Tag Archives: poverty

Traditional Family Fades In Canada As Some Women Advocate For Revival

On her fridge door, along with numerous family pictures, Danielle Brandt has a handwritten quote by Dr. John Trainer: “Children are not a distraction from more important work. They are the most important work.”

A proud Calgary mother of three boys (Aiden, 10, Theodore, 4, and Silas, 2), Mrs. Brandt is a homemaker. Her husband, Adam Brandt, is the breadwinner. At the core of their parenting philosophy is the belief that strong families make strong societies, Mrs. Brandt says.

She was a music teacher before becoming a stay-at-home mom, but when she returned to work shortly after giving birth to her first child, she says she realized she wanted to be fully involved in raising her children.

“The idea that your identity is found at home with your family and not out in the world with your peers, and that your parents and your family are what matters first … that’s the reason I wanted to be home with my children.”

While Mrs. Brandt persists in adhering to her traditional role in the family, there is declining interest among young Canadian women to pursue the same path.

Canadians are “increasingly less likely” to form families, and if they do, they are choosing to have fewer children, if any at all, according to a May 2024 report jointly published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI) and the Centre for the Study of Living Standards.

ANALYSIS: To Reverse Canada’s Declining Birth Rate, Cultural Changes May Be More Important Than Economic Ones

How Marxism Broke Down the Nuclear Family

How Marxism Broke Down the Nuclear Family

The same report, based on evidence from existing data and literature, found that traditional families enjoy more prosperity and better health.

Adults who are in a couple tend to earn more money per person than singles of the same age and, if married, they tend to live longer, have healthier lifestyles, and are less stressed. Similarly, children benefit from being raised by their two biological parents in a stable marriage, appearing to have a higher standard of living and educational attainment, and being less likely to engage in risky behaviour, the report found.

But a significant fraction of Canadian children will see their families break up by the time they are 14, and more than a quarter live in one-parent families, the report said. The author, Tim Sargent, deputy executive director of the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, concluded that the rates of family dissolution in Canada are higher than those in the United States and the UK, culturally comparable countries.

Janice Fiamengo, a retired University of Ottawa English professor who now gives talks on the role of women in society, says the downward trends in family formation are largely due to how women’s priorities are being redefined in Canada.

“Their primary goal in life is to be independent, to have a career, and to regard marriage and childbearing as secondary, if not undesirable in general,” Ms. Fiamengo told The Epoch Times, describing the trends and messages aimed at young women today.

Trends Among Canadian Women

Women are now taking longer to complete their higher education. From 2000–2022, the participation in education of women aged 20 to 24 rose by 12 percent (to 51 percent), according to Statistics Canada.

Only 37 percent of men in the same age range participated in education in 2022, and that rate grew by just four percentage points since 2000. Similar trends are seen among men and women aged 25 to 29.

Source: Statistics Canada 2023h, Table 37-10-0196-01. (Chart: Carolina Avendano/The Epoch Times)
Source: Statistics Canada 2023h, Table 37-10-0196-01. (Chart: Carolina Avendano/The Epoch Times)

Women’s participation in the labour market has also increased dramatically in recent decades, with fewer and fewer women choosing to be stay-at-home moms.

Employment among women aged 25 to 54 has almost doubled from 40 percent in 1976 to about 80 percent as of May 2024, according to Statistics Canada. Employment rates for women in general remain higher than they were prior to the pandemic in 2017 and 2019.

In addition, more women aged 25 to 34 now delay living with their partner. The proportion of those who live with their parents increased by 3.3 percentage points, from 12.8 percent in 2011 to 16.1 percent in 2021.

Marriage rates are on the decline while divorce rates are increasing, and women are waiting until later to have children.

At the same time, Canada’s fertility rate has been declining persistently for the past 15 years, with the national rate hitting an all-time low in 2022 at 1.3 children per woman.

A study by the think tank Cardus found that the top factors that diminish a woman’s desire to be a mother are wanting to grow as a person, wanting to save money, focusing on a career, and believing that kids require intense care.

“Any woman who decides that what she primarily wants to do is to marry and to have children, that woman is seen as having failed, having let down other women, and having failed herself,” says Ms. Fiamengo.

She says the prevalence of feminism in Canada has played a role in shaping these views.

Changing Views on Traditional Family Roles

It wasn’t until the second-wave feminism of the 1980s that an idea with communist roots took hold—the dissolution of the traditional family structure, Ms. Fiamengo says.

Feminism takes many forms and contains different ideas—in the 19th century, it was about women’s suffrage. The idea that the traditional family is at odds with gender equality and women’s fulfilment has its origins in communist ideology.

In his 1884 book titled “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” Friedrich Engels, based on notes by Karl Marx, made the first allusion to the monogamous family as “the world historical defeat of the female sex,” in which the woman was reduced to servitude and turned into an instrument for the production of children.

He thus advocated for the liberation of the wife, the abolishment of the family, and for the care and education of the children to become a public affair.

“[Engels] explicitly makes that connection, that the man—the patriarch—is the capitalist oppressor. The woman is in the situation of being the oppressed worker or the sex slave in the family,” says Ms. Fiamengo.

“He saw no distinction between prostitution, in which a woman is bought by a man to have her body used for the man’s pleasure, and the situation of a woman in a marriage.”

Betty Friedan’s 1963 book “The Feminine Mystique,” a precursor of feminism as a struggle between genders, urged women to break free from the domestic sphere and find their own identity outside the home. Friedan promulgated that fulfillment could not be found through marriage and motherhood alone.

Ms. Fiamengo says feminism’s lack of encouragement for women to start a family makes them miss out on what she thinks is one of the greatest joys of human life—childbearing.

“The fact that our government doesn’t encourage marriage … or encourage couples to stay together for the good of their children, is doing a terrible disservice to the future generations,” she says.

Peter Jon Mitchell, program director for Cardus Family, says the prevalent view of marriage in Canada is that “it’s nice, but unnecessary.”

“We don’t really talk a lot about marriage and the benefits of marriage in our culture.” Mr. Mitchell also that, compared to the United States, where the two-parent privilege—the fact that children fare better in two-parent rather than single-parent households—and the benefits of marriage are part of the public discourse, Canada lags behind.

The May MLI report cites some studies showing that children in two-parent households fare better. One published by the National Library of Medicine in 2014 found such children do better physically, emotionally, and academically.

Likewise, in a 2015 research paper, David Ribar, honorary professor at the University of Melbourne, found that children who grow up with married parents enjoy more economic and family stability. Mr. Ribar argues that the benefits of marriage for children’s wellbeing are hard to replicate through policy interventions other than those that support marriage itself.

Consequences of Putting Family Role Second

Sociologist Brigitte Berger noted in her book “The Emerging Role of Women” that work is important for both sexes. Yet liberation through work means different things to different people.

To the working-class women and the poor, for whom work is a necessity, liberation means freedom from financial burden and the freedom to devote time to things that matter outside of work, such as family, community, and hobbies. Among women for whom work is not a necessity, modern thinking has led them to find identity and liberation through paid labour.

According to a 2021 survey by the Canadian Women’s Foundation, 28 percent of mothers reported difficulty keeping up with work demands, and half of mothers felt exhausted trying to balance work and childcare responsibilities.

“I think most mothers would prefer to be part-time,” says Mrs. Brandt. “They don’t actually want to leave their kids 100 percent of the time with someone else.”

She says the widespread notion that women can do it all is not realistic and can lead many to burnout. “I can’t fully parent my children well and fully do another job [outside the home], at least not the way I want to,” she says. “Something has to give; there’s not enough of me.”

Mrs. Brandt says she is not worried about her chances of returning to work at some stage.

“We live a long time nowadays. You can’t always have kids, you can’t always be with your kids when they’re young or get that time back when they’re young,” she adds. “But you could do a career later, and that’s the amazing thing about our culture, too.”

Last year, a study by the think tank Cardus found that half of Canadian women are not having as many children as they would like, and that this group reported lower life satisfaction than women who achieved their fertility goals.

Cardus senior fellow Lyman Stone noted low fertility rates are not because women want few kids, but the timeline most of them follow for school, work, self-development, and marriage leaves too few economically stable years to achieve the families they want.

One of the most striking findings of the May MLI report is that Canada has seen a marked deterioration in the mental health of young women over the last decade.

More than three-quarters of women aged 15 to 30 reported excellent or very good mental health between 2009 and 2010. Throughout the following nine years, that figure dropped 22.5 percentage points, to 54 percent. For women aged 31 to 46, mental well-being also declined, but only by 10.1 percentage points.

Source: Canadian Community Health Survey, 2003 to 2019. (Chart: Carolina Avendano/The Epoch Times)
Source: Canadian Community Health Survey, 2003 to 2019. (Chart: Carolina Avendano/The Epoch Times)

Motherhood and Women’s Happiness

A Cardus 2023 study concluded that women’s happiness and fertility are linked. The think tank surveyed 2,700 women aged 18 to 44 about family and fertility, and found that mothers are happier than non-mothers everywhere (except when they are under 25 or living in poverty).

“The role of the mother really is to nurture and to develop children,” says Mrs. Brandt. “My husband is a wonderful nurturer, he’s fantastic at it, but my boys, even the ones that have the closest relationship with him, they still need mom … I’m still the safe place.

“I am not saying that men can’t do it, but sometimes women are built for it, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”

Danielle Brandt with her youngest son, Silas, at her Calgary home on June 1, 2024. Mrs. Brandt homeschools her oldest son, Aiden, because she saw he was falling behind in class. Seeing the positive response, she now plans to also homeschool her other two children. (Carolina Avendano/The Epoch Times)
Danielle Brandt with her youngest son, Silas, at her Calgary home on June 1, 2024. Mrs. Brandt homeschools her oldest son, Aiden, because she saw he was falling behind in class. Seeing the positive response, she now plans to also homeschool her other two children. (Carolina Avendano/The Epoch Times)

She draws inspiration from her mother, who was also a teacher turned homemaker. Mrs. Brandt says her mother was always available for her and her three siblings, and would show up at their most important moments, including sporting events, school functions or field trips. “We felt like we were the priority because we were,” she says.

But being a stay-at-home mom is also demanding, Mrs. Brandt adds. Although it’s rewarding, she says the challenge is that there is no time off. “But at the end of the day, when I look at my children and see them peacefully sleeping, [I think to myself] ‘That’s it, that’s what this is about,’” she says. “They are the future generation. I want to pour into that, and there is no more valuable work than that.” For the Silo, Carolina Avendano.

Featured image- Danielle and Adam Brandt with their sons Silas (L), Aiden (C), and Theodore at their home in Calgary on June 1, 2024. (Carolina Avendano/The Epoch Times)

UN Specialized Fund & Program Combats Hunger In World’s Fragile Contexts

Storybook       JOINT PRESS RELEASE IFAD and WFP work together to combat hunger in fragile contexts 
Rome, Italy, March 2024. The UN’s International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme (WFP) have today launched an action plan to work together in fragile contexts — countries simultaneously affected by economic shocks, and extreme weather, in combination with little or no institutional and government capacity to help people cope.

The UN agencies seek to leverage the strengths and expertise of each organization to enhance resilience in fragile environments and improve food security for those who need it most.

Fragility is a significant barrier to eradicating hunger and poverty. Moreover, frequent and severe extreme weather events are compounding these often-protracted crises worldwide. “We have decades of experience working in fragile contexts, because that is where so many of the rural poor live. But today, the rural environment is changing. It is becoming less predictable. Rapid changes in climate and demographics are making it harder than ever for rural populations to thrive on the land,” said Alvaro Lario, President of IFAD. “This new Action Plan is very exciting because together, we can be more than the sum of our parts,” added Lario.PR-20-2024©IFAD/Daniele Bianchi
Fragile situations are on the rise and could impact as much as 60 percent of the world’s extreme poor by 2030. Nearly 1 billion people are currently living in such contexts worldwide, according to the International Monetary Fund estimates. 
“WFP and IFAD teams work in many of the most fragile and challenging regions of the world, where millions of families who live on the frontlines of conflict, climate change and economic turmoil face a daily battle against hunger,” said WFP Executive Director Cindy McCain. “But it doesn’t have to be this way. Combining our expertise, resources and extensive global network, WFP and IFAD will step up our collaboration in key areas, such as food systems and climate resilience, to support sustainable development, peace and progress in the most vulnerable communities.”

IFAD and WFP will carry out joint assessments on fragility, integrate smallholder farmers into food assistance programmes, invest in rural communities’ climate resilience, and share logistical capacity, data, analysis and expertise, as well as provide technical and operational support.
For instance, IFAD’s investments in sustainable agricultural practices, such as the use of climate-resilient crops and climate insurance, will be combined with WFP’s climate-resilient local infrastructure and services.

Ethiopia, Haiti, Mozambique, Pakistan, South Sudan, Sudan, Yemen and Zambia are the initial countries for collaboration to address fragility and food insecurity in addition to geographic areas across the Sahel and Pacific islands. The action plan aims at maximizing impact, being responsive to dynamic challenges, and focuses on tackling some of the main drivers of fragility. The partnership also builds upon the broader collaboration of the three Rome-based UN food and agriculture agencies, including the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), which was reinforced with a new five-year partnership agreement signed last August during a joint visit to South Sudan.

Being able to work in fragile contexts is a priority for IFAD’s next three-year cycle (2025-2027), as the UN Fund plans to reach 100 million rural people. FAO, IFAD and WFP cover a spectrum of work that spans from humanitarian responses to emergencies and shocks, to resilience and development activities, aligning with the 2030 Agenda.

The Rome-based agencies are working together on agri-food systems transformation, nutrition, gender equality and women’s empowerment, resilience-building, youth, and climate change to achieving maximized impact and delivering tangible value added to countries and populations.
The United Nations World Food Programme is the world’s largest humanitarian organization saving lives in emergencies and using food assistance to build a pathway to peace, stability and prosperity for people recovering from conflict, disasters and the impact of climate change. Follow us on X, formerly Twitter, via @wfp_media

For the Silo, Julie Marshall.

Streaming Royalties Are Bullshit A Musicians Case For Universal Income

Royalties Are Bullshit: A Musician’s Case For Basic Income….. “This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”

-Woody Guthrie, copyright notice, This Land Is Your Land

Royalties are bullshit.

I say this as a musician, and as a songwriter. But let me go a step further: royalties have always been bullshit. The first problem? They’re not going to musicians, and they never have.

If money is being made, something is being sold. That something has to be a product, something that can be counted. Originally it would have been sheet music, before recorded music was widely available. Later on, it meant records, then tapes, CDs, downloads, streams, as well as licensing rights – use in a specific film, or for a particular commercial. There is a product. Someone is buying it. Some of that money goes towards the cost of producing, distributing, and marketing that product; some of it goes to the artist, as royalties.

Well, a little bit of it goes to the artist.

As Billboard notes, “An accurate map of royalty pathways would be a tangled mess.” It’s not easy to get paid.

Some royalties are set by the government, some are negotiated, some are paid through groups. For example, I license my music through TuneCore, which strikes deals with a series of digital music outlets, like iTunes and Spotify, each of which offers different terms of payment. Spotify pays artists, on average, $0.007 cents per stream.

Example of royalties earned for artist Jarrod Barker. Russian streamer Yandex awarded 8/100th of a penny for track streaming. Mr. Barker would need 99,992 additional streams to earn a dollar!
Example of royalties earned for artist Jarrod Barker. Russian streamer Yandex awarded 8/100th of a penny for track streaming. Mr. Barker would need 99,992 additional streams to earn a dollar!

Beyond that, if you are “fortunate” enough to work with a major record label, there are restrictive terms and conditions. Techdirt quotes Tim Quirk of Too Much Joy explaining the Kafkaesque math [emphasis mine]:

A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn’t mean Warner “lost” nearly $400,000 on the band. That’s how much they spent on us, and we don’t see any royalty checks until it’s paid back, but it doesn’t get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band’s share of every album sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let’s say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.

Of course, none of this is new, really. The history of artists getting screwed by record labels is as long as the history of record labels, and includes everything from the creative math above to outright theft, failure to count sales, or inventive stunts like Fantasy Records accusing John Fogerty of plagiarizing himself. But bear with me, because it gets worse.

In the music industry today, there are a few people who are making money from royalties- and they’re making nearly all of it. More specifically, the top one percent of earners are taking in 77% of the recorded music revenue. Strikingly, these are many of the same artists who are now “at war” with YouTube. Artists such as Taylor Swift and Paul McCartney are convinced that YouTube is making money from their music by selling ads and subscriptions, and not paying adequate royalties. And they’re not wrong; YouTube is definitely making money by selling ads and subscriptions, and there’s no question that most of that is not going to the artists.

However, this is a stupid argument.

It’s a stupid argument because a tiny group of people that’s making the lion’s share of all recorded musical income is concerned that a new service doesn’t adequately compensate them; the major record labels feel the same way, of course. It’s a “war” that leaves out 99% of the musicians out there trying to make music and make a living, and it doesn’t really matter how they settle the conflict.

So let’s say, hypothetically, that we eliminate royalties. This raises a fundamental question.

How do we compensate and credit artists for their work?

I believe the answer is basic income, but first let’s take a closer look at that question. At a glance, it seems like it should be simple: pay them for their music. But what does that mean? It quickly gets complicated.

Part of the problem is that we as a culture equate value with ownership. If musicians have created a song, this thinking goes, and that song has value, they must own it, like any other form of property. But that’s ridiculous, and it’s pretty easy to see how quickly it becomes truly absurd.

For example, take a classic blues song, like Big Mama Thornton’s “Hound Dog.” Is that her tune? Yes! Does she deserve credit for it? Absolutely. Big Mama Thornton has a special place in blues history, and rightly so. But is it the first example of a 12-bar blues? No, of course not. Is it the first time someone used lyrics about a dog? Is it the first time someone used the call-and-response verse structure of a repeated first line and different last line? No, and no. And even though she made it a hit, the lyrics were by Leiber and Stoller. So which part of the song does she “own”? Is it just that specific recording? If so, how much does the bass player own, or the drummer? Do you pay royalties for playing it on the radio? What if it’s on the radio, and you tape it? What if you give that tape to a friend? I know, I know, nobody tapes anything off the radio anymore. What if you cover it in a bar? What if you sing it in your living room? What if you sing it in your living room and upload it to YouTube? What if you share the MP3? Where do we draw the lines?

Woody Guthrie, speaking from the folk music tradition, said “New words, new song.” Bob Dylan took that lesson to heart, both in early works like “Masters of War,” which took a melody from an English folk song called “Nottamun Town,” and in more recent releases. On Modern Times he lifted lines from a Civil War era Confederate poet named Henry Timrod, and used the arrangement of Muddy Waters’ “Rollin’ and Tumblin'” with re-written lyrics and the same title.

I don’t mean to discount Big Mama Thornton, or disparage Bob Dylan. I’m a big fan of both. What I want to illustrate is that “property” and “ownership” is a meaningless way to look at music, because it’s a living, inherited tradition. Everybody got something from somebody. Every electric guitar player owes something to T-Bone Walker, and T-Bone owes something to Blind Lemon Jefferson. Every folk singer owes something to Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger. And more to the point, if you ask any great musician, they will tell you who they got it from. Eric Clapton tells people about Buddy Guy, but if you put a microphone in front of Buddy he’s going to tell you about Muddy Waters, BB King, Guitar Slim. The greats are always ready to turn around and credit the people who came before them, because that’s how a living musical tradition works.

So again: how do we compensate and credit artists for their work?

Splitting the question

One answer is to split up the question. When you think about it, it’s really two different questions. Let’s look at the second part first: how do we acknowledge and appreciate and credit the work that artists do? This is especially important because many important contributions to music, art, and human history generally, were made by people who get erased from popular culture- in particular women, LGBTQ folks, and people of color (Ma Rainey, for example, was all three). They are erased, in part, because there is money to be made by erasing them.

The uninformed still think “Hound Dog” and “That’s All Right” are Elvis Presley tunes. And while Presley himself was quick to credit his influences, most people have never heard of Arthur Crudup, and everyone’s heard of Elvis. Sometimes people were erased several times over; early blues music was driven by women like Bessie Smith, Ma Rainey, and Sister Rosetta Tharpe, who were largely displaced by black men, who then had their music co-opted by white guys playing rock’n’roll versions of the same songs. Some made serious efforts to show people where the music had its roots – The Rolling Stones, appearing on the show Shindig in 1965, insisted that Howlin’ Wolf also get to perform. On the other hand, Led Zeppelin took Willie Dixon’s song “You Need Love,” and recorded it as “Whole Lotta Love,” without ever mentioning where they got it. It’s ironic, since Dixon himself was notorious for taking credit and royalties for other people’s work, often by offering to “take care of the paperwork” on a new tune.

So how do we make sure we credit and acknowledge artists? One way, I believe, is to end a system of compensation based on owning something that cannot be owned. In a system like we have now, where the focus is on ownership of a particular sound, or song, or style, there is a real financial incentive to take credit. In the case of the record labels, you can even get the actual rights to an artist’s songs. If we disconnect the money from the “ownership” of the music, we are removing part of the incentive to pretend that new music doesn’t freely flow from old music.

Universal Basic Income

To be clear, I’m not suggesting artists should not be paid. There are different ways to support artists, and the internet has allowed for a lot of direct interaction between artists and fans. There are crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and Patreon, there are independent music platforms like BandCamp and CDBaby. They’ve got their advantages and disadvantages, but what I’m advocating is something simpler, more widespread and direct: universal basic income.

Universal basic income, sometimes called emancipatory basic income or simply “basic income,” is an easy idea to understand: you give everybody money. Everybody. Rich people, poor people, working people, the unemployed, the young, the old, everybody. Everybody gets a salary. It’s not a lucrative salary, but enough to make sure you can provide for yourself.

First, let me clear something up: this is not a wild, crazy, utopian idea. It’s a serious proposal, that is increasingly being treated as such. Even Forbes ran a piece called “Universal Basic Income Is Not Crazy.” Of course, it works better if you already have some of the social framework much of the world takes for granted: child care, family leave, health care. But let’s leave those aside for a moment to look at basic income from the musician’s perspective. What is the impact for working musicians?

Quit Your Day Job

Many, if not most, working musicians [and artists CP] support themselves with a day job. This includes long-time performers with steady gigs, people who have gone on world tours and recorded on dozens of albums. Buddy Guy drove a tow truck into his thirties. Composer Philip Glass worked as a plumber and taxi driver until he was 41. Wes Montgomery worked in a factory from 7am to 3pm and played gigs until 2am.

