NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I don't actually believe poverty is caused by laziness, but I have heard this opinion bandied around a lot by those who are ultra-capitalist. Now, to get it out in the open, I'm rabidly left...but that doesn't make me anti-capitalist...just anti unethical-capitalist.

So.

The argument is, capitalism provides a motivation for people who would be too lazy to be productive otherwise. Thus, poor people are simply those who have been too lazy to get themselves out of poverty.

I disagree completely with this, but like an arm-chair hockey player, I want to see YOU duke it out, and wait until tomorrow to post my own rebuttals. This concept of lazy = poor, hardworking = rich seems to be at the core of the conservative philosophy. I would like some examples of where this has actually been the case (on a wide enough scale to make it more than a fluke), and some explanaition given for why the majority of the world lives in poverty, despite the fact that the majority of the world is (to some varying extents) capitalist. Are there really billions and billions of lazy (poor) people? If so...perhaps your capitalist model ISN'T working as it should.....????

I'm on both sides of the argument. While it's true that most people who are in porverty are not lazy at all, there is an alarmingly large number of people from capitalist nations that simply do not seize given opportunities and make bad choices in life.

Example? See: Colombian side of my family.

Example? See: Colombian side of my family.
Are they living in poverty?

A neccessary condition for accepting that poverty is caused by laziness, is to accept that wealth is caused by laziness.

So is wealth caused by laziness?

It really depends on what you're talking about. Say, in Africa, there is poverty because of the unstability. But in the US, if you're poor for a prolonged period of time, you're either A. Lazy or B. Stupid or C. Extremely unlucky.

"Poverty is caused by laziness!"

Not as often as some would have you believe. I well remember President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War On Poverty." In the fashion of many, LBJ thought that we could elminate poverty by throwing money at it. Not too surprisingly, that approach didn't work. True, some in chronic poverty were helped, but since the majority of those living in poverty are not in a chronic condition, but temporarily there, the efforts were largely wasted.

Poverty has a multitude of causes: temporary loss of job, temporary disability, loss of primary income earner, etc. The ones most deserving of help, IMHO, are single, widowed, separated or divorced mothers. Fortunately most States ( in the US ) now have in place programs to assist this group, particularly the children.

Laziness and poverty are unrelated. Some1 could spend their life running around like crazy in the forest. They'll be poor, but they'll be really healthy.

Poverty is caused by not having a lot of things. People who live in poverty have usualy very little oppertunities for advancement (in education, the workplace, or otherwise), or they require large investments in energy that may or may not pay off. Or they may simply not be willing to jump at those oppertunities.

I said, I do not agree that poverty is caused by laziness, and I believe it can be conquered by:

More ethical capitalism.

1. Governments need to protect their country's food security.- Agribusiness is winning out over domestic food production. Before a country opens up to massive cash crops, food security should be paramount. Staple foods and small farmers need to be protected from free trade agreements. (example: don't let cheap imported onions to destroy local producer's ability to grow)

2. Protect labour rights.- Unregulated trade pits workers against each other, stripping away benefits in the 'rush to the bottom' to provide lower wages and labour rights in order to attract invenstment. This has a spiral effect which benefits no worker in any nation. (example: workers in the US are too expensive, so factories move to Malaysia. Malaysia gets too expensive, so they move to China and so on...each worker making less than the last)

3. Protect intellectual property rights. This means guaranteeing access to essential drugs and protecting biodiversity. (example: shortening patents to allow for essential generics, such as AIDS antiretrovirals)

4. To promote democracy, trade rules need to be formulated in part by citizens. - trade organisations like APEC, the WTO or NAFTA have little to no input from the people they affect. If we truly support democracy, trade must become more democratically defined. That would mean allowing civil and political rights to come into play when nations sign treaties. (example: Canada must ask Canadians if we want to sell our water)

5. Foreign investment must be regulated to protect citizens. Investor speculation has caused serious destabilisation in countries like Argentina (earlier, Mexico and the countries who suffered from the 'Asian flu'). Investment needs to be linked to national development priorities. (example: infrastructure investments should not be counted as government expenditure when the IMF demands that budget surpuses be used to service international debts)

Completely unregulated capitalism is NOT curbed by some 'invisible hand'. It needs to curb itself. Sometimes that means a bit slower growth, but in the end, we should be shooting for growth that is lasting rather than transitory.

EDIT: I forgot to credit the New Internationalist; www.newint.org, issue 374 with that list I summarised here. Sorry!

The ones most deserving of help, IMHO, are single, widowed, separated or divorced mothers. Fortunately most States ( in the US ) now have in place programs to assist this group, particularly the children.
So in your opinion a widowed women with 3 children to support is more deserving of assistance than a widowed man with 3 children to support?

A neccessary condition for accepting that poverty is caused by laziness, is to accept that wealth is caused by laziness.

So is wealth caused by laziness?
You lost me...the argument I hear is that wealth is a reward for hard work, and poverty is due to laziness.

Okay, I don't actually believe poverty is caused by laziness, but I have heard this opinion bandied around a lot by those who are ultra-capitalist. Now, to get it out in the open, I'm rabidly left...but that doesn't make me anti-capitalist...just anti unethical-capitalist.

So.

The argument is, capitalism provides a motivation for people who would be too lazy to be productive otherwise. Thus, poor people are simply those who have been too lazy to get themselves out of poverty.

