The poorest 50%, however, will be most severely impacted by climate change.

 India is cutting the taxes on petrol and diesel to “further spur the overall economic cycle”, the government said. However, the move is also expected to boost demand for fuel as countries try to curb fossil fuel consumption. The tax cuts are also expected to increase consumption of petrol and diesel even as global leaders, including Mr Modi, have been gathering for the COP26 climate change conference to tackle the global economy’s reliance on fossil fuels.

 

It is a safety net

Last year, 10.8% or 14.3 million workers, belonged to unions according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Another 1.7 million workers were covered by a union contract though they did not say they were union members. Union membership was down in 2020 from 20.1% or 17.7 million in 1983, the first year with comparable data.

Union membership increases the household wealth for workers overall, according to a report by the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, which analyzed data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances from 2010–2019. It gives a particular boost, increasing earnings, offering access to retirement savings and bolstering other benefits essential for financial security, according to the report.

White union households had almost twice the median wealth of white households that did not include a union member, according to the report, which analyzed the survey data gathered from thousands of U.S. families who answer questions about their earnings, balance sheets, benefits and demographics.

But the difference in wealth was most striking among some workers of color, the report concluded, with Black union households having three times the median wealth of Black families without a union member, 

And Hispanic union households having five times the median wealth of their non-union counterparts.

The report attributes the difference in resources between those in a union and those who are not with potentially playing a crucial role in bridging a financial gulf in which white families have roughly ten times the wealth of their Black peers, and over eight times the wealth of the median Hispanic family.

David Madland, senior fellow with the Center for American Progress and co-author of the analysis, explained, “Unions boost wealth for everyone .. but they provide even more of a boost for Black and Hispanic households, and because of this greater boost they help close the racial wealth gaps in a significant way.”

The analysis from the Center for American Progress is also in line with data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and other studies that found union members make more than those not in unions and have more access to employer provided health insurance.

Full-time workers who were represented by a union in 2020 had typical median weekly earnings of $1,138 compared with non-union workers who had median weekly pay of $958, according to the BLS.

And an August 2016 review of the Current Population Survey by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a progressive think tank, found Black workers who belonged to unions earned wages that were 16.4% higher on average than their Black peers who were not in unions.

A September 2008 CEPR survey of the data, which is compiled by the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics, found union membership increased Latino workers’ wages on average by 17.6% as compared to their peers. And Latino union members were 26% more likely to have employer-provided health care than their Latino counterparts who were not in unions.

“The differences in household wealth for Black and Hispanic households are largely due to the retirement benefits and job stability afforded by a union contract,’’ says Misael Galdámez, research analyst for social mobility and economic opportunity at UCLA’s Latino Policy and Politics Initiative.

The typical Black union household has more than $100,000 in wealth while the typical non-union Black household has less than $30,000 in wealth, Madland says. Among Hispanic households, the difference is $124,000 as compared to $24,000.

“This is a lot more dollars in people’s pockets and bank accounts that we’re talking about,” he says, adding that those additional resources can fund a child’s college tuition or seed a rainy day fund.

Union members are also more likely to have a pension or other high quality retirement benefit, as well as employer provided health insurance, both pillars of financial security, Madland says.

“Retirement is a key way people accumulate wealth over their lifetime and health insurance is a way to protect the wealth they accumulate so if they go into the hospital they don’t eat into their nest egg as much,” he says.

Unions can also safeguard jobs and provide protections that make workplaces more palatable, Madland says. 

“What unions do for job stability is they provide an avenue for workers to have a discussion about workplace conditions which tends to mean that the environment is better and workers want to stay longer,” Madland says. “And they have protections. The employer can’t just fire them for no reason.”

‘I joined as soon as I was hired’: Black, Hispanic workers benefit from unions, study shows (yahoo.com)

 In 2020, disasters, primarily triggered by weather-related hazards, resulted in 30.7 million forced movements. 

That is more than three times the number prompted by conflict and violence.

 In 2020, disasters, primarily triggered by weather-related hazards, resulted in 30.7 million forced movements. 

That is more than three times the number prompted by conflict and violence.

 

It seems common sense that the more people there are in the world it means fewer resources to go around for everybody else.

If we say that population growth is the main cause of mass starvation and environmental ruin, we play into the hands of the ruling class who wish to divert blame to the victims.

Concentrating on population confuses symptoms with causes while simultaneously validating apologists for the system. Population growth arguments fit in with the ideological needs of the system rather than challenging them and are the primary reason that they receive so much publicity.

It also makes sincere ecologists unintentionally allies with the racists and bigots who seek to make “too many” foreigners the culprits.

It is perfectly admissible for the apologists of capitalism to put the cause of ecological crises on the number of people rather than upon the capitalist system.  

But not to sound crude and crass they resort to a justification a little bit more sophisticated – the carrying capacity of the planet and carbon footprints.

What the argument ignores is there is no environmental reason for people to go hungry, now or in the future.

 There is no need to use any more land to sustain humanity — increasing land productivity using existing technologies can boost global supplies and leave more land for nature.

