The privileged around the world deliberately conflate *poverty* with socio-economic marginalisation based on caste, gender, race and ethnicity. Let me share a few pointers from my labour courses! @AmbedkarCaravan @Profdilipmandal @elite_dalit @Komal_Rajak_ https://twitter.com/vandema09287787/status/1223574637415747587

#1 There are two types of exclusion: “Individual” and “Group-Based”. Poverty is best understood in terms of *Individual Exclusion* (IE) and socio-economic marginalisation based on race, caste, gender and ethnicity is a result of *Group-Based Exclusion* (GE).

#2 Individual Exclusion (IE) is experienced by *individuals* from any groups: Whites, Blacks, Latinos, White Immigrants, Black Immigrants, Brahmins, Upper castes, Dalits, Adivasis, Other Backward Castes, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists.

#3 IE is a result of *individual attributes*. You are differently-abled, you are excluded from jobs in Army, Navy, Air-force or Police.

You don’t have money to buy a dress, car, house -you are excluded from the market.

#4 You do not have engineering qualifications - you are excluded from all the jobs where engineering degree is mandatory.

You do not have English language skills - you are excluded from all the jobs where English is mandatory.

#5 You don’t have money to pay the medical bills -the doctor won’t treat you. You are excluded from medical services simply because you don’t have money.

#6 To address the problem of *Individual Exclusion*, governments design poverty alleviation programmes. Governments give free books, school uniforms, scholarships and all the necessary equipment to the poor and needy children so that they can avail education.

#7 If education is NOT FREE or there are no scholarships and fee waivers for poor children’s education, then the poor people should be angry with the government.

#8 A Poor Brahmin or a poor white has all right to be angry for facing *individual exclusion*. BUT they should be angry with the govt and NOT with some rarest of the rare “Rich Black” or “Rich Dalit.”

#9 Group-based exclusion (GE) happens because individual belongs to a particular gender, race, caste, ethnicity.

You are excluded NOT because of *individual attributes* as in the case of Individual Exclusion. You are excluded BECAUSE you belong to a particular group.

#10 You are a qualified engineer and has required work experience. Yet, those in the selection committee will reject you because you are either a woman, Black, Dalit, Adivasi, Muslim or Latino.

#11 You have more than enough money to pay your medical bills BUT the doctors refuse to treat you simply because of your group identity: Black, Dalit, Adivasi, Muslims, Latino etc.

#12 You can speak the English Language fluently BUT employers will not hire you because of your group identity women, Black, Dalit, Adivasi, Muslims, Latino etc.

#13 You have money to buy a house in a middle-class, upper-class or any locality but owners will not sell the house because of your group-identity Black, Dalit, Adivasi, Muslims, Latino etc.

#14 Group based exclusion is tackled by policies such as Reservation policy in India, Affirmative Action policies in USA and Quota policy in Germany.

#14 Bertrand & Mullainathan study: ‘Applicants with Black names needed to send out 15 applications to get one callback; White-named candidates needed 10. A Black needs 8 years of additional experience to get the same number of callbacks as a White.’

#15 Thorat & Attewell study observed a pattern whereby ‘college-educated lower-caste and Muslim job applicants fare less well than equivalently qualified applicants with HC [High Caste] names, when applying by mail for employment in the modern private-enterprise sector’.

#16 Thorat & Attewell: “A total of 4808 applications were made in answer to 548 job advertisements over 66 weeks.”

#17 Thorat & Attewell: “The type of discrimination being assessed is whether some kinds of college-educated applicants are disproportionately successful, and others disproportionately unsuccessful, at this earliest stage in seeking employment.”

#18 Thorat & Attewell: “A successful outcome as defined in this study involves simply being admitted to the second stage of the job selection process: being contacted for an interview or for testing.”

#19 Thorat & Attewell: “The most common answer to an application was no response whatsoever. Rejection letters were rare: only 17 applications (one-third of 1 per cent) resulted in rejection letters.”

#20 Positive outcomes: “employers either phoned or wrote to certain applicants asking to interview the person (or in some cases requesting the applicant to appear for a written test). There were 450 positive outcomes of this type (9.4 per cent of all experimental applications).”

#21 “The only aspect of family background that was communicated in these applications was the applicant's name, yet this was enough to generate a different pattern of responses to applications from Muslims and Dalits, compared to those from HC [HIgh Caste] Hindus.”

#22 “These were all highly-educated and appropriately qualified applicants attempting to enter the modern private sector, yet even in this sector, caste and religion proved influential in determining ones job chances.”

#23 “Job applicants with a Dalit or Muslim name were on average significantly less likely to have a positive application outcome than equivalently qualified persons with an HC [High Caste] Hindu name.”

#25 I hope this gives some clarity to those who constantly mix **poverty** with socio-economic marginalisation based on caste, gender, race and ethnicity.