I disagree completely with this, but like an arm-chair hockey player, I want to see YOU duke it out, and wait until tomorrow to post my own rebuttals. This concept of lazy = poor, hardworking = rich seems to be at the core of the conservative philosophy. I would like some examples of where this has actually been the case (on a wide enough scale to make it more than a fluke), and some explanaition given for why the majority of the world lives in poverty, despite the fact that the majority of the world is (to some varying extents) capitalist. Are there really billions and billions of lazy (poor) people? If so...perhaps your capitalist model ISN'T working as it should.....????
it is a fact that many - if not most - truly rich people did not start off poor. it is also a fact that people are born into poverty. getting rich is like climbing a ladder and if, like some, you are born towards the top of it, you are going to have an easier job getting rich than someone who starts at the bottom. so lazy = poor, hardworking = rich doesn't work.
however, truly lazy people do tend to be poorer simply by the fact they are lazy, so there is a correlation, just not the one proposed.

So in your opinion a widowed women with 3 children to support is more deserving of assistance than a widowed man with 3 children to support?
I think the point was not that one is more deserving than the other, but rather that women and children make up the majority of poor. Majority, not totality.

[IMG][COLOR=DarkGreen]In my opinion poverty is caused by people who dont spend there money like they should. I know this family and once they get a dime they spend a dollar. I think people are way to materialistic these days. We all need to learn to do with out some things. You know what I mean? Everyone buys on impulse. Poverty could be helped by a better financial education and long term investment plans. You know get people looking at the bigger picture and planning for the future[/COLOR

it is a fact that many - if not most - truly rich people did not start off poor. it is also a fact that people are born into poverty. getting rich is like climbing a ladder and if, like some, you are born towards the top of it, you are going to have an easier job getting rich than someone who starts at the bottom. so lazy = poor, hardworking = rich doesn't work.
however, truly lazy people do tend to be poorer simply by the fact they are lazy, so there is a correlation, just not the one proposed.
So how many lazy poor are there compared to 'ladder' poor? Does one group outnumber the other? If so, does capitalism (free market, unrestrained) address this?

Poverty is caused by corruption. Corruption in the upper echelons of society is what causes poverty. It is because of oppresion by capitalists that poverty exists. Eliminate the source of oppresion and corruption and you eliminate poverty.

I voted that poverty has no cure-- it's inevitable.
I'm not aware of a single form of government that has the cure, save in utopian ideological thought-experiments.
Unfortunately, there will always be the weak and the strong.
Anyone else who tells you something different is just pushing an agenda.

[IMG]In my opinion poverty is caused by people who dont spend there money like they should. I know this family and once they get a dime they spend a dollar. I think people are way to materialistic these days. We all need to learn to do with out some things. You know what I mean? Everyone buys on impulse. Poverty could be helped by a better financial education and long term investment plans. You know get people looking at the bigger picture and planning for the future
No need to shout...we see you.

Not spending their money like they should...you are thinking of people who have a surplus after basic living expenses..the vast majority of people living in poverty barely have enough to make meet their living expenses...that's BARE minimum...not spending on cavier one night instead of potatoes. Do you really think someone living in a slum in Bangladesh has the opportunity to put 'extra' money into some mutual funds?

Poverty is caused by corruption. Corruption in the upper echelons of society is what causes poverty. It is because of oppresion by capitalists that poverty exists. Eliminate the source of oppresion and corruption and you eliminate poverty.
Kill capitalists and solve the problem of poverty....hmmm....I rather doubt it...

I voted that poverty has no cure-- it's inevitable.
I'm not aware of a single form of government that has the cure, save in utopian ideological thought-experiments.
Unfortunately, there will always be the weak and the strong.
Anyone else who tells you something different is just pushing an agenda.
Rather like you, pushing an agenda of "the status quo is fine because nothing else works either". At least I'm upfront about my agenda.

Rather like you, pushing an agenda of "the status quo is fine because nothing else works either". At least I'm upfront about my agenda.
Hon, after 1500 posts here, you cant possibly believe I represent or condone the status quo.

There are those that are plain lazy. But there are also those that can't help the condition that they are in. And it's not just widowed single mothers or the disabled. Even if you are perfectly healthy and not widowed you can fall into the poor category. If for example the economy of your country is going bad at the moment and you would happen to live in the most poor part of the country, with little or no industry and business you will have a hard time finding a job. So just move you say? How? Moving around costs money. Which you don't have in abundance at that time. You need food, a place to stay. I don't know how it is in other parts of the world but here in the Netherlands there's something extra. The 3 northern provinces are the less developed. All the work is located in the West and South. And the cities there have come up with something to prevent an influx from the north. You can only apply for work there if you live in a 20 km or something radius. Which you can't do unless you have a place to stay there. So unless you have friends or relatives living in those areas with whom you can stay untill you find a place of your own your out of luck.

Can I get a definition of what you mean by "poor" because poor is relative... I would consider myself poor, but I got to a very rich business school so I'm not poor compared to those in Africa.

Poverty can be caused for a number of reasons and usually a combination of them, laziness playing a part in various ways. However, if someone became poor solely because they were lazy, it's probably gonna stay that way. You can give them all the benefits they want, as long as they don't have to work, they won't. A bigger problem, in my opinion, is how the children of the poor, who might be willing to work, are left in the dust because of their parent's mistakes. You can bring down the wealth generation after generation just because of one link in the chain, and it doesn't help that the parrents are likely to imprint some of their attitudes on to their children. And children can't just get up and move up a social class, it doesn't work like that. If the parents can't pay any significant portion of a college tuition it is unlikely that the child will get a decent enough education to make them qualified for what they choose to do in life, and that in turn keeps the poor poor.