Improved stewardship could sustain current and anticipated human populations.

The World Socialist Movement speaks of socialism in terms of abundance but our critics claim that human wants are “infinite” and interpret this to mean that socialism will lead to ever-increasing personal consumption, of people consuming more and more material things.

It is not a reference to some orgy of consumption, but simply to the fact that it is technically possible to produce more than enough to satisfy everyone’s material needs, thanks to technology and mass production.

 But yes, socialism will involve an increase in individual consumption for much of the world’s population currently suffering hunger, disease, and slum-housing. 

Some environmentalists say this would exceed the Earth’s carrying capacity and make environmental destruction even worse.

They arrive at a figure for consumption per head, by taking the total then dividing it by the population. But this fails to give a figure for what people consume as, in addition, it includes what industry, the government, and the military consume.

It a grossly misleading to equate consumption per head with personal consumption since it ignores the fact that consumption per head can be reduced without reducing personal consumption and that this is, in fact, compatible with an increase in personal consumption.

What the World Socialist Movement proposes is to eliminate the waste of capitalism, not just of armaments and armies but of all the overhead costs involved in the buying and selling exchange economy involving socially-useless, non-productive activity so drastically reducing consumption per head statistic.

If better survival rates for babies and longer lives for the elderly contribute to “over-population”, what is the eugenic social engineers’ policy going to be? Infanticide and euthanasia?  

 

The world currently produces enough food to feed 10 billion people, and there is not yet 8 billion of us. The world has an abundance of resources and could provide for everyone’s needs.

That is a fact.

The poor suffer hunger – not because resources are scarce, but because they don’t have sufficient money nor own land.

Poverty and inequality cause hunger, not overpopulation.

We are growing, but definitely not at an exponential rate. The rate of population growth is slowing down and actually declining.

 A UN report titled “World Population to 2300” states if European fertility rates fail to rise above current levels:

“The European Union, which has recently expanded to encompass 452-455 million people (according to 2000-2005 figures) would fall by 2300 to only 59 million. About half the countries of Europe would lose 95 per cent or more of their population, and such countries as the Russian Federation and Italy would have only 1 per cent of their population left.” 

In other words, the French, German, Italians and British will virtually cease to exist.

Just to give an idea that it isn’t space itself that is lacking, every man, woman, and child on earth could each have a half-acre of arable land.

It is not a question of the number of people inhabiting our planet. It is a question of the laws of capitalism.

The economic laws prevent food from being transported to where it is needed or distributed to those who are in need.

What if the world’s population was drastically reduced to a few billion? Wouldn’t the forests still be logged to depletion, the pollutants spewed into the water, and greenhouse gases accumulate in the air? These would just happen at a slower pace, not disappear.

 

But what if we used all of our abilities for the betterment of all life instead of using it solely to empower the few at the top?

What if we united not for war and destruction, but for peace and prosperity?

What if we instead used this same potential to create sustainable technologies, beneficial products and harmonious systems that would allow humanity and the earth to thrive?

What if we united as a people stopped complying with capitalist laws and built a beautiful new world?

 The United Nations has estimated that world hunger could be ended for an additional expenditure of $30 billion a year.

 Elon Musk became the first person to attain a net worth of over $300 billion. A year ago his net worth was $115 billion.

 According to Inequality.org, America’s billionaires have a combined net worth of $5.1 trillion, which is a 70 percent increase from their combined net worth of under $3 trillion at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The wealthy class are so emotionally and psychologically stunted that they refuse to end world hunger despite having the ability to easily do so.

We’re talking about a class which could easily put a complete halt to human beings dying of starvation on this planet by simply putting some of their vast fortunes toward making sure everyone gets enough to eat. But they don’t. This same class influences the policies, laws, and large-scale behavior of our species more than any other.

 Imagine if you had seen a video clip of me calmly watching a child drown to death in a swimming pool and doing nothing to help. After watching such footage, would it ever in a million years occur to you that I am someone who should be in charge of the entire world?

I’m going to guess no. I’m going to guess that, in the unlikely event that you ever decided anyone should rule the world, after watching me let a child drown I’d rank somewhere near the very bottom of possible candidates.

Now imagine if instead of letting one child drown, it was millions.

That’s how absolutely insane it is that we allow this class to shape our civilization. And we most certainly do allow them to shape our civilization.

Take Bill Gates. After pledging to give his immense fortune away over a decade ago; his net worth has more than doubled in that time.

Nobody who chooses day-after-day to let millions of people die of starvation has any business making decisions which affect other people, much less decisions which affect everyone. The fact that the billionaire class and its lackeys make this depraved decision day in and day out permanently disqualifies them from any legitimate claim to having the empathy and compassion that would be required for such a job. They are too narcissistic and dysfunctional to be permitted to have any power or influence whatsoever, much less the ungodly amount they wield today.

Billionaires should not exist. They should have their power and wealth taken from them, and the steering wheel of humanity should be given to the ordinary people who are infinitely more qualified to navigate us through the rough waters ahead for our species.

