Ending poverty

[Esper]

First off, I'm just curious, and you don't have to answer, but do you know anyone who lives in poverty or are you living in poverty yourself? I wonder how someone's answers to those questions influences their views on the main question, namely:

What can be done to stop poverty?

 

[Somewhere_]

Its hard to solve poverty with a single solution (which is why the problem has been occurring for hundreds of years). Upward mobility would have to be increased, and this can be done in a few ways:

1) the obvious one: economic growth for jobs

2) an improved education system

3) getting married. Families that stay together are much more likely to get out of poverty and not fall out of poverty. Basically if a couple has a kid, if they stay together, the family has a greater chance of rising out of poverty.

4) "Hand up" vs "hand out"- instead of just giving money, helping them get money is better. Receiving money is not sustainable (for anyone- givers or receivers), creating wealth is.

5) Positivity. Teaching kids that they cannot get out is unhealthy. I volunteered at an after school program, and every day the kids recited a sort of anthem that they are confident, smart, and can do anything. Whether this works, i dont know. But I know that doing the opposite hurts.

6) Removing barriers to getting jobs or being self-employed. Its difficult enough to get jobs, but some regulations just prevent small businesses from even getting started. And selling items or becoming a taxi driver. Or whatever it is.

 

[gimmepie]

I didn't used to be, but these days I'm a the very bottom of the middle class at best and probably in the lowest economic classes. This has left me in a weird position where I have possessions but not money (and no I can't sell my possessions they aren't worth enough). I'm in a situation where nobody in my house is able to work right now. I'm sick, my sister is intellectually and physically disabled and my mum has an injured hand and serves as my sister's carer. We often have to struggle to make sure bills are paid and that we have the medication we need.

Anyway, I think the best way to eliminate poverty (or at least to reduce it) is to convert to more socialist ideals. I firmly believe that the best way to reduce class disparity is to lesson the power of corporations/the wealthy, fight privatisation, regulate the market and insure the implementation of good welfare systems and the like.

 

[stzy]

I used to hang out with a bunch of traveling kids, not very well off at all. They would literally hop trains every winter and ride half way across Canada. They would chill in the streets busking for money for about 3 or 4 months and then come back in the summer and work/save up to do it again. They weren't bad people by any means, and I'm not judging their lifestyle. My point is that's what they liked to do. Many of them had plenty of opportunities to change their lives, and didn't. Not because of bad choices, because that's who they were. It definitely helped open my eyes a little in the sense it made me realize happiness really is only a state of mind.

Poverty will never end, at least in my opinion. I feel like as long as there's something to have more of, somebodies going to have more of it, which naturally means somebodies going to have less, or go without. Not to say there isn't an epidemic in some countries and we shouldn't take steps towards rectifying those problems, but to completely wipe-out poverty? I don't think that's something we're ever going to see happen, nor have we ever seen happen. I think gimmiepie is on the right track, too.

 

[Silently Slow]

Nothing can stop poverty. I know spitting out definitions is pretty dumb, but here's the definition of poverty: "The state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.". Okay, this brings up a lot of questions. The "socially acceptable" part is what's really the key phrase here. What's the standard right now? Well, I guess it'd entirely depend on where you live in the world. In the US, a household of 4 is considered poor under the Poverty guidelines if the total income is less than $24,000. However, in other countries, you'd be considered well off if you make that kind of money. And guess what? A long time ago, the poorest countries now would probably be considered superpowers. With that being said, the definition of poverty is always changing, and it'll continue to change. 100 years from now the definition of poverty will be those unable to own their own private jets.

Also, I personally believe that the poor are absolutely necessary. Wiping out poverty would only harm everyone else.

 

[Esper]

Also, I personally believe that the poor are absolutely necessary. Wiping out poverty would only harm everyone else.

Would you care to elaborate on this point a bit more? I'm probably not the first person to think there are some difficult to justify ideas here.