In short, yes, the begginnings of poverty can be caused by laziness, but to say that every poor person is lazy is not necessarily true. Not that that's what you are saying, just my views. I didn't even mention the many other valid reasons for being poor, but this I think is a pretty big one. I don't think that poorness can be eliminated, but it can definitely be lessened if people could progress up through society without having to pay for it (which really isn't feasible to a certain extent, just saying). It's all about giving people more oppurtunity.

Edit: This is from the viewpoint of America's problems, which are nowhere near the poverty problems of some other nations, so it's really only applied if you live here.

Can I get a definition of what you mean by "poor" because poor is relative... I would consider myself poor, but I got to a very rich business school so I'm not poor compared to those in Africa.
You can be poor even if you live in a richer country. Then you are poor by the standards of the country you are in.
And this whole I'm not poor compared to Africa, Asia etc....am i the only one that feels like this is somekind of gloating or something? Like, oh boy....I feel so fat. But hey, my neigbour weighs 800 kilo's. Suddenly I don't feel that fat afterall.

Can I get a definition of what you mean by "poor" because poor is relative... I would consider myself poor, but I got to a very rich business school so I'm not poor compared to those in Africa.
Based on more local statistics. It's always about statistics, the yardstick of relativity.

I think most of the poor can work hard and with a little government help become successfull.

In the developed countries that means cheap education and free health care. So if you are at least intelligent and hard working, you can work your way out of poverty.

If you dont take advantage of that, then you ARE stupid or lazy. We just have to make sure that people have those chances. Capitalism works but one must have some capital to invest in order to better ones self. Its really silly to say the poor are lazy but what would you do if you had some crappy job with no access to education to get a better job?


Its a different story in the developing world. Capitalism takes advantage of 10 cent /hour workers true. But if we mandate a world min wage or min standards, why wouldnt trade go to the place that doesnt enforce these rules.

In the long run I think capitalism will improve the developing countries but its tough to tell.... :(

You lost me...the argument I hear is that wealth is a reward for hard work, and poverty is due to laziness.
Because wealth and poverty are both descriptions of uneven distributions of wealth. For there to be either, there has to be an uneven distribution of wealth, and if laziness is a cause of uneven distribution of wealth it is a cause of both poverty and wealth, if it isnt a cause of uneven distribution of wealth, then it isnt a cause of poverty.

the problem is that a farmer in the US can do the same amount of work as a farmer in Africa, with the American being well off and the African making a substance wage (just enough to survive on). Technogy levels are worse in the Third World, and this leads to less productivity. Companies are reluctant to invest in countries that are politically unstable. So when new technologies come out, the countries that are already advanced gain most of the benefit.
One example is pharmaceuticals. In 1998, the United States was 40% of the entire world's market. The First World (US, Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan) was 83.5% of the world's market. Now if you're a drug company, would you rather spend money developing medicine for high blood pressure or for malaria? You have to go with the market. Education is also important. In the US it is hard not to get a high school degree. In other countries there are obstacles, especially along gender lines.
How wealthy you will become is based off of where you are born. Outsourcing is part of the correction to this fact. Someone in India can computer program just as well as you, so they can get American jobs because they will work for less. The easier it is to outsource, the more wages will rise in the Third World and the more they will drop in the First World, until people earn approximately what they are worth.

Here's my two cents worth: If someone can get a job and doesn't, it's their problem. Starve, derelicts. Or better yet, get out of my area - by force if necessary and then starve. I can understand a bit if they are either a) a veteran or b) disabled. Disabled does not include retartedness or insanity: those are free rides to welfare. Disabled means like both legs cut off. Then they can get some benefits. Otherwise, forget it.

People need to get jobs and help the economy, not sit back and leech off the welfare states which are so numerous both in NS and in RL.

Socialism and Communism are synonymous. They both will fail over time. Capitalism is the only way, look: the US is the greatest country in the world and we are the most capitalist. Put two and two together.

In the long run I think capitalism will improve the developing countries but its tough to tell.... :(
It seems to have some effect. When the First World economy is booming, the Third World increases somewhat. When the First World is in a slowdown (around 1-2% growth), the Third World stays at the status quo.

the US is the greatest country in the world
Thats just your opinion.

Socialism and Communism are synonymous.
no.

They both will fail over time.
how do you know? the USSR? Not true communist.

Capitalism is the only way, look: the US is the greatest country in the world and we are the most capitalist. Put two and two together.
a lovely simplistic view. of course there are no other factors that contribute to america's current economic might, other than this fact.

the US is the greatest country in the world .
what Von Witzleben said.

Caused by all you capalist bastards who outsource to India.

I believe it is circumstancial. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I personally prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, however.

how do you know? the USSR? Not true communist.

Ok, so of all the self-described communist uprisings and regimes that the world has seen over the past 100 years how many have been "true communist"?

On the same track, how many of these communist states have delivered the peace, freedom and prosperity they promised?

Caused by all you capalist bastards who outsource to India.
I resent that! :p
Seriously, I outsource on a semi-regular basis and get talented individuals who work their asses off for American wages... not less.
I won't pay someone less, even if I'm overpaying based on their own currency value. Just the way I run business.
Now if there were more American designers who'd work half as hard as they do for American wages, I'd forget my experience and only hire within the states. But I can't compromise my standards for patriotism.

Kill me, I know I'll catch heat for this. I just don't see any difference between an American employee and an Indian or Czechloslovakian employee.
Save one seems to appreciate my trust more.

I hate sounding unAmeriucan, but it's the damn truth.

A neccessary condition for accepting that poverty is caused by laziness, is to accept that wealth is caused by laziness.
That's the 7th stupidest thing I've ever heard. Did you mean to say that wealth is caused by a lack of laziness?

Poverty is caused by corruption. Corruption in the upper echelons of society is what causes poverty. It is because of oppresion by capitalists that poverty exists. Eliminate the source of oppresion and corruption and you eliminate poverty.

No, you simply redefine "poverty" to mean everyone.

That's the 7th stupidest thing I've ever heard. Did you mean to say that wealth is caused by a lack of laziness?
No I didnt. If it is such a stupid notion, then I dont doubt you will have no trouble refuting the rationale (as posted on this thread) behind it, and so, based on your comments, I look forward to reading your refutation of the reasoning behind the 7th stupidist thing you've ever heard...

Ok, so of all the self-described communist uprisings and regimes that the world has seen over the past 100 years how many have been "true communist"?

On the same track, how many of these communist states have delivered the peace, freedom and prosperity they promised?
[/groans] too tired for this... its 20 to 3 am...
short answer: i don't know. however, the common misconception is that the USSR was, indeed a communist state. while it was a system founded on many of the ideals of marx's writings, it mutated into something else - a totalitarian police-state for one, which is not communism.

on a counternote (or something - i really am falling asleep) is it really true that capitalism has brought peace, freedom and prosperity (for all)? think about it. (i think the answer is no ;) )

[/groans] too tired for this... its 20 to 3 am...
short answer: i don't know. however, the common misconception is that the USSR was, indeed a communist state. while it was a system founded on many of the ideals of marx's writings, it mutated into something else - a totalitarian police-state for one, which is not communism.

on a counternote (or something - i really am falling asleep) is it really true that capitalism has brought peace, freedom and prosperity (for all)? think about it. (i think the answer is no ;) )

Just a few words: A "pure" governemnt is imossible. No, there's never been a pure capitalist, socialist, communist, etc. form of government that's ever existed (or may ever exist).

That's why less is always more.

poverty can be conquered by an ironfisted fascist state headed by a vanguard of elite gay/lesbian/bi nationist intellectual politicomilitary managers.

[QUOTE=
So is wealth caused by laziness?[/QUOTE]

Sure.

It's called inheritance.

So in your opinion a widowed women with 3 children to support is more deserving of assistance than a widowed man with 3 children to support?

Depends on the situation.

A widowed CEO? Nope......

Just a few words: A "pure" governemnt is imossible. No, there's never been a pure capitalist, socialist, communist, etc. form of government that's ever existed (or may ever exist).

That's why less is always more.
that's true. and is why the USSR, China, communist uprisings are not pure communist (to my understanding). i dont even remember what it is im arguing about anymore and im typing my thoughts out loud ( :confused: ) im off to bed

Sure.

It's called inheritance.
i like that quote, is it yours?

its seems like i've heard it before,but i can't remember where.

Depends on the situation.

A widowed CEO? Nope......
Black Forrest, I'm having trouble seeing your comment as anything but fallicious. The poster who I was replying to made no reference to current financial circumstances, however I think it would be deliberately obtuse to interpret the remark as meaning, a rich widow deserves financial assistance from the State. I suggest that the poster didnt intend the remarks to mean that at all. Certainly my question with regards to the deservedness of widows and widowers, were made in the context of an assumed need for financial assistence on the part of both.

However if it you really feel it is necessary, I shall rephrase for your benefit.

So in your opinion a widowed women with 3 children who is in need of financial assitance in order to meet the legitimate needs of her 3 children, is more deserving of assistance than a widowed man with 3 children who is in equal need of financial assistance in order to meet the legitimate needs of his 3 children?

Frankly though, I find it hard to believe that you actually believed that I was asking about, or that Eutrasca was originally referring to, people who have no need of financial assistance.

Sure.

It's called inheritance.

If so, then you'd need to invert the phrase to "wealth causes laziness." Generally speaking, in order for there to even be an inheritance, at least one person in the family had to be either lucky or entreprenurial or both.

As for the main question, laziness is, or at least can be a cause of poverty. That being said, it's a fairly peripheral one. Far more important are institutional considerations. For example, poverty in inner cities could be considered the effects of drugs, lack of parenting, and lack of education. But what causes these things? Most people who are honest and open about their involvement in the drug trade would tell you that they would be honest if they could, but there are no jobs in the inner city, and they still have to eat. So, they turn to peddling drugs in order to fulfill that need.

Drugs wreak havoc with family life certainly, but most studies on the subject find that the main reason for the absence of father's in urban children's lives isn't drugs; it's the draconian drug policies that lock them up for years at a time for possession, and that make drugs that are associated with the inner city far more heavily penalized than the kinds of drugs more often associated with suburbia. For example, crack cocaine and coke, both pharmocologically identical and differing only in the means of delivery into the bloodsteam, are nevertheless treated quite differently by the legal system; the average (usually white and suburban) cocaine user receives court-mandated rehab, while it is almost mandatory that crack users (usually black and poor, because crack is much cheaper to transport) receive jail time.

