The poor people earnings are more heavily taxed than the earnings of wealthier citizens.
• Minimum-wage jobs are physically demanding, have unpredictable schedules, and pay so meagerly that workers can't save enough to move on.
• Many poor people work, but they just don’t make enough to move out of poverty.
• If you’re earning is just enough to cover rent, food and bills, finding regular extra income can be a struggle.
• Easy credit has been similarly disastrous for households struggling to make ends meet. Government policies have only exacerbated this situation.
• The homelessness and crippling debt are being inflicted deliberately, in an act of sadism.
• The current situation – where people are forced into crippling debt trying to sustain themselves and their families – is a genuine moral catastrophe.
• Low-income households are facing a difficult 2018, with rising prices, frozen benefits and a wage squeeze all putting further pressure on household incomes.
• The poor man's hardships are endless, but the point is: Being poor is anything but easy.

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. 

Poverty, human rights & dignity

Poverty is not an original state, nor are the poor the victims of their own faults and weaknesses. Nor is it due to shortcomings in personality or morality, or failures in family or upbringing. Poverty is about exclusion, physical and economic insecurity, fear of the future, a constant sense of vulnerability. Poverty is created by societies and governments. Poverty is experienced as individuals, family and communities. Poverty is embedded in complex of policies, interactions and relationships.

• Poverty is self-sustaining. In the modern economy, once a person or group is caught in its trap, it is hard to escape the cycle of poverty. It destroys self-confidence and the capacity to organize collective action and response. 
• Economic globalisation, which include the privatisation of state resources and functions, and the introduction of charges even for the most basic needs reinforce the cycle of poverty by cutting off possibilities of social mobility. 
• A powerful economic and political class emerges on the back of this poverty, with no interest in social reform, creating further obstacles to equitable distribution of resources. In this way poverty leads to social exclusion.
• Poverty negates the realisation or enjoyment of human rights. The purpose of human rights, a life in dignity, is rendered impossible by poverty. The daily struggles of the poor constantly humiliate them. 
• There is no real possibility of poor people enjoying rights, whether civil and political or social, economic and cultural, without resources such as education, physical security, health, employment, property, participation, and due process - all of which poverty negates. In poverty there can be no control over one’s life chances or even everyday life.
• Existence in hovels without the basic amenities of life allows no time or ability for self-reflection, essential for identity, self- realisation, or making moral judgments. Poverty generates habits of subservience and docility that denies the premise of the equality and dignity of all persons. 
• Poverty also forces persons into slavery and bondage, and stories of parents selling children into slavery out of desperation are now common place in states like India, Bangladesh, and Nigeria - and many other parts of the world. 
• A poor man cannot support his family and tends to draw away from it, burdening the wife with additional responsibilities to sustain the family.
• Poverty creates or reinforces divisions within the family, in which the male members get priority over scarce family resources. In this way poverty subverts decent and fulfilling family life. 
• Family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society which is entitled to protection by society and the state.
• Poverty not only deprives and demeans the poor but also affects the affluent and society. It sharpens inequalities and leads to crime, law and order, as the poor resort to various forms of self-help to eke out a living, including thefts and robberies. Security becomes an obsession for the middle classes, turning their suburbs into fortresses. The slums that grow out of poverty breed diseases and environmental degradation that can scarcely be contained within the confines of the slums. 
• In the modern age poverty poses a major threat to social consensus and political stability. Poverty erodes the moral fibre and the moral cohesion of a society. It destroys the self-confidence of the people caught in the cycle of poverty, and leads to the waste of resources. 
• Ideology is used to justify the limits on the role of the state in providing social welfare. Disparities of opportunities and incomes have increased in recent years. The poor can make themselves heard only by irregular demonstrations, to limited effect. 
• We need fundamental social and economic reforms to ensure all its residents a decent life in dignity which is so eminently within reach, based on its wealth and resources.

Read the source article