 

[Silently Slow]

Would you care to elaborate on this point a bit more? I'm probably not the first person to think there are some difficult to justify ideas here.

Of course. Well, first of all, why do we have much of the things we have today? Well, the source of many of our materials come from third world countries. Our shoes, electronics, clothes, chocolate, jewelry, all come from poorer countries that use cheap labor. And is it necessary? Well yes. We've come to rely on this system since the very beginning. It's how civilizations have started. It's how many nations flourished for quite a while. The people working there are basically paid slaves. It's no different then how it was back then. It's how the South lived. It's how the first cities were made. The FIRST ever civilization used slaves. Everything since the very beginning has been built through taking advantage of the poor. And guess what? It'll never change. Is it a bad thing? Well, without slaves, I don't think the world would be as advanced as it is today. Do we still need paid slaves today? Yes. It's absolutely necessary to maintain what we have now. The poor are the foundation. And it's too late to start over.

 

[gimmepie]

Of course. Well, first of all, why do we have much of the things we have today? Well, the source of many of our materials come from third world countries. Our shoes, electronics, clothes, chocolate, jewelry, all come from poorer countries that use cheap labor. And is it necessary? Well yes. We've come to rely on this system since the very beginning. It's how civilizations have started. It's how many nations flourished for quite a while. The people working there are basically paid slaves. It's no different then how it was back then. It's how the South lived. It's how the first cities were made. The FIRST ever civilization used slaves. Everything since the very beginning has been built through taking advantage of the poor. And guess what? It'll never change. Is it a bad thing? Well, without slaves, I don't think the world would be as advanced as it is today. Do we still need paid slaves today? Yes. It's absolutely necessary to maintain what we have now. The poor are the foundation. And it's too late to start over.

Just because it's the way things are doesn't mean it has to be. What your talking about is capitalism in its truest form and countries are proving that it is possible to adopt less capitalist ideals (predominantly socialism) to bridge the caps between the classes. Obviously it's far too late for us to eradicate class differences entirely, certainly that will never happen in the short term, but it is still possible for us to move away from a system where some people can barely feed their families whilst trust fund kids never have to work a day in their lives.

The only argument your post provides is "that's how it's always been". You provide no evidence at all to suggest that a change to a fairer system wouldn't work. You also don't explain why this excessive capitalism is a good thing.

 

[Silently Slow]

Just because it's the way things are doesn't mean it has to be. What your talking about is capitalism in its truest form and countries are proving that it is possible to adopt less capitalist ideals (predominantly socialism) to bridge the caps between the classes. Obviously it's far too late for us to eradicate class differences entirely, certainly that will never happen in the short term, but it is still possible for us to move away from a system where some people can barely feed their families whilst trust fund kids never have to work a day in their lives.

The only argument your post provides is "that's how it's always been". You provide no evidence at all to suggest that a change to a fairer system wouldn't work. You also don't explain why this excessive capitalism is a good thing.

Which countries are proving that it's possible to bridge the gap? And how would a fairer system be implemented? None have been tried as far as I know. My response to how it wouldn't work would depend on what this system is like.

 

[gimmepie]

Which countries are proving that it's possible to bridge the gap?

Basically all of Scandinavia. As a general rule these countries aren't as rich as the big capitalist countries, but they have healthy economies and the wealth they have is more evenly spread.

And how would a fairer system be implemented? None have been tried as far as I know. My response to how it wouldn't work would depend on what this system is like.

How would it be implemented? Gradually.
We wouldn't be able to make the necessary changes overnight but things like raising minimum wage (or implementing one in countries without one), making emergency services free, making medical care cheaper for non-elective/cosmetic things, fighting privatisation, implementing cheaper/free education, controlling the market, efficient welfare systems that also provide aid in finding and securing work, reducing taxes on low income earners and increasing taxes that affect the rich and, my personal favourite, cutting politician wages. That is the list of things that came immediately to mind.

