Is Poverty Necessary?

Red_Marauder

Most of us agree that we want to live in a world without poverty.

Firstly, Is the elimination of poverty even vaguely possible?
On an Irish level, I have become so disillusioned with this lately. I joined a charity when I started college five years ago and got to know a middle aged homeless lady who has a myriad of personal problems and a life history of poverty.
She has been given a number of chances to lift herself out of this poverty, and usually succeeds for a period of months before falling back into her old cycle again. When I first got to know her she was begging for change in the city centre and she is still doing this five years on. When she moves from her begging spot, she just gets replaced by someone else.

Are people who spend all of their time trying to eliminate this kind of poverty from our city totally wasting their time?

My second question, however, relates to us - the people who type on boards and shop in Marks and Spensers and wash our cars on Saturday mornings and wave hello to the neighbours and pat the dog.

Is it in "our best interests" to seek to eliminate poverty? Remember those "Make Poverty History" wristbands we all used to wear a few years ago? Isn't it actually the case that we need others to live in poverty so that we can live outside of poverty?

Free trade, fair prices for goods and the elimination of similiar injustices may be just the tonic for the third world, but wouldn't it ruin us financially?

Sorry about the long winded first post, I did try to be brief. To sum up,

Is seeking to eliminate poverty ultimately futile?
And wouldn't such an elimination be disastrous for society as we know it... is poverty necessary?

Crumble Froo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Firstly, Is the elimination of poverty even vaguely possible?

i think it is, at least theoretically. i dont think it will ever happen, without some sort of major revolution, but theoretically, yes, i believe the elimination of poverty is possible.

dictionary.com wrote:

Poverty:1. the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.

i had to look this up, though, because i know that the definition of poverty will tend to change from society to society. a family living in poverty in dublin are probably living very differently to a family living in poverty in brazil. i think there will always be richer and poorer people, and that there will always be people who just cant/wont/dont function successfully in society and will always be below average as far as possessions, income, quality of life and other such issues go.

She has been given a number of chances to lift herself out of this poverty, and usually succeeds for a period of months before falling back into her old cycle again. When I first got to know her she was begging for change in the city centre and she is still doing this five years on. When she moves from her begging spot, she just gets replaced by someone else.

this is sad, and something i have watched time and again, as well. what i'd be interested in, is what sort of chances she has been given? someone on the streets for a long period of time, man, it does stuff to you. how you see yourself, how you interact with the rest of society, how you view the world around you, is deeply deeply affected. not to mention that there are usually quite deep rooted issues around how a person became homeless in the first place (i know not all people living in poverty are homeless, and that not everyone in either group apply to this, but it is a pretty safe generalisation)... domestic violence, gambling, alcohol and drug issues, mental illness, broken families and complete lack of support.

i think that all those issues need to be seriously seriously looked at, and continue to be looked at if a person is to break the cycle of homelessness and poverty. and sometimes, the change is too much, especially if you have nothing to change for, or if you have known nothing else for most of your life. it's hard to have to conform to new rules, and interact with people on different levels. i don't know what the solution is, but i would love to see more done around support and exploration around those issues.

Are people who spend all of their time trying to eliminate this kind of poverty from our city totally wasting their time?

it depends on their reasoning in going into that line of work. are they there because they want to 'eliminate poverty', or are they there to help those in poverty? because, in my opinion, eliminating poverty is something that has to happen on a grand scale, a huge societal turnover, policies, housing, education, healthcare, everything would need to be overhauled to eliminate poverty. but to help people in poverty, on a smaller, individual scale, is a very different job. you're not looking at policies, you're looking at basic needs, and support, and at a person's sense of self and identity and relationship within the world.

My second question, however, relates to us - the people who type on boards and shop in Marks and Spensers and wash our cars on Saturday mornings and wave hello to the neighbours and pat the dog.

no comment there :pac:

Is it in "our best interests" to seek to eliminate poverty? Remember those "Make Poverty History" wristbands we all used to wear a few years ago? Isn't it actually the case that we need others to live in poverty so that we can live outside of poverty?

i think that as long as we have a capitalist society (and while i agree with many leftist/socialist ideals, i dont believe all to be practical in reality), there is always gonna be a ladder, with people at the bottom and people at the top. and i reckon that that ladder will make it bloody difficult to reach from the bottom rungs upwards, and will have some decent ropes to keep the ones at the top from falling too far down... but that it will be possibly to make it up and down that ladder.

i dont see why people should have to live without the basic essentials, just scraping through, in order for others to live in excess. we're never all going to be 'equal', whatever that means, but i do condemn any society that believes the only way to live comfortably is to trod on others.

Free trade, fair prices for goods and the elimination of similiar injustices may be just the tonic for the third world, but wouldn't it ruin us financially?

we might have to purchase more carefully, but let's face it, do we really need to buy as many clothes/as much coffee/chocolate as we actually do? we buy things without really attaching value to them, because they are so cheap. and honestly, i think there needs to be a whole lot of social reform in countries like india, before things like fair trade are really all that viable

Sorry about the long winded first post, I did try to be brief.

me too

Is seeking to eliminate poverty ultimately futile?

no. especially not to the individuals it affects.

