The Poverty Dilemma

[David]

As it is commonly known, poverty has always been associated with societies throughout the ages. Is it something that will be eternally? Is there any solution towards it?

 

Do you think based on modern political and economical advancements we will be able to generate  one day universal opulence? Some examples can include free trade and the rise of socialist ideals (The occupy ( random city) movement.. 

 

 

Or do you think it's a common difficulty societies will always face not matter what...

 

 

[Raychaser]

Hi David,

I'm actually a member of a group that actively fights poverty. That's a really REALLY broad category though. My experience has been that there are as many reasons to be poor as there are people in that condition.

I guess as long as there are people who we call rich there will be people that we call poor but I don't think that's what you mean (correct me if I'm wrong). 

I'm still learning though. My own area of concern is capacity building in sub-saharan Africa and I can tell you that it is a hugely complicated topic.

Important question though. What do you mean when you say "poverty"?

[David]

Essentially the state of being extremely poor without the means to provide for one's self or loved ones.

[Jeevi]

I guess as long as there are people who we call rich there will be people that we call poor

 

This.

 

But there is a basic standard of living we should aspire to for everyone. After that there will always be relative poverty and wealth.

[Latch33570]

The leading cause of poverty  in the US is having yung uns out of wedlock. Either acting like sluts or being attracted to bad boys and acting suprised when they act like bad boys. Both Irresponsible behaviors. www.heritage.org/research/repoets//2004/01/understanding-poverty-in...

[David]

Your link had a 404 error. I would be interested to read about it.

[Jeevi]

Either acting like sluts or being attracted to bad boys and acting suprised when they act like bad boys.

 

So regardless of whether there is truth in the first statement (unfortunately can't read the article you linked), the cause is women who make bad decisions, is that what you're saying? All those men involved are absolved of it because well, they are just doing what they do, being men? Apologies if i have misunderstood you but it does sound like an incredibly misogynistic statement to make. If you're calling it irresponsible behaviour then it is for all parties, not just the women.

[Latch33570]

OK lets try this again www.heritage.org/research then click on understanding poverty in america.  If that don t work google it. I did not mean that women are the only ones to blame. It takes two irresponsible people to make the kids. I think that if we stop rewarding that bad behavior by giving them other peoples money [wellfare] then perhaps the rate of unwed mothers will go down.

Talk about a run on sentence. lol  I dont care.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The problem with your argument is that it supposes it is premeditated. It isn't. It is accidental. I don't see any proof that by giving unwedlocked mothers child support you are somehow causing them to think "I'll get pregnant, then I'll get the money I need!". Especially when you consider the cost of having and raising a child.

[Latch33570]

AH miss Angie You are correct that All poverty isnt the peoples fault. But according to heritage foundation's research paper on poverty in america. I have trouble linking to this. Unwed motherhood is the leading cause of poverty at 2/3 of poverty cases. In my humble opinion private charity would take up the slack. Private and voluntary donations would go up. Wellfare shouldnt be a back up plan because it is taking away money from people who worked and earned it to give to someone who didnt. And that person is probably in the predicimate due to some irresponsible act of their own like having babies before you can afford em or out of wedlock.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

In my humble opinion private charity would take up the slack. Private and voluntary donations would go up.

 

Do you have proof that's the case?

[Latch33570]

Obviously I don't have proof. Welfare has always been here since forever. Once you have it if you earn more than a certain amount they take away dollar for dollar or take it away completely. In that way it pays people to stay poor. The system is just not set up to help people trying to get out of poverty.

[CD]

Forever seems to be a rather ginormous exaggeration