 

[Silently Slow]

Basically all of Scandinavia. As a general rule these countries aren't as rich as the big capitalist countries, but they have healthy economies and the wealth they have is more evenly spread.



How would it be implemented? Gradually.
We wouldn't be able to make the necessary changes overnight but things like raising minimum wage (or implementing one in countries without one), making emergency services free, making medical care cheaper for non-elective/cosmetic things, fighting privatisation, implementing cheaper/free education, controlling the market, efficient welfare systems that also provide aid in finding and securing work, reducing taxes on low income earners and increasing taxes that affect the rich and, my personal favourite, cutting politician wages. That is the list of things that came immediately to mind.

Honestly, all of those things sound pretty great. Although I'm sure that there would still be a small group still complaining even if all of this results in poverty as we know it being eliminated. There will always be people wanting more. It's kind of like that book "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie".

 

[gimmepie]

Honestly, all of those things sound pretty great. Although I'm sure that there would still be a small group still complaining even if all of this results in poverty as we know it being eliminated. There will always be people wanting more. It's kind of like that book "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie".

Oh, definitely. Greed has always been a defining human trait. We evolved it over thousands of years to make us more competitive so we could continue our bloodlines over others and so we could easier survive. Even if we managed to start making these changes worldwide, right now, there will always be people who want more because it's part of our human nature.

It's for this reason that we'll never completely eradicate class divides. But we can still eradicate or minimise poverty as it is now and make it so that the gaps between socio-economic classes are smaller. Honestly, I think these are changes we need to start making for the sake of mankind. We need to begin the next stage of our behavioural evolution before we end up destroying ourselves with our greed. The bigger our population gets, the more harmful it is for us to continue as we are where a minority hold all the wealth and horde it for themselves.

 

[Nah]

There's a few things I can think of:

1) Make minimum wage do what it's supposed to again.
Someone correct if I'm wrong, but originally when minimum wage was first implemented in the US the purpose was to guarantee that all working people could at the very least pay the rent and put food on the table every day, and I believe it did that like over a century ago. Today minimum wage is, compared to the cost of living, not enough. Nowadays it's more like "hey kid here's some spending money lol". I would like to think that if people work full time they should be guaranteed food and shelter, y'know? Not have to worry all the time if they can afford that and/or have to work an obscene number of hours/jobs to just do that.

2) Insure that quality education is available to all citizens.
Poverty tends to beget poverty, and this is, iirc, in large part due to how fucking expensive higher education is in the US. While not a guarantee, education has an impact on how well financially someone can do, but the poor simply can't afford it. So it creates this little cycle of: unable to get high paying job--->lives in poverty---->children are born poor---->children can't afford to go to college to have a shot at moving up financially----->repeat

Of course we'd need to fix our education system because the American education system is, imo, garbage and so even if education became affordable it wouldn't necessarily mean anything.

3) Do away with nepotism.
I suppose maybe I just take this one personally, but this always seemed like a really fucked up practice to me. It's like one thing when occasionally someone gives their friend or family member who's been trying to get a job for a while and just has been getting screwed over by stuff a job, but it's another when most places of employment seem to like care more about who you know rather than if you're qualified for the job or not. Not everyone is some highly social person who made acquaintances with all the right people.

....not that all of this would eradicate poverty, but I'd be a step in the right direction.

Maybe. Idk shit about economics.

 

[Keiran]

First off, I'm just curious, and you don't have to answer, but do you know anyone who lives in poverty or are you living in poverty yourself? I wonder how someone's answers to those questions influences their views on the main question, namely:

What can be done to stop poverty?

"We are taught to think of our success in terms of numbers. If touching one person's life is a good thing, then touching one thousands people lives must be a great thing. It's easy to see where we learned to think this way. Our whole society revolves around mass production. The more units we can move. The more customers we can serve. The more boats we can get. The more money and the more stuff we have, the better, right?