And wouldn't such an elimination be disastrous for society as we know it... is poverty necessary?

i think it could be quite a change for society as we know it, but just think of all the savings we'll make as we eliminate a group known to cost a lot in healthcare, policing, alcohol and drug misuse, buglaries, theft, social benefits, etc etc... im sure we could find a new use for all that money

silverharp

free trade is bug bear of mine. We live in a society where an Irish farmer has a privilaged position to say a Brazilian or African farmer and not only do western governments restrict imports from poor countries but they dump surpluses on their economies and wreck their markets. So lots of room for improvement to allow developing countries to get their fair share of the pie

As for is poverty necessary. We live in a world of scarce resources and it takes effort and skill to turn them into the "toys" we take for granted. Any system that would have the aim of redistributing on a global scale would fail and although it would be "fair" the standard of living for everyone would decline.

Red_Marauder

Crumble Froo wrote: »

, but theoretically, yes, i believe the elimination of poverty is possible.
this is sad, and something i have watched time and again, as well. what i'd be interested in, is what sort of chances she has been given?

Well to keep it vague, since thankfully there aren't a whole lot of middle aged women on the streets, exceptional circumstances have been allowed by both the city council and the charity that tried to help by providing her with stable accomodation, income support and training. These have failed miserably without any good reason, this is what is so disillusioning.
When I was 17 and starting college I never even questioned this issue because I didn't understand things like true poverty, addiction or mental illness. I still don't... but I find myself coming round to the idea that some people can simply not be helped - that there is this inevitable, hopeless social stratum made of the same familiar faces who will always be homeless, hopeless, addicted, or suffering psychiatric illness in destitution.

sometimes, the change is too much, especially if you have nothing to change for, or if you have known nothing else for most of your life.

I think this is a big part of the problem.

No matter how much is done through communities like Simon and the St V de P, some people will not change because they cannot, and some just will not. This is what I find disturbing - how somebody can fail to be horrified at the prospect of spending their lives destitute and homeless.

i think that as long as we have a capitalist society[...] there is always gonna be a ladder, with people at the bottom and people at the top.

Yes, I think you're right.

In an international context, though, how does this work. Any ladder is only so tall and so wide. In the furtherance of a truly equal global society, we, as a society and a nation, would need to voluntarily adjust our position - and there is every reason to think we would need to adjust it considerably downwards. We have an enormous vested interest in keeping ourselves wealthy.

It just makes these campaigns about free trade and cancelling debt seem so entirely hypocritical of us - when it comes to the crunch I don't see how we could ever seriously aim to establish a world of equals or one without poverty.

Societies like Irish society currently need poverty to exist elsewhere in order to survive.

Silverharp2 wrote:

free trade is bug bear of mine. We live in a society where an Irish farmer has a privilaged position to say a Brazilian or African farmer and not only do western governments restrict imports from poor countries but they dump surpluses on their economies and wreck their markets. So lots of room for improvement to allow developing countries to get their fair share of the pie

I have a similiar view in theory, but in practicality, wouldn't that be a kamikaze job on our own economic future?

Lets face it, cheap goods and cheap labour that cause poverty abroad keeps our economy wealthy at home. Our lives would look a whole lot different were it not for poverty in the third world.
How do we remedy that?

The Corinthian

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Is seeking to eliminate poverty ultimately futile?

Yes and no. As long as we live in a World of finite resources, we will live in competition for those resources, in in that respect; yes, seeking to eliminate poverty ultimately futile. However, in seeking to eliminate it we can also alleviate some of the damage it causes, and in itself, that is good.

Think of it as flu remedy. There is no cure, but we can ease the symptoms.

And wouldn't such an elimination be disastrous for society as we know it... is poverty necessary?

Socialism/Communism were an attempt at a 'solution'. Problem was that economically, it didn't work and thus ended up causing a lot more suffering than the problem it was 'solving' before falling apart in the late-80's/early-90's.

That does not mean that poverty is necessary, but it is regrettably inevitable, no matter how much you try to 'design' it out of the system.

silverharp

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Societies like Irish society currently need poverty to exist elsewhere in order to survive.................

I have a similiar view in theory, but in practicality, wouldn't that be a kamikaze job on our own economic future?

Lets face it, cheap goods and cheap labour that cause poverty abroad keeps our economy wealthy at home. Our lives would look a whole lot different were it not for poverty in the third world.
How do we remedy that?

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make. I dont think we need others to be poor for us to be rich, it's not a zero sum game. If Africa for instance was a wealthier country we would be able to sell services to them. On the flip side there are resource constraints so if you mean that 5 bn people cant drive petrol cars, that would be a fact, but I think the benefits would outweigh and marginal reduction of consumption of certain goods in some wealthier countries.

SLUSK

It is very easy not to be poor in this part of the world.
Don't drink very often.
Stay off all other drugs.
Avoid unplanned pregnancies.
Don't gamble.

Follow these steps and you are almost guaranteed not to be poor. If you're poor in the western world it is most likely your own damn fault.

Crumble Froo

SLUSK wrote: »

It is very easy not to be poor in this part of the world.
Don't drink very often.
Stay off all other drugs.
Avoