Empowering Women And Girls Is The Key To Ending Poverty, And Here Are Numbers To Prove It

The lives of people in some of the world's poorest countries will improve faster in the next 15 years than at any other time in history, according to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In their 2015 annual letter, which was published on Thursday, the Gates not only made that bold prediction but also noted that investing in women’s health and education will play a key role in the growth of prosperous communities and nations.
For instance, if women’s level of employment matched men’s over the next 15 years on a global scale, the gross domestic product (GDP) worldwide would go up by 12 percent, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Yes, worldwide.
How exactly does that data break down? Check out the video above and/or read the transcript below for a two-minute explanation, made in a partnership between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Huffington Post.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TRANSCRIPT


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/women-girls-poverty-bill-gates-foundation-video_n_6511878.html?utm_hp_ref=good-news&ir=Good%20News

but it is the double edged sword
yes we earn more but the trade off is twice as many hours are worked per household. and there are plenty of fair arguments that this has not had a beneficial effect on the family unit.

And then because costs of things like housing are relative to what other households are willing to pay the base living cost goes up, thus the household is actually no better off but has to work more hours than previous to 'keep up with the Jones'.

Ultimately it is the already super rich who profit more from this as they now have more people working more hours but still maintain the same (in real life increasing:evil: ) fiscal gap.

We could Of Course Alternatively take the wealth of the 100 richest individuals and use that to end poverty around the globe. But hey You don't see any of the Rich Pointing out that they are in fact the problem, as any analysis of distribution of wealth will show.

veya_victaous wrote:but it is the double edged sword
yes we earn more but the trade off is twice as many hours are worked per household. and there are plenty of fair arguments that this has not had a beneficial effect on the family unit.

And then because costs of things like housing are relative to what other households are willing to pay the base living cost goes up, thus the household is actually no better off but has to work more hours than previous to 'keep up with the Jones'.

Ultimately it is the already super rich who profit more from this as they now have more people working more hours but still maintain the same (in real life increasing:evil: ) fiscal gap.

We could Of Course Alternatively take the wealth of the 100 richest individuals and use that to end poverty around the globe.  But hey You don't see any of the Rich Pointing out that they are in fact the problem, as any analysis of distribution of wealth will show.

Point well taken -- my mother was able to not work a few years after I was born, and when my siblings came along, I was old enough to help out. I doubt many children get the opportunity to have a non-working parent around these days.

I think the ultimate solution to poverty is to provide decent-paying jobs that don't require a lot of skill, honestly. They don't have to pay great, but enough to cover people's needs. And that does ultimately fall upon the company owners who see a fourth home or a third yacht as more important than a living wage for their lowest-paid employees.

And, of course, when you don't have low-skill jobs that provide dignity, people naturally gravitate toward opportunities that compensate them better, like drug-dealing.