As for education, it is something that a person has to work for to be sure, and one can also be certain of a certain strain of anti-intellectualism running through the usually urban-associated hip-hop culture, but at the same time, what most prevents urban students from excelling is that their parents are usually poor, and their neighboorhoods usually dirt cheap, meaning that schools (who's wealth comes in large part from local property taxes) in the area will almost by definition be behind in the game from the very outset. While there is no definitive link between increased revenues and increased performance, you'd have a very hard time saying that not funding schools at all is not in some way likely to result in children who lack the educational tools to improve themselves.

Even more than that, history has shown no necessary correlation between wealth and work ethic, Weber's analysis notwithstanding. In the 1870's, the average person worked 60+ hours per week, and earned what we would consider inhumanly low wages. Even today, the average farmer in America still pulls down those hours, and most only survive because of government assistance. If so, then it is very hard to find any definite correlation between work and wealth. Some people who work hard get wealthy, but some who don't get wealthy too. Most people work hard, but only a few get wealthy. In short, the Horatio Alger myth is just that--a myth.

If so, then you'd need to invert the phrase to "wealth causes laziness." Generally speaking, in order for there to even be an inheritance, at least one person in the family had to be either lucky or entreprenurial or both.

As for the main question, laziness is, or at least can be a cause of poverty. That being said, it's a fairly peripheral one. Far more important are institutional considerations. For example, poverty in inner cities could be considered the effects of drugs, lack of parenting, and lack of education. But what causes these things? Most people who are honest and open about their involvement in the drug trade would tell you that they would be honest if they could, but there are no jobs in the inner city, and they still have to eat. So, they turn to peddling drugs in order to fulfill that need.

Drugs wreak havoc with family life certainly, but most studies on the subject find that the main reason for the absence of father's in urban children's lives isn't drugs; it's the draconian drug policies that lock them up for years at a time for possession, and that make drugs that are associated with the inner city far more heavily penalized than the kinds of drugs more often associated with suburbia. For example, crack cocaine and coke, both pharmocologically identical and differing only in the means of delivery into the bloodsteam, are nevertheless treated quite differently by the legal system; the average (usually white and suburban) cocaine user receives court-mandated rehab, while it is almost mandatory that crack users (usually black and poor, because crack is much cheaper to transport) receive jail time.

As for education, it is something that a person has to work for to be sure, and one can also be certain of a certain strain of anti-intellectualism running through the usually urban-associated hip-hop culture, but at the same time, what most prevents urban students from excelling is that their parents are usually poor, and their neighboorhoods usually dirt cheap, meaning that schools (who's wealth comes in large part from local property taxes) in the area will almost by definition be behind in the game from the very outset. While there is no definitive link between increased revenues and increased performance, you'd have a very hard time saying that not funding schools at all is not in some way likely to result in children who lack the educational tools to improve themselves.

Even more than that, history has shown no necessary correlation between wealth and work ethic, Weber's analysis notwithstanding. In the 1870's, the average person worked 60+ hours per week, and earned what we would consider inhumanly low wages. Even today, the average farmer in America still pulls down those hours, and most only survive because of government assistance. If so, then it is very hard to find any definite correlation between work and wealth. Some people who work hard get wealthy, but some who don't get wealthy too. Most people work hard, but only a few get wealthy. In short, the Horatio Alger myth is just that--a myth.
I don't agree 100%, but that was a damn good post.
Thanks for the great read.

In developed nations, Socialism( Social programs, Not government run industry) can stop poverty or atleast reduce it. In developing nations Capitalism is the way to go.

In developed nations, Socialism( Social programs, Not government run industry) can stop poverty or atleast reduce it. In developing nations Capitalism is the way to go.
I agree with you partway. But Socialism cures poverty?
Then why do Socialist Democracies (like France) have a frightening unemployment rate and unerasable poverty????
:confused:

Poverty cannot be solved via socialism. If you disagree with me than take an example from the former USSR. They claimed to have no poverty until the 1980s. When they finally admitted they had poverty, they claimed 20% of their country was below the poverty line. A British expert on the USSR estimated that as much as 40% was below the line though.

With that said, poverty cannot be solved via capitalism. Capitalism is the best market system (those are my Econ classes speaking), but it is not perfect. There is a balance between free market and government intervention that promotes a steadily improving economy. I don’t know what that balance is, neither do any of you.

Poverty is caused by laziness among other things (i.e. bad home, drugs, alcohol, having a child while being too young, etc.). I think it is acceptable to believe that ending poverty is an impossible task.

Poverty is sort of like God: Is, was, and always will be.

I agree with you partway. But Socialism cures poverty?
Then why do Socialist Democracies (like France) have a frightening unemployment rate and unerasable poverty????
:confused:

I'm thinking of Nations like Sweden and Norway as examples.

Also, The US poverty rate is 12.5% and 6.40 % in France. I'm not sure on unemployment rate, but i'm sure US has the lower UE rate.


Socialism is about wealth equalization. If this was to happen in developed nations everyone would have an easy life. Of course this would be impossible to do. If Wealth equalization occured in Nigeria(Developping nation), the people would have very little.

Poverty is inevitable in whatever form of economics you take.