Let me tell you: it’s not easy. As a musician, you already have to balance many competing demands: playing gigs, traveling, booking and promoting shows, recording new material, rehearsing a band. Being a professional musician is, effectively, more than one job already. Now try to schedule all that around a conventional job structure that wants you working at 8 or 9 in the morning, 5 days a week, regardless of where you played last night or when you got home. It’s hard to fit all of it in, and that’s without stopping to consider that it might be nice to sleep occasionally or even see your family now and then.

One reason basic income is sometimes called “emancipatory” is because it frees you from this burden. You’re still going to be out there hustling for gigs, scheduling sessions, trying to record and promote and – let’s be real – get paid. Basic income doesn’t eliminate the desire or possibility for people to make money by working, it just means you don’t have to worry about starving or getting evicted while you do it. And let’s remember, most of the money musicians make doesn’t come from royalties anyway. People are getting paid for gigs, for shows, for studio sessions, for tours, sometimes for merchandise or direct sales (in particular if you’re producing your stuff independently).

Make The Music You Want To Make

Musicians make compromises all the time. Sometimes it’s about timing: you want to put something out, and you can’t afford to wait, so you settle- you keep a take that could have been better, you scratch a song that needs a few more sessions to come together. Sometimes it’s about the sound: a record label wants to market you a particular way, a track needs to be “radio friendly” to get airplay. Sometimes it’s just about resources: recording and producing music, even with all the advances in digital technology, is a laborious, expensive process. For some players, there’s also the trade-off between taking gigs that might pay better but be musically unfulfilling (think wedding band or corporate events) versus pursuing a musical vision that might not have a ready-made market. And, of course, there’s that most precious of all resources, time, which is often given over in huge amounts to the aforementioned day job.

Basic income removes the immediacy of financial pressures, and frees up a lot of time. Does that mean we won’t have choices to make? No, of course not. There are always choices, and there are always constraints, and even if we get basic income that won’t turn time itself into a limitless resource. But it changes the balance of the decision.

Creative Liberation: Supported By Research

Right now, across the country, there are brilliant artists whose music could change and enrich our culture in ways we can’t imagine, and we don’t get to hear them. They’re stuck working day jobs, playing the gigs that pay the bills, and trying to fit their creativity into commercial constraints. Pause for a moment, and imagine the explosion of new sounds and ideas we can liberate with basic income.

As a musician, that paragraph felt intuitively true to me. However, a number of people who were kind enough to review an early draft of this essay suggested that my point might be better served if I backed it up with “evidence” and “examples.” Of course, there’s not exactly a one-to-one comparison available, so I’m going to draw on some similar programs and related ideas.

First: the MacArthur “Genius” grants. These fellowships are awarded to people who are already recognized to be exceptional; they provide a no-strings-attached stipend of USD$625,000 over five years. Obviously that’s a lot more than “basic” income, but they underpin the idea that simply providing creative people with resources allows them greater freedom to explore, discover, and create. In a review of their program and its effectiveness, The MacArthur Foundation found that 93% of the fellows reported greater financial stability (no surprise) and 88% reported an increased opportunity to express creativity. Three quarters felt it lead them to make riskier, more ambitious choices in their work.

Some might argue that the fellowships exhibit a selection bias, since they go to people already known to be creative. However, there’s good reason to believe that supporting the poorest and most marginalized offers even greater benefits. Dissent magazine recounts the history of the Federal Writers Project, which offered “unemployed” writers guaranteed income by giving a fixed salary to produce travelogues or other commissioned writings:

…with regular paychecks, FWP writers could experiment with more creative projects at the same time. Over the course of eight years, the program employed over 6,600 writers, including Nelson Algren, Jack Conroy, Zora Neale Hurston, Richard Wright, and Ralph Ellison. The FWP enabled new classes of Americans to become “professional” writers.

While employed by the FWP, these writers—most notably writers of color—wrote fiction that challenged the political status quo, and they revolutionized literary form in order to do so. To be sure, many of these writers developed their politics in pre-FWP years, but stable employment facilitated their political and artistic ambitions—by providing them with steady income, connecting them to other writers, and offering literary inspiration. From 1936–37, between posts at the Federal Theatre Project and the FWP, Hurston wrote her beautiful and troubling novel Their Eyes Were Watching God, a book celebrated today for its inventive use of black vernacular. Wright spearheaded the “Chicago Renaissance,” a creative community strengthened and supported by FWP projects in the state of Illinois. Meanwhile, in New York City, Ellison was conducting FWP oral histories when, as he reported it, he stumbled across a man who described himself as “invisible.” This encounter would be the genesis for his Invisible Man, surely one of the strangest and most significant novels of the twentieth century.

I recognize that the subjective self-evaluation of MacArthur fellows and even the impressive work of FWP authors can be considered, to some extent, anecdotal evidence. But there is also controlled research, and what it shows is the flip side of the coin: that poverty impedes cognitive function. Lead by Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan, the team found that “experimentally induced thoughts about finances reduced cognitive performance among poor but not in well-off participants.” They also found that farmers showed diminished cognitive ability before harvest, when they were poor, compared to after harvest when they were relatively rich. That’s after controlling for free time, nutrition, work effort, and stress.

If you’ve ever been broke and had bills to pay, this is not news. It’s hard to focus when you have a huge bill hanging over your head and no immediate prospect for paying it off. When you’re in a position of financial hardship, a portion of your brain is effectively set aside to repeating over and over again, “AAAH THE RENT AAAH THE RENT AAAH THE RENT.” Or the hospital bill, or the car payment, etc. You know the classic sci-fi trope that imagines what you could do if you could harness the full power of your brain? Turns out it doesn’t require genetic engineering – you just need to be able to pay your bills.

I would argue that we are effectively paying a cultural opportunity cost in the form of lost creativity. Coming back to music, anthropologist David Graeber puts it this way:

“Back in the 20th century, every decade or so, England would create an incredible musical movement that would take over the world. Why is it not happening anymore? Well, all these bands were living on welfare! Take a bunch of working class kids, give them enough money for them to hang around and play together, and you get the Beatles. Where is the next John Lennon? Probably packing boxes in a supermarket somewhere.”

The Robot Imperative – It’s Not Just About Musicians

I realize we’re covering a lot of ground here, and we’re about to talk about robots. So first, a quick recap

Royalties don’t go to (most) musicians.

Royalties don’t make sense because they rely on ownership of something that cannot be meaningfully owned.

This system of ownership creates financial incentives to take credit for other people’s work.

Eliminating royalties forces us to confront the fundamental question of how we credit and compensate artists for their work.

Basic income answers part of that question – compensation – while eliminating royalties removes, at least in part, the financial incentive to take credit.

Basic income liberates musicians from the constraints of a day job and the pressures of commercial music.

Evidence supports the idea that this liberation leads to more, and more adventurous, creative work.
In short, basic income separates the idea that people have value from the idea that they must own something valuable.

All of that has been true for quite some time, and in fact arguments for basic income are as old as Thomas Paine. But there is a huge, disruptive change happening that makes this a much more urgent question, not just for musicians but for everyone. Namely, robots. Robots and computer automation are about to eliminate huge numbers of jobs (think tens of millions). Some are in the news right now: Uber is testing self-driving cars in Pittsburgh. Driverless trucking is not far behind, taking 3.5 million jobs with it. And it’s not just truckers: designers, fast food workers, accountants, financial analysts, doctors, hotel concierges. Thousands of news stories are being written by robots. An Oxford University study estimates that 47% of total employment may be at risk. Even jazz musicians have to be worried.