Taken from here

Billionaires Not Morally Qualified to Shape Civilization – Consortiumnews

 A key talking point against the free sharing of vaccine recipes was premised on a false assertion.

In response to October 2020 proposal from India and South Africa that the World Trade Organization suspend enforcement of key patent rules so that cheaper, generic versions of Covid-19 treatments and vaccines can get to more people more quickly, the proposal is referred to as a TRIPS waiver, a reference to the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Pfizer and Moderna, both of which produce mRNA vaccines, insisted how intellectual property incentivizes creativity, and rewards those who save lives. Sharing vaccine recipes, they claimed was not the panacea because much of the world lacks the facilities and capacity to produce vaccines in a safe and timely manner. Even if we got rid of all intellectual property rules tomorrow, this would do little to boost immediate global vaccine supply.

Big Pharma warned of the laborious and time-intensive process of developing the ability to produce mRNA vaccines specifically. ​

“There is no idle mRNA manufacturing capacity in the world. This is a new technology, you cannot go hire people who know how to make mRNA—those people don’t exist,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive of Moderna, said in May.

 ​”Only a few facilities in the world perform some of the critical steps needed to manufacture mRNA vaccines,” industry trade group PhRMA, which represents Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, asserted in March.

It turns out not to be true. 

On October 22, the New York Times ran a story titled, ​”Here’s Why Developing Countries Can Make mRNA Covid Vaccines”.

NYT identified 10 different facilities in India, Brazil, Thailand, South Africa, Argentina and Indonesia that are strong candidates for producing mRNA vaccines. ​

“The key criteria include existing facilities, human capital, the regulatory system for medicines and the political and economic climate,” writes journalist Stephanie Nolen. Some of the facilities are already producing other vaccines, or testing or making their own mRNA vaccines. In other words, Global South countries could absolutely start producing Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, if the companies would only tell them how. 

 Indonesia’s health minister, Budi Gunadi Sadikin, said at a World Health Organization event that the country has the capacity to ​”upscale our vaccine productions to meet regional and global demand.” 

“Moderna’s former director of chemistry estimates that modern factories could start manufacturing mRNA vaccines within a few months if sufficient know-how is transferred,” Oxfam noted.

According to recent research by Doctors Without Borders, Africa-based manufacturers are currently prepared to make mRNA vaccines if provided access to the necessary production information.

 The pharmaceutical industry was not driven by altruistic motives: the desire to protect innovation and research, and ensure safe and responsible vaccine production. Instead, they sought to protect pharmaceutical monopolies and their profits.  The drug industry has shown it would rather build its own facilities from scratch—like the BioNTech facilities in Rwanda and Senegal, which won’t even start construction until mid-2022—than give Global South countries the ability to produce vaccines themselves. 

“It’s clear that Pfizer and Moderna cannot supply enough vaccines to make sure everyone on the planet has access, so they must figure out a way to share the technology and know-how,” Robbie Silverman, Oxfam America’s senior manager for private sector engagement, said in a statement. “Pfizer’s and Moderna’s inability to produce enough vaccines threatens global public health and the world economy—as long-term investors, we urge these companies to take immediate action to save lives.”

“Continued vaccine inequality will not only cause more deaths and suffering around the world, it will also devastate our global economy, possibly to the tune of trillions of dollars,” Silverman added. “While a few are profiting handsomely, investors recognize the dangers of vaccine apartheid and are seeking to hold these companies accountable.”

In its Moderna shareholder resolution, Oxfam urged the corporation to share its “intellectual property and technical knowledge (‘know-how’) to facilitate the production of Covid-19 vaccine doses by additional qualified manufacturers located in low- and middle-income countries.”

“Independent estimates indicate that Moderna will miss its 2021 production target of one billion doses by 33%,” the document reads. “To ensure equitable access, Moderna should transfer the intellectual property and know-how associated with its vaccines to allow manufacture in low- and middle-income countries. Pressure, including by the U.S. government, is intensifying on Moderna to make such transfers.”

Taken from here

Opinion | Big Pharma Lies About Vaccine Patents to Protect Profits | Sarah Lazare (commondreams.org)

‘Unprecedented’ Shareholder Resolutions Call on Pfizer, Moderna to Share Vaccine Tech (commondreams.org)

  Bernie Sanders described a new proposal for the Democrats’ reduced $1.75 spending bill as “beyond unacceptable.”

 A new addition to the proposed budget would repeal the $10,000 cap on federal deductions for state and local taxes, a move that has long been championed by some Democratic lawmakers, who believe the Trump-era law unfairly affected people in high-tax blue states like New Jersey and California.

It had a particular impact on people with properties in more than one state, who were unable to deduct large state tax obligations from their federal tax bill.

One analysis found could end up delivering a huge tax cut to the wealthiest Americans.

The analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected that a repeal of the cap could end up costing the federal government far more than any proposed higher taxes on the wealthy and would result in a $30 billion net direct tax cut for the wealthiest 5% of Americans.

‘Beyond unacceptable’: Bernie Sanders slams Democrats’ $1.75 trillion spending package after analysis said it would cut taxes for the rich (yahoo.com)