I think it's more like Laziness can attribute to poverty...


but some people are born into a situational poverty...


Not everyone has it in them to be a self made kagillionaire.

i like that quote, is it yours?

its seems like i've heard it before,but i can't remember where.

I did pull it out of my head. If it came from somewhere else, I am not sure.....

I feel bad for the working poor who are trying to do the right thing but don't seem to have the wherewithal (for whatever reason) to get out of poverty. Especially when they just seem to suffer from a lot of bad luck.

This is doubly so when I see some of the wooden tops that work as civil servants, teacher &ct. that are constantly bitch about how bad they have it.

On the other hand, a lot of "welfare" poor are just lazy and unrealistic. You know what, sitting on your ass drawing welfare checks is never going to make you a top trial attorney.

I have worked in social services for almost 20 years, in both California and Texas. For 8 of those years I was a welfare case worker and determined eligibility for Welfare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps, plus other programs, and maintained a large case load.

I have interviewed literally thousands of people over the years. In my experience, most people on welfare fell into the following groups:

Single mothers (occasionally fathers) left in lurch by their partner who lacked skills or sense of self worth to get back to work. Welfare Reform was aimed primarily at these people and has had some, but not complete by any stretch, success.

Multigenerational welfare receiptants who have literally never known anything else. Now up to 4 generations, and when I was working directly in that field it was common to have grandparents raising one children, Mom raising another, and eventually the teen aged daughter has her child.... 4 generations. This is a tough cycle to change. Welfare Reform was directed at this too.

Disabled adults and Parents caring for disabled adult and minor children... probably a third or more of all of the people I have worked with over the years. Without community assistance, they literally are stuck in their situation. Even then, it is actually cheaper for us all to have them care for their disabled dependents than for the government to do it (which is why a lot of States closed their mental hospitals). Jury is out on this one long term, but I suspect this will remain extremely common.

Cheaters are extremely rare (less than 5% in my experience) and are generally caught (and the amounts lost are relatively small).... the worst cases of Welfare fraud I ever heard about (with factual verification) actually involved corruption by officials working in the field.

States and the Federal Government spend nearly twice as much on Medicaid (free medical insurance) than on cash payments and food stamps.

Just stating the facts.

I know people who are in poverty because they're just stupid.
I know people who are in poverty because they won't get off their asses.
But the vast majority of the poor people I know have tried their best to change things, and are still poor. I know people who have worked their tails off and never gotten ahead. People who worked for the state and found their retirement gives them barely enough to eat on. People who thought that their loving spouse would always be there, only to get dumped with three kids and no recent job history. People who thought 22 was too young to have to worry about disability insurance. People who were just average students with average grades, but had marketable skills, until there was no market.
People can't foresee every circumstance that may come along.
People figure they've still got a little time to plan.
People make decisions they regret.
All people who are perfect can scream about the unfairness of them helping someone who made a mistake. Remember, that safety net may save your ass one day.

So in your opinion a widowed women with 3 children who is in need of financial assitance in order to meet the legitimate needs of her 3 children, is more deserving of assistance than a widowed man with 3 children who is in equal need of financial assistance in order to meet the legitimate needs of his 3 children?

No.

I have worked in social services for almost 20 years, in both California and Texas. For 8 of those years I was a welfare case worker and determined eligibility for Welfare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps, plus other programs, and maintained a large case load.

I have interviewed literally thousands of people over the years. In my experience, most people on welfare fell into the following groups:

Single mothers (occasionally fathers) left in lurch by their partner who lacked skills or sense of self worth to get back to work. Welfare Reform was aimed primarily at these people and has had some, but not complete by any stretch, success.

I feel bad for these people, as long as they are using it as a temporary safety net to get themselves back on their feet.

Multigenerational welfare receiptants who have literally never known anything else. Now up to 4 generations, and when I was working directly in that field it was common to have grandparents raising one children, Mom raising another, and eventually the teen aged daughter has her child.... 4 generations. This is a tough cycle to change. Welfare Reform was directed at this too.

These people are lazy, and/or stupid. I find it hard to beleive that they have never witnessed the miracle of TV which could communicate to them that there are alternatives. Like a job.

Disabled adults and Parents caring for disabled adult and minor children... probably a third or more of all of the people I have worked with over the years. Without community assistance, they literally are stuck in their situation. Even then, it is actually cheaper for us all to have them care for their disabled dependents than for the government to do it (which is why a lot of States closed their mental hospitals). Jury is out on this one long term, but I suspect this will remain extremely common.

These are the only people who I think have a legitimate claim to permanent welfare. The sad thing is that many disabled people become productive members of society against all odds, while workshy ingrates sit on their ass and complain about how unfair the system is.

Cheaters are extremely rare (less than 5% in my experience) and are generally caught (and the amounts lost are relatively small).... the worst cases of Welfare fraud I ever heard about (with factual verification) actually involved corruption by officials working in the field.

States and the Federal Government spend nearly twice as much on Medicaid (free medical insurance) than on cash payments and food stamps.

Because medical care - especially delivered through medicaid - is expensive.
For the life of me I will never understand why welfare recepients aren't enroled in HMOs to cut costs, instead of just letting them wander in and out of Emergency rooms.



Just stating the facts.[/QUOTE]

I know people who are in poverty because they're just stupid.
I know people who are in poverty because they won't get off their asses.
But the vast majority of the poor people I know have tried their best to change things, and are still poor. I know people who have worked their tails off and never gotten ahead. People who worked for the state and found their retirement gives them barely enough to eat on. People who thought that their loving spouse would always be there, only to get dumped with three kids and no recent job history. People who thought 22 was too young to have to worry about disability insurance. People who were just average students with average grades, but had marketable skills, until there was no market.
People can't foresee every circumstance that may come along.
People figure they've still got a little time to plan.
People make decisions they regret.
All people who are perfect can scream about the unfairness of them helping someone who made a mistake. Remember, that safety net may save your ass one day.

Exactly. And some people just can't seem to "keep up."

Poverty, like many other things, can become a habit, particularly when you allow yourself to become discouraged and disheartened.

If you've never been there, it's easy enough to criticise, but try finding a job when your car has been repossessed, or you've lost your "place of residence," or you're "too old," or "too disabled," or ALL of the above.

most States are now placing or have already placed people on Medcaid in HMOs.... however, HMOs aren't exactly easy to deal with and don't seem to be the savings panacea that was hoped for.

Most of the people in the temporary safety net are there because of short term disaster and generally aren't on long.... less would be there if more absent parents actually paid their child support. Which is why States really go after dead beat parents (effectiveness varies a LOT)

From my experience the multi generational receiptants were far and away the hardest to work with.... although once again, we are talking individuals here and some were indeed lazy, some simply lacked any kind of imagination but lots of other reasons existed too. The hope, at least for me, was to get the children out of the situation through education (mixed results there).

A lot of disabled people live very productive lives, definitely (family members of mine come to mind). But many can't for various reasons for long periods of time and sometimes never can (productive defined strictly on the ability to work and add to the economy, not on a family or general worth basis definition...my wife is seriously disabled and takes very good care of her children (now mine as well through marriage). One of her children is severely disabled as well, and probably (short of more medical miracles) remain that way for life.

Welfare fraud comes up a lot in popular folklore (welfare cadillacs analogy) but I have never seen one, nor do I know anyone who as any actual verified experience of seeing that kind of situation. They generally get caught way before that (and there are interview techniques and verification tools that catch them).

unreimbursed Emergency Room costs (that are not covered by any kind of insurance) are because a lot of people AREN"T on Medicaid, or any other type of insurance because they don't qualify. Generally we are talking the working poor here. Overincome for Medicaid, and the job doesn't provide affordable or any other kind of insurance. However, some are from illegal aliens (although can you honestly say it is ethical to deny a critically ill or injured child or adult care because they can't pay for it? Regardless of how they got here?) Most adults do not qualify for Medicaid under any circumstances (only exception are those actually on a Welfare case). Only other exception are pregnant women (technically the Medicaid is for the child who the mother happens to be carrying around) and adults getting SSI (a form of Federal/State Welfare that is extremely hard to get).

My impression has been that a lot of poor people are poor not because they're lazy, but because they honestly don't have a clear idea of what they have to do not to be poor. Just working hard isn't going to bring you out of poverty. If you want consistent employment and a decent salary, you have to be qualified for at least a job that offers the posibility of stability or advancement.

If you want to stop being poor, you have to take steps to learn some specific job that is within your capacity to learn with the resources you have, and it really isn't obvious what that job should be, or how you learn it. The odds are good that you don't have all that many successful friends or relatives to use as a model - my experience has been that poverty tends to socially isolate the poor from the well off.

Most people I've met who are poor would gladly work very hard, if they knew what work they could do to solve their problems.

I do know some people who do cheat on welfare. I have an aunt who doesn't report that she earns some money selling pecans at the famers market that she picks on her friends property. She's disabled because she has frequent seizures, up to five per day. She usually has fewer, but even five per week keep her from being employable. She doesn't report this income because it will cause her to lose benefits that aren't enough to live on anyway. If she reports this income(up to 200.00 per month) she loses food stamps. She was a speech therapist before she became disabled, but her benefits are limited because she was only forty when she became disabled.
I know of other people who cheat the system in small ways. I know it's wrong, but for some of them it's the only way they can make it.

Okay, I don't actually believe poverty is caused by laziness, but I have heard this opinion bandied around a lot by those who are ultra-capitalist. Now, to get it out in the open, I'm rabidly left...but that doesn't make me anti-capitalist...just anti unethical-capitalist.

So.

The argument is, capitalism provides a motivation for people who would be too lazy to be productive otherwise. Thus, poor people are simply those who have been too lazy to get themselves out of poverty.

I disagree completely with this, but like an arm-chair hockey player, I want to see YOU duke it out, and wait until tomorrow to post my own rebuttals. This concept of lazy = poor, hardworking = rich seems to be at the core of the conservative philosophy. I would like some examples of where this has actually been the case (on a wide enough scale to make it more than a fluke), and some explanaition given for why the majority of the world lives in poverty, despite the fact that the majority of the world is (to some varying extents) capitalist. Are there really billions and billions of lazy (poor) people? If so...perhaps your capitalist model ISN'T working as it should.....????
personal experience makes me believe that, in America, people usually BECOME poor due to outside forces (and not merely because they are lazy), but if they REMAIN poor for very extended periods of time then they are either a) handicapped in some way, or b) lazy/stupid.