Maybe it's not possible to touch one thousand peoples thinking, or as powerfully as one person. Maybe it's not really so revolutionary after all, to have one person out of a group of twenty, tell everybody else what's right. Wouldn't it be better if we tried a decentralized approach where everyone works closely with those around them, instead of a few people waiting in anonymous mass? Do you have to save the world all by yourself, why don't you trust someone else to do it with you?"

One of my favorite quotations. It mentions a few ideas that I think can eradicate poverty all together: trying a decentralized approach, aka focusing solely on local businesses rather than large chains (and in some cases, like cable companies, hold a total monopoly). I believe that poverty is a completely subjective thing. Especially when you give it a threshold (the poverty "level"). I think our best chance at equalizing wealth is investing in small, local businesses that contribute and give back directly to their own communities. For example we have more empty homes than homeless people several times over; I believe that a local housing business would be more concerned with housing their communities and offering affordable living rather than nationwide housing businesses that don't care if a person thousands of miles away cannot afford a house because all they see is numbers - they don't see the impact on communities. Big businesses don't see the direct impact on communities where their stores throw away thousands of dollars of food for silly reasons such as the box was crushed slightly. I don't know. I just think that poverty exists because a small group of people profit off of it. Probably the same people that start wars to create markets for weapons. So I think that we can best eliminate poverty by dismantling the shady businesses that keep people in poverty; working top down, rather than trying to build bottom up with new policies (which don't seem to really work because of the negative responses that come from the top that push the bottom back down anyway).

 

[Kanzler]

One of my favorite quotations. It mentions a few ideas that I think can eradicate poverty all together: trying a decentralized approach, aka focusing solely on local businesses rather than large chains (and in some cases, like cable companies, hold a total monopoly). I believe that poverty is a completely subjective thing. Especially when you give it a threshold (the poverty "level"). I think our best chance at equalizing wealth is investing in small, local businesses that contribute and give back directly to their own communities. For example we have more empty homes than homeless people several times over; I believe that a local housing business would be more concerned with housing their communities and offering affordable living rather than nationwide housing businesses that don't care if a person thousands of miles away cannot afford a house because all they see is numbers - they don't see the impact on communities. Big businesses don't see the direct impact on communities where their stores throw away thousands of dollars of food for silly reasons such as the box was crushed slightly. I don't know. I just think that poverty exists because a small group of people profit off of it. Probably the same people that start wars to create markets for weapons. So I think that we can best eliminate poverty by dismantling the shady businesses that keep people in poverty; working top down, rather than trying to build bottom up with new policies (which don't seem to really work because of the negative responses that come from the top that push the bottom back down anyway).

How do businesses profit from poverty? How do businesses keep people in poverty? I don't think poverty is about shady businesses.

In a capitalist society, people are poor because they don't have jobs or they don't get paid enough. To eliminate poverty, we need people to have jobs and to get paid enough. At a basic level, that means ensuring that people have the opportunity to work and earn a decent living.

 

[Keiran]

How do businesses profit from poverty? How do businesses keep people in poverty? I don't think poverty is about shady businesses.

For-profit prison systems that rely on impoverished, uneducated populations. Gentrification which exploits impoverished communities' cheap property values. Denying, restricting or attempting to deny impoverished communities access to voting to give pro-big business candidates (like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump) advantages in elections. Declaring that joining the military will offer numerous perks (like free education) to bait impoverished citizens into fighting for-profit wars. These are just a few examples of ways that impoverished populations are exploited and are kept impoverished in order to be exploited.

In a capitalist society, people are poor because they don't have jobs or they don't get paid enough. To eliminate poverty, we need people to have jobs and to get paid enough. At a basic level, that means ensuring that people have the opportunity to work and earn a decent living.

People are poor in a capitalist society because the bar for living comfortably is continuously raised when the lower class gets raises. We need to restructure how our society works from the top down in order to truly eliminate poverty. Poverty will always exist in a capitalist society because poverty is profitable.