In short, the day job could be going away, and not just for musicians. The question is, what will we do with these millions of people, once they’re out of work? Will we insist that truckers can all get jobs doing social media? Will a few wealthy people retreat behind high walls and leave the rest of us to fight for the scraps of employment through a fog of financial worry and expensive, short term trade-offs?

Or will we embrace basic income, recognize that people have innate value, and unleash a wild torrent of creative exploration the likes of which we’ve never heard before? For the Silo, Anthony Moser. www.anthonymoser.com
@mosermusic

Supplemental: Basic Income Earth Network
HYPERLINK “http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-santens/the-economist-just-came-o_b_7447312.html”The Basic Affordability of Basic Income
HYPERLINK “http://www.france24.com/en/20160825-finland-test-out-basic-income-scheme”Finland to try basic income
HYPERLINK “https://www.thenation.com/article/a-basic-income-would-upend-americas-work-ethic-and-thats-a-good-thing/”A Basic Income Would Upend America’s Work Ethic
HYPERLINK “http://qz.com/765902/ubi-wouldnt-mean-everyone-quits-working/”UBI Would Change The Nature Of Work

Royalties and copyright:
The Music Industry is a Parasite And Copyright Is Dead by Steve Albini
Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig

PS – My music is available on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, Bandcamp, and a host of other digital music services. If you catch me at a gig, you can buy an album for name-your-price. And if anyone ever uploads it to The Pirate Bay, torrent with my blessing. As Woody Guthrie would say, “Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”

Children Of India – Travel Excerpts

Excerpts from my Journal-Kolkata, India

My head hits the pillow with little regard for the color of the sheets and the stains on the walls. Outside I can hear the bustling streets of Kolkata come to a standstill and in the far off distance I can make out the explosion of more fireworks, another festival. The mind turns to the weeks passed and again I can feel the slow process of realization and change occurring. Guilt is an awful feeling and more so when you are unable to identify that which you have done wrong.

The voices of those in the streets plague me as much as the faces and bare feet of their owners. “Please sir, no money, just milk for my baby.” I ignored the advances of another pleading mother. Why? Do I fear the scam of it? Not believe the legitimacy of such a plea? Not care that in her arms there lay a starving child screaming out from the pains of hunger? Or is it I am too overwhelmed to believe I am capable of doing anything in a country this size with a people this poor?

I lay for a long while as the moonlight casts its shadows upon my wall, not quite awake not quite asleep.

I see their waste high faces peering up at me, with no formal education, selling to me, begging me, joking with me. Those who I do speak with paint only the beginning of a picture; a life which I cannot ever fully understand, a life of struggle and hardship which exists to me only in the media and one they only know.

I see them playing cricket in the streets and asking me to join, happy to have a street to play in and a foreigner to practice English with. The simplicity in this humbles me.  As a child I remember hearing bed time stories of men on their travels. Now I am a man on his travels imagining the stories of these children. For the Silo, Joshua Winter.

Click to view on I-tunes
Click to view on I-tunes

Important Thoughts On Altruism

Humans possess a great depth of capacity when it comes to altruism. Again and again, we demonstrate our tendency to reach out when others are in distress. Cultivating these instincts is one of the ways in which we connect with our own humanity. Studies have indicated that altruism is not entirely innate. Environment plays a key role in the development of the qualities of altruism. Practicing this trait strengthens not only our own individual ability to extend hope and help to our fellow species, it allows us to explore more deeply our own inner kindness.

“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.” –Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mark Guglielmo had just finished an exhibition at Villa Victoria Center for the Arts in Boston, Massachusetts when he decided to emphasize what he felt was a missing ingredient in today’s society- altruism. Guglielmo’s work tries to emphasize this message by piecing together photo collages to form a larger image. For another show, he used photos from his time spent in Cuba. To complement the work, Guglielmo conducted interviews which were then incorporated in the exhibition. The particulars of the work involved thousands of photographs. Guglielmo captured detailed images of every nuance of a person, place, or thing. From these, he painstakingly compiled what he refers to as “a 1000-D version of reality.”

A natural storyteller, Guglielmo says the audio portion of his work was important to transport people to Cuba. Guglielmo witnessed the changes to the island nation. He decided to record the perspective of the Cuban people when it came to the changes to their relationship with the U.S. Guglielmo kept his conversations informal and allowed Cuban residents to drive them in order to keep them safe from government targeting for speaking out.

The conversations revealed the daily lives of Cubans often in the context of wealthy western tourists vacationing in the shadow of extreme poverty. Political tensions between the U.S. and Cuba have interfered with plans to show the work there.

Bucanero en Playa Ancon | Buccaneer at Ancon Beach, Trinidad de Cuba, 2017, Photo-mosaic, 46 x 68 inches

Frank Juarez is the co-founder of the Randall Frank Contemporary Art Collection and project manager of the Randall Frank Artist Grant Program. Juarez says the Randall Frank collection began quite organically. Juarez and his high school and college friend Randall shared a lifelong affinity for art. When they wanted to work together, art was the common theme they shared. Together, they began a collection and strove to support artists from their area. In the early days, they worked under a tight budget, purchasing art quarterly and storing them in Randall’s home in Richmond, Virginia. The two began looking for opportunities to sponsor art events. Their first endeavor in this capacity was a mural project in Milwaukee’s Black Cat Alley. Randall Frank Contemporary Art Collection (RFCAC) hopes to one day create a public space where they can house their collected art and make it available to the public.

As they became more established, RFCAC decided the best, most direct way to support artists was through a grant program. RFCAC’s pilot program seeks to support artists in the Midwest and east coast regions of the U.S. The grant is presently privately funded. Juarez works in many capacities within the art world. He is a gallery director, curator, and educator. Randall works in the private sector as a chemist.

A Few Words to Keep in your Pocket: Soften your heart and open your mind to the possibilities of altruistic behavior.

For the Silo, Brainard Carey.

Featured image– Induction #1 by Tony Conrad (l) and Katrina by Rob Neilson (r)  courtesy of Museum of Non-visible Art.

Reform WTO And Resist Protectionism, Say Commonwealth Trade Ministers

Trade ministers from across the Commonwealth today made a commitment to resist all forms of protectionism, and to work urgently together towards reforming the World Trade Organisation, which sets the global rules for international trade.

Following a meeting in London, ministers from the 53 Commonwealth member countries declared their collective support for free trade in a transparent, inclusive, fair and open multilateral trading system, with the WTO as its core institution.

They agreed that any WTO reform should take into account the views of all members, underlining the special circumstances of the developing and the least developed countries, as well as small and vulnerable economies, including Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

group pic ctmm small.jpg

Ministers also endorsed an action plan designed to boost trade among their countries to at least $2 trillion by 2030, through the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda. Intra-Commonwealth trade is projected to reach $700 billion by next year.

Commonwealth Secretary-General Patricia Scotland said:

“The multilateral trading system is the only way for our countries, as diverse as they are, to trade in a predictable, stable, transparent and fair environment. While the global trading system may be far from perfect, it is the surest pathway towards eradicating poverty.

“Building on this, the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda will help businesses, including micro, small and medium sized enterprises, to plug into global trade networks and benefit from world trade. In this way, intra-Commonwealth trade offers immense opportunities to contribute to reducing poverty and achieving sustainable development.”

The Chair of the meeting, UK Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade Liz Truss said:

“The UK along with its Commonwealth partners has today clearly set out its commitment to fight against protectionism. We must work together to promote free trade and reform the multilateral system to make sure it works for every nation, small or large.

“Trade has the power to drive growth, jobs and opportunities – it is an essential tool in the fight against extreme poverty and insecurity.

“By sharing experience across the diverse Commonwealth community, we can help to break down existing barriers to trade which currently prevent businesses in all our countries from trading successfully.”

Ministers called for an end to the impasse regarding the WTO’s Appellate Body – a key panel of judges, whose rulings help resolve the trade disputes.

They highlighted the need to update WTO rules to address new challenges and opportunities, including e-commerce. They pledged support for a global agreement that would prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing by the end of 2019.

In their communiqué issued from the meeting, ministers also welcomed progress made under the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda, including the work of active country-led ‘clusters’ focused on five areas: digital, physical, regulatory, supply side and business-to-business connectivity.

The outcomes of the meeting will inform leaders’ discussions at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kigali, Rwanda in June 2020. For the Silo, Jarrod Barker.

Read the full communiqué

Reactions To Walking In Downtown Albuquerque

The mayor of a beautiful American city filled with wonderful people-but part of a state often thought to be in a different country, had a serious but undiagnosed problem. It was known to many residents, but the mayor seemed blissfully unaware for months of what was going on. Violence and robberies dominated the local newscasts daily. Sometimes, homeless people wandered the streets, some aimlessly talking to themselves and sometimes angrily punching the air.

The crime and other mayoral inaction were causing businesses both bigger and small to consider leaving the city or see their cash flow diminish to dangerously low positions. Mayor R.J. Berry was forced to make some small moves, when the situation continued to deteriorate.

Winter 2016- via CBS news. Click to read more.

However, a little known urban legend said that the mayor had become inwardly obsessed with what he felt he had really accomplished for the city. In private communications with upper level staff, friends and family, it’s said the mayor had even begun referring to his city as Wonderland.

Those who knew better were both flabbergasted and horrified when a local chamber of commerce presented the mayor with a public safety award. They worried that it seemed to further help him edge closer to becoming a legend in his own mind.

We wanted to know what a few of our Joy Junction homeless shelter guests felt about safety in Albuquerque. Their reactions were a mixed bag.

We asked them about walking in downtown “Wonderland” (also known as Albuquerque), if they felt safe, and whether they had answers for our burgeoning crime situation.

One person was quite blunt, saying “Crime in downtown Albuquerque is getting more dangerous and violent everyday. No, I do not feel safe (there). If I have to go downtown, I leave as soon as I am finished with business. I do not have any answers to our increasing crime issues.”

One man said what many of us know, that crime is “really high” in downtown.

“Walking throughout the areas I have been in, I always feel a sudden sensation come over me and I am instantly on guard. I have seen here a different side of addiction that I have not been exposed to.”

He added, “We were moved to the point we sent our teenage daughters to finish school in another state.”

One woman said that in her opinion, crime in Albuquerque has risen dramatically, especially in the area known as the International Zone (formerly the War Zone).

“Downtown is beginning to be the same way. I don’t know what can possibly be done; maybe more police officers. I have two grandchildren, and I do have concern that they are kept safe even at school. I pray here at Joy Junction that we are kept safe and that no one ever comes and does harm to people here.’

Another woman said she thinks “Albuquerque is focused on extremes like bad, bigger and bolder than the norm.”

She continued, “I do feel safe mostly because I walk safe, stay alert to people surroundings and sound. I adapt to strange or abnormal situations, and react or change my path or seek a different route. I have never really encountered a dangerous situation on the sidewalks. Only a few drunks at the bus stops, and the panhandling for cigarettes and change are maddening and relentless though.”

Her parting shot was, “I have no answers. If I did I would run for city council.”

One woman said she feels that crime in Albuquerque has definitely risen since she moved here in the fall of 2014.

She continued, “Car thefts seem to be happening a lot. There is a lack of respect for law enforcement, and criminals have no fear of consequences … I feel a little apprehensive. Even just going through Downtown in a vehicle is somewhat unnerving.”

She was right. Albuquerque is number one per capita for car thieves in the nation.

She was shocked when her family told her, “‘Do not ever walk especially by yourself anywhere downtown because you can be attacked and the crime is extremely high.’ It is very sad that crime was the first thing I was told (about) when moving here.”

Her solution was to “Put God back in America.

She added, “We need to get on our knees and pray. We as a country are reaping what we have sown, and we will be judged for all our actions and as Christians we know that the end is coming and God’s judgment is coming.”

So what do I think of Berry’s plan? Well, I don’t share the local newspaper’s enthusiasm. Too little and way too late. An enhanced police presence and independent security are good, but what about those who for whatever reason don’t want, or aren’t in a state of mind, to receive help?

Another of the mayor’s efforts is to make downtown cleaner, with more street sweepers and trash pickup. Preventative maintenance would have been a whole lot more helpful. Really, it took a crisis to come up with this?

And then only Mayor Wonderful could have come up with this one. Having strong relationships with businesses downtown, to make sure they stay downtown. And we couldn’t have put this into place before now?

And the grant to the city from Bloomberg Philanthropies for $1.2 million USD. The by now infamous Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce award was given to Berry at least in part for using a portion of it for intelligent ways to solve crime. However, it looks like up until now the funds have been used to develop plans for Albuquerque’s Arts and Culture District.

Never fear, though. The city says plans for public safety initiatives funded by the grant are moving forward.

No one except apparently the mayor thinks his solutions to crime (or homelessness) are magical. This is not (Alice in) Wonderland. The stakes are much higher. For the Silo, Jeremy Reynalds- Joy Junction/HNS (Homeless News Service).

Featured image- Albuquerque Mayor R. J. Berry via PBS.
A portion of this article is satire, and as such is protected speech.

 

 

Supplemental- The other perspective. Downtown Albuquerque residents defend their neighborhood-

 

 

Joy Junction Apartment Complex In Albuquerque Fights Homelessness

It’s no secret that homelessness in Albuquerque is an ongoing crisis. The crisis continues, despite inaccurate promises by some groups to “end” homelessness.

Over the last few years, I’ve seen panhandling increase prolifically all over the city, while at Joy Junction, desperate families-often with children-call or visit us daily asking for a meal and a place to stay. Many we can help; others we have to deny services often due to a lack of space.

To help address this issue, I’m excited to announce the official May 15 groundbreaking for our 52-unit apartment complex, located in southwest Albuquerque. The project, which is expected to be completed by fall 2017, will have units with 250 square feet of living space and a personal bathroom.

Guided by our mission to offer the homeless a safe and tranquil environment to live, it is our hope that this new complex will make the situation somewhat better for those experiencing homelessness.

More than three years ago, the James Boyd case caused us all to reflect on what we as a community could have done better to prevent a man from seeking shelter on a mountainside.

Despite our collective sense of disappointment and sadness over what transpired, it did lead many local organizations, community leaders and ordinary citizens to come together for discussion about what needs to change to address an issue that can’t merely be wished away.

Recognizing that “it takes a village” not only to raise a child but also to lift an individual from their worst days, Joy Junction is stepping up our efforts. It’s taken a while to happen, but the time is finally here. Today, we continue to act on our commitment to assist our city’s homeless and hungry with the groundbreaking for what will soon become a beautiful and dignified apartment complex.

For 30 years, Joy Junction has grown to now serve more than 10,000 meals each month, not including the 6,000-plus meals served by our mobile feeding unit dubbed The Lifeline of Hope.

Our staff also drive a van through the streets of Albuquerque in the darkest hours of the night in search of anyone who might need assistance with food, water and when available, a blanket or sleeping bag.

We’ve made it our mission to not only provide basic needs like food and shelter, but also emotional and spiritual assistance so individuals can get back on their feet.

Over time, we have noticed a growing need for living spaces that go beyond mere subsistence. Living in dignity can more quickly help bring about a positive and permanent change in the ongoing difficult situations experienced by the homeless.