Okay, I don't actually believe poverty is caused by laziness, but I have heard this opinion bandied around a lot by those who are ultra-capitalist. Now, to get it out in the open, I'm rabidly left...but that doesn't make me anti-capitalist...just anti unethical-capitalist.

=( Where is the "some, but not all poverty is caused by laziness," option?

I live in relative poverty apparently, and it's not because me or my family are lazy, I work ridiculously hard in school, my mum works as a nurse, 12 hour shifts 4 times a week, my dad can't find a job.........

We could solve poverty by redistribution of wealth, face it, the rich dont need that much money, fair enough give managers etc a bigger paycheck, but not that big, and profits should be properly distributed.

I do know some people who do cheat on welfare. I have an aunt who doesn't report that she earns some money selling pecans at the famers market that she picks on her friends property. She's disabled because she has frequent seizures, up to five per day. She usually has fewer, but even five per week keep her from being employable. She doesn't report this income because it will cause her to lose benefits that aren't enough to live on anyway. If she reports this income(up to 200.00 per month) she loses food stamps. She was a speech therapist before she became disabled, but her benefits are limited because she was only forty when she became disabled.
I know of other people who cheat the system in small ways. I know it's wrong, but for some of them it's the only way they can make it.

In Texas, when I worked as a case worker, most of that income would have not been counted against her (encouragement to work is built into the regulations). Depends on the state.

In developed nations, Socialism( Social programs, Not government run industry) can stop poverty or atleast reduce it. In developing nations Capitalism is the way to go.
Unfair advantage. Developed nations became developed because of strong protectionist policies and social programs that brought the standard of living up for their people. Now those same countries demand that other nations develop without these advantages. The idea that free market capitalism (with an emphasis on stripping away social programs and other 'barriers' to trade) does not allow for the meaningful development of a country, only for the exploitation of its resources. "Trickle down" doesn't work. Investment doesn't guarantee infrastructure, especially when investment is completely unfettered, and free to flow from one place to another at the click of a mouse. Demanding that subsidies be slashed in African nations, but continuing to heavily subsidise domestic producers is a hypocrisy of immense proportions.

Developed nations need to maintain social programs.

Developing nations need to develop social programs.

Capitalism needs to be restrained by the five points I mentioned on the first page.

Poverty cannot be solved via socialism. If you disagree with me than take an example from the former USSR. They claimed to have no poverty until the 1980s. When they finally admitted they had poverty, they claimed 20% of their country was below the poverty line. A British expert on the USSR estimated that as much as 40% was below the line though.

Ah...but the majority of people had the basics....talk to people in the countries that once made up the USSR now, and you'll see that Capitalism has not solved their problems, and in fact has exacerbated poverty to near monumental proportions. Was poverty caused by socialism OR capitalism? Not entirely...other factors come into play. Capitalism was shock-injected into the former USSR with little to no transition. Of course it was a disaster! The social net was cut out all of a sudden and nothing was yet in place to catch the economy as it fell.

While poverty may be inevitable; a condition that we will never entirely wipe out; it is nonetheless a condition that can be lessened with solid, (slow) growth and a genuine interest in narrowing the gap between rich and poor. While some nations continue to gorge themselves on resources, and defend their 'right' to exploit poor nations, this gap will only continue to widen. When we come to the understanding that 'making a quick buck' is not the best way to plan a future, and start working to build up the basic infrastructure of nations rather than pouring unfettered investment into them, THEN we will have development, and will be able to better address poverty.

Poverty is inevitable in whatever form of economics you take.
But to what EXTENT is NOT inevitable.

I do not believe that poverty is caused by laziness. I do believe that some people get caught in it from the government's past practices of throwing money at it, then those people become dependent on that money. Nothing, until recently, was done to train these people to become contributing members of society.

This situation has begun to be turned around but, the main reason I think that poverty exists is because of a lack of support by any government from the local level to the Federal level to truly support educating our children.

It's great that the President of the U.S. has a "no child left behind" policy but that program has been put on a back burner due to the conflict in Iraq.

Recently the new governor of the State of Indiana has reduced the amount of money for education in the state by $50.00 per student. This will mean a reduction of teachers, and services to try to educate a populace in a state that is already struggling to retain industry and related jobs that continue to leave the state.

In what scenario does a politician learn that to balance the budget education gets cut first? I feel that this is a practice used by the current party in power that is made up of an abundance of wealthy members to keep those in poverty down so they can continue to remain in power.

To be educated is to give that person the power to change the way they live.

Poverty is caused by comparing one individual with less material posessions to another individual with more material posessions.

To remove poverty is to make sure no one individual has anything more than any other individual.

I suppose I look at this from a different angle...I'm thinking about world poverty, no just poverty in Canada (or in the US).

Poverty is caused by comparing one individual with less material posessions to another individual with more material posessions.
Right...poverty is only subjective, and it is caused by perception. It isn't real.

How do we address poverty on a global, rather than simply regional, level? Capitalism and Socialism are often held up as cure-alls, but neither exist in pure form, and both have serious flaws. What do we do in order to correct those flaws?

I like a blended economy, personally, but that isn't the way the wind is blowing right now...

It is true that often, people who are very wealthy are made lazy becasue they don't have to work so hard.
So the followng statement is true:
The majority of people who are rich do not work as hard as they could.
From that we get this:
The majority of people who work as hard as they could are not rich.
So, there must be lots of very strong reasons other than how hard you work to dertermine how wealthy you are.
Correct me if my logic is wrong.