 

[Kanzler]

For-profit prison systems that rely on impoverished, uneducated populations. Gentrification which exploits impoverished communities' cheap property values. Denying, restricting or attempting to deny impoverished communities access to voting to give pro-big business candidates (like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump) advantages in elections. Declaring that joining the military will offer numerous perks (like free education) to bait impoverished citizens into fighting for-profit wars. These are just a few examples of ways that impoverished populations are exploited and are kept impoverished in order to be exploited.

That's all true, but I wouldn't say that they affect poverty on a fundamental level. A very small minority of the working poor are imprisoned. Gentrification affects the poor in the urban core, but just as much poverty exists in the suburbs (at least where I live). Voter ID laws might disenfranchise some poor voters, but as a cause of poverty I'd say the relationship is very indirect. And the military isn't an instrument that perpetuates poverty, it provides jobs and opportunities for people who otherwise don't have them.

Certain businesses might have a vested interest in making sure there is poverty, but I don't think poverty is necessary for the economy in general, like how slavery is necessary for a slave society for example. I don't think dismantling shady businesses will reduce poverty in a significant way because they're not a major cause of poverty. You would still have unemployment and you would still have low paying jobs. To fix poverty in a significant way you'd have to reduce unemployment and promote high paying jobs.

 

[Esper]

How do businesses profit from poverty? How do businesses keep people in poverty? I don't think poverty is about shady businesses.

People in poverty can't risk asking for a raise, organizing into a union, or rocking the boat in some other way to get more pay or better conditions or whatever. They need to keep their job because they can't afford not to, and if there are a lot of impoverished people then there's going to be a line of people waiting to take your job if you do something that your boss doesn't like.

So it's in large business's interests to have a lot of poor people around because then they don't have to pay as much or give as much and it let's them keep more control. Not every business is going to actively do this, but as a whole they'll lobby in favor of whatever laws keep people from getting paid more or having more say in the economy.

 

[Kanzler]

People in poverty can't risk asking for a raise, organizing into a union, or rocking the boat in some other way to get more pay or better conditions or whatever. They need to keep their job because they can't afford not to, and if there are a lot of impoverished people then there's going to be a line of people waiting to take your job if you do something that your boss doesn't like.

Right, but individuals don't solve poverty, societies do. People shouldn't have to ask for a raise to a living wage, they should be earning that to begin with. People should be unionizing.

So it's in large business's interests to have a lot of poor people around because then they don't have to pay as much or give as much and it let's them keep more control. Not every business is going to actively do this, but as a whole they'll lobby in favor of whatever laws keep people from getting paid more or having more say in the economy.

Is it though? One business might fancy paying its employees little, but this means less disposable income, and for the business, less business throughout the entire economy. If that 10% or so of people living under the poverty rate weren't, then there'd be more business to go around for everybody. I don't agree with the assertion that poverty is necessarily good for business in a capitalist economy. It doesn't have to be in large business's interests to have a lot of poor people around.

 

[Esper]

Right, but individuals don't solve poverty, societies do. People shouldn't have to ask for a raise to a living wage, they should be earning that to begin with. People should be unionizing.

I agree completely. But (speaking for my own country, the US of A) people are constantly told that unions are greedy and corrupt and whatever else that makes people not want to support unions. There are also plenty of laws aimed and reducing the power of unions or people's ability to form unions.

Is it though? One business might fancy paying its employees little, but this means less disposable income, and for the business, less business throughout the entire economy. If that 10% or so of people living under the poverty rate weren't, then there'd be more business to go around for everybody. I don't agree with the assertion that poverty is necessarily good for business in a capitalist economy. It doesn't have to be in large business's interests to have a lot of poor people around.

But if that were true then why are there so many big corporations just sitting on piles of money and not putting it back into the economy?

I guess if your business is in actually making a product or providing a service that everyday people want or need it could be in a business's interests, but even something like Walmart doesn't pay its people well.