When the homeless come to Joy Junction, they are often looking for more than a dry bed and a warm meal; they’re looking for hope-hope that they will find a way out of their troubles and a path to a better future.

Completion of this new apartment complex will now provide 52 additional opportunities for the homeless to better work through the issues with which they are beset and as a result, return to mainstream community life as taxpaying citizens.

In other words, this new complex will help us better meet the needs of our city’s homeless. While still needing many more dollars, we are confident that the community generosity which got us this far will take us past the finish line.

We have come a long way, especially in the last few years. And yet despite that, there is so much more work to be done. We hope everyone will continue to rise to the challenge that lies ahead, and together, we can end homelessness and hunger, one life and one meal at a time. For the Silo, Jeremy Reynalds, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO Joy Junction Inc. and HNS.

Dominican Republic Province Altagracia Suffering With Poverty

Villa Altagracia is the easternmost province of the Dominican Republic. The name “La Altagracia” (High Grace) commemorates a painting, Our Lady of La Altagracia, brought from Spain in the early 16th century. Our Lady of La Altagracia is known to the Dominicans as a protector of the Island, to create miracles.

Our Lady of Altagracia Painting by Unknown Artist. Exhibited at Basilica Nuestra Senora de La Altagracia
Our Lady of Altagracia Painting by Unknown Artist. Exhibited at Basilica Nuestra Senora de La Altagracia

Altagracias 2

Sadly, as we drove up the hill of Altagracia, we couldn’t help but notice that a miracle is what this village needed the most. We noticed the roads were unpaved, uneven, and more so just paths of orange dirt. The houses are shacks, made of tree branches, plastic and debris from the streets, the bedrooms separated by tarps and bed sheets, sometimes, a single room holding a family of seven. As we made our way up, we spotted a young boy, fully nude – gripping onto his mother’s hand. She didn’t seem much more lively than the boy. Her skin was cracked and her spirit seemed tired and broken. These people aren’t living, they are merely surviving as best they can to provide for themselves, and their children.

La Altagracia is suffering from poverty.
Poverty. It isn’t being “broke”, it isn’t frugality, or living paycheck-to-paycheck, it isn’t going without your television for a month or cutting back on extravagances.
Poverty is real. It exists. For the people of La Altagracia, it is a normalcy, and it is a harsh reality. These people cannot turn on a sink to wash their hands or brush their teeth. They cannot flush a toilet or take a shower. They don’t have access to fresh, running water. In extreme hot temperatures, these people have to walk a mile and a half to get water from a lake and then walk back with only the amount of water they are able to carry. These people lack countless luxuries that most people take for granted, they don’t know anything else.

Any donations will be utilized to build a public restroom and a well in the village of Altagracia. In the future, we have planned on offering additional resources throughout the village. As for now, we are taking baby steps to provide them with necessities. You have the ability to provide our leaders of tomorrow with the resources they need to build their minds today. We need at least six notebooks per child, books, pens, and other basic school supplies – $10 per child is all it takes to change a life and provide an opportunity for a higher education. Your donations will help make this dream turn into the miracle this village so desperately needs.

Altagracias 3All donations will go out to the Village of Altagracia in Dominican Republic. Because of your generous giving, Villa Altagracia will be provided with water, a public restroom, educational resources, and an overall growth and unity in community living. For the Silo, Jessica Kirk.

Please visit their website at Altagracias.org 

Why Ontarians Continue Having Trouble Paying For Electricity

high electricity bills

[See Comments at the end of this article for updates Ed.] “All my pension goes to pay my electricity” – constituent.     With Ontario boasting the highest energy prices in North America, quite honestly I don’t know how some people get by. When people bring their electricity bills into my office, it provides a line-by-line window on just how difficult it has become to pay the bills.

Recently I met with a couple who live in a modest 790 square foot house – they heat with one electric space heater, have been wearing heavy sweaters all winter and are doing absolutely everything they can to keep costs down. But their hydro bill for January was $641.67 — $233.89 of which was delivery charge. During the meeting I was told: “All my pension goes to pay my electricity.”

Nowadays if you can’t afford your electricity, in many cases, you don’t have the option of paying interest or getting caught up later – your service is simply shut off. To have service reconnected is often hundreds of dollars. If someone can’t afford their bills in the first place how will they ever be able to pay exorbitant fees for reconnection? Apart from closing down cheap coal generation, there are many reasons why hydro has skyrocketed.

For example, the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) Program pays out massive subsidies for wind and solar contracts to produce power we don’t need. This continues to drive up the cost of electricity which rose by 26 per cent between 2008 and 2010 – projected to rise another 46 per cent by the end of this year. The FIT Program, with its overly-generous payments, will cost taxpayers $4.4 billion more than the previous Standard Offer Program. Wind generators operate at 28 per cent capacity and their output is out of phase with electricity demand during certain times of the day.

You can’t store electricity, so we pay the U.S. and Quebec to take the surplus power off our hands. We’ve paid them $1.8 billion over the past six years. Their industries use this cheap power to compete even harder with our manufacturers, and so the downward spiral continues.

If you’re a large user, look for the words ‘Global Adjustment’ on your hydro bill. Simply put, Global Adjustment covers the spread between market price and guaranteed price paid to generators, plus the cost of paying standby natural gas plants not to produce electricity, as well as paying for conservation programs. One North Bay manufacturer had a Global Adjustment — nonexistent on their 2009 hydro bills — of $1,700 on their electricity charge of $1,400 for that month. The Global Adjustment is expected to increase tenfold, from $700 million in 2006 to $8.1 billion in 2014. This will certainly cause more Ontario manufacturers to close up shop and move to cheaper locales.

Also, watch for the Smart Meter charges to hit home. The computer system cost $250 million, and the bill is now due.

Let’s not forget the cancellation of the Oakville power plant and cancelling, demolishing and relocating the Mississauga power plant. These cancellations were nothing more than political ‘seat savers’ for the last election and will cost taxpayers $1.1 billion.

Click Me!

In many ways the Green Energy Act  put the desires of the renewable power industry ahead of the needs of people and Ontario businesses – a perfect formula for killing jobs and crippling consumers. For the Silo, MPP Toby Barrett

DID YOU KNOW?- Norfolk Power (and in fact all Ontario Municipal power companies to the best of our knowledge-CP) has a 13 days past due policy for Service Termination Proceedings. Even small “ma and pa” businesses provide 30 day terms and even 60-90day terms before sending out Collection Letters or Warning Letters. We contacted Norfolk Power and were told that “it’s standard policy- set by Ontario’s Energy Board”. Hmmm- that sounded like a standard “sub-standard” explanation to us, so a bit of research showed that the Ontario Energy Board is a self-regulated, internally filled board that sounds impartial but is anything but- in fact we were unable to determine exactly who or how board positions are filled, never a good sign for impartiality. If you decide to call them at 416 481 1967 be ready for one of the most confusing answering services you will ever find. Messages prompt you with a never ending supply of websites and telephone numbers- finally if you are persistent enough you will be asked to “press 9” to consent for your personal information to be gathered, recorded and used by the Ontario Energy Board- not exactly consumer friendly. I suppose you could always speak with one of the Public Information Officer but then they will refer you to media relations. You won’t be transferred (we were told they aren’t allowed to) so keep a document open and handy- 416 544 5171 and then the process begins again only this time you are immediately connected with an answering machine asking for your credentials.  *sigh Fifteen minutes later from when we started our initial inquiry we realized we might as well be prospecting for dare we say it “oil”. [Update- Many Municipal aka “County” Hydro companies including Norfolk Power have sold their electricity services to Hydro One but have held onto their Water services. Ontarians will now receive a separate bill for Water and a separate bill for electricity. Perhaps more confusing, in Spring of 2015 Ontario announced that it would sell 15% of its Hydro One holdings in an IPO plan that will eventually sell off another 45% in order to raise money for debt repayment, transportation and infrastructure programs. Targeted buyers would be Canada’s largest pension plans. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-16/ontario-to-sell-15-of-hydro-one-one-of-biggest-ipos Ed. ]

If you have the brain power – take a look at this excerpt from the Energy Board’s website- listing (in broad terms) changes to Ontario’s energy act- which ultimately affects consumers in Ontario and their payment and use of energy:

1907-1959

The Natural Gas and Oil Wells Act marked the Province’s early concern for the proper management of its energy resources – a concern that evolved through the Natural Gas Act of 1918, the Natural Gas Conservation Act of 1921 and the Ontario Fuel Board Act of 1954.

1960-1998

The Ontario Energy Board Act, 1960 created the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) as a successor to the Ontario Fuel Board. The OEB was authorized to set just and reasonable rates for the sale and storage of gas and to make orders granting leave to construct pipelines for the transmission of oil or gas to expropriate land for oil or gas pipes.The Ontario Energy Act, 1964 clarified certain powers of the OEB and strengthened the sections dealing with gas storage. An amendment to this Act in  1965 set out the ground rules for the OEB in determining the rate base of gas utilities and giving the OEB power to make regulations prescribing a uniform system of accounts for gas companies.On June 7, 1973, the Premier announced the establishment of the Ministry of Energy which would include the OEB. Further amendments were made to the Ontario Energy Board Act which included provisions for the appointment of additional board members and making the OEB responsible for annual reviews of rate and rate-related matters of Ontario Hydro.In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the oil crisis developed in the Middle East, causing natural gas prices to soar. Ontario Hydro turned to nuclear generation and the public became conservation conscious. During that time, the Board decided on hundreds of natural gas applications and conducted major reviews of Ontario Hydro rates.

1998

The mandate of the Board changed significantly with the passage of the Energy Competition Act, 1998 (ECA)  The ultimate goal of the ECA was the creation of a competitive market in the electricity and natural gas industries.To achieve the goal of creating a competitive market in the electricity industry, the former Ontario Hydro monopoly was replaced by several business entities including two distinct commercial companies, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and Hydro One Inc., and one Crown corporation, the Independent Electricity Market Operator, now known as the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). OPG has taken responsibility for the generation of electricity while Hydro One owns and maintains transmission and distribution wires. The IESO manages the province’s electricity system and operates the wholesale electricity market.  The OEB had varying degrees of regulatory authority over all three corporations as well as the province’s municipal electric utilities.The OEB became responsible for regulating local distribution companies and  for ensuring that the distribution companies fulfill their obligations to connect and serve their customers. The OEB also became responsible for licensing certain participants in the market.  The OEB regulated all market participants in the province’s natural gas and electricity industries and it provided advice on energy matters referred to it by the Minister of Energy and/or the Minister of Natural Resources.

2002

On May 1, 2002, Ontario’s new electricity market opened. The new market was the culmination of over five years of work by the electricity industry, government, the OEB, the IESO and many other market participants. The generation of electricity became a competitive activity, with electricity bought and sold on the new spot market at competitive prices. The IESO successfully began operating the wholesale market.Over the summer of 2002, record-high temperatures drove up the demand for electricity as well as the market price, which resulted in considerable consumer concern. In response, the government introduced the Electricity Pricing, Conservation and Supply  Act, 2002. This legislation, which received Royal Assent on December 9, 2002, capped the price of electricity at 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour for residential, small-business and other designated low-volume consumers, effective May 1, 2002 to May 1, 2006. This legislation also provided refunds, retroactive to May 1, 2002, to compensate those consumers for any costs in excess of the 4.3-cent cap.All transmission and distribution rates were frozen at existing levels until at least May 1, 2006. Utilities were required to receive written approval from the Minister of Energy before any application for rate changes could be submitted to the OEB. This legislation also deemed any interim rate order to be final. In addition, the new legislation modified the OEB’s objectives in the areas of energy efficiency and conservation with respect to both natural gas and electricity from “facilitating” to “promoting.”

2003

Proclaimed on August 1, 2003, the Ontario Energy Board Consumer Protection and Governance Act, 2003, established the new OEB as a self-financing crown corporation and gave the OEB the opportunity to do its work more efficiently and effectively. In particular, the legislation provided for a management committee to manage the activities of the OEB. The legislation further enhanced the OEB’s role in protecting and educating energy consumers.In December 2003, the government introduced the Ontario Energy Board Amendment Act (Electricity Pricing), 2003, which put in place a new interim electricity pricing structure, replacing the 4.3 cent per kilowatt hour (kWh) price cap as of April 1, 2004. Under the interim structure, residential, low-volume and other designated consumers paid 4.7 cents per kWh for the first 750 kWh consumed per month, and 5.5 cents per kWh for consumption above that level.The Act called on the OEB to develop a new electricity pricing mechanism. It also charged the OEB with the responsibility to protect and renew Ontario’s electricity grid by ensuring reasonable charges for the delivery of electricity.The legislation also required the OEB to allow local distribution companies to recoup costs (called “regulatory assets”), the recovery of which had been put on hold in 2002 by the Electricity Pricing, Conservation and Supply Act, 2002. These recoveries would be spread over a four-year period so that they would have only a modest impact on the final price to consumers.

2004

In June 2004, the Government of Ontario proposed a restructuring of the province’s electricity sector in order to encourage new electricity supply, energy conservation and stable prices at a level reflecting the true cost of electricity.The Electricity Restructuring Act, 2004, received Royal Assent on December 9, 2004. The new legislation amended the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, and the Electricity Act, 1998.The OEB became responsible for developing a transparent mechanism for establishing electricity commodity prices for eligible consumers who have not signed contracts with electricity retailers. The Regulated Price Plan, which took effect May 1, 2005, replaced the interim two-tier pricing of 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour (¢/kWh) and 5.5 ¢/kWh hour that had been in place since April 2004.The OEB also assumed responsibility for the Market Surveillance Panel, previously the responsibility of the IESO.A new agency, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), was established to ensure an adequate, reliable and secure supply of electricity in Ontario for the medium and long term. The OEB was given the duty of approving the OPA’s fees and its integrated power system plan and procurement process. The OEB is also responsible for licensing the OPA.

2009

The Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 received Royal Assent on May 14, 2009.  Among other things, the legislation amended the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 and the Electricity Act, 1998.  It established important responsibilities for the OEB and other entities in achieving the objectives of conservation, promotion of renewable generation, and technological innovation through the smart grid.The OEB’s three new objectives are:

  1. The promotion of renewable energy, including the timely connection of renewable energy projects to transmission and distribution systems;
  2. The promotion of conservation and demand management; and
  3. The facilitation of the implementation of a smart grid.

The OEB has an important role to play in ensuring the government’s objectives in the legislation are achieved. That includes ensuring that electricity distributors meet the requirements for renewable generation connection, smart grid implementation and conservation and demand management.

2010

In 2010, Ontario passed the Energy Consumer Protection Act, that would ensure Ontarians have the information they need about electricity contracts and bills, as well as the comfort of knowing they can rely on fair business practices. The new rules come into effect in January 2011.

Silo reader “Jack” sent us this scan of his hydro bill- over 500$ for two months of service for a small 2 Bedroom basement apartment. Notice that he was unable to pay his bill on time due to the fact that his bill accounted for almost 50% of his rent.

The first bill was $237 and the next month was even higher at almost 300$ for a single months worth of hydro service CP
The first bill was $237 and the next month was even higher at almost 300$ for a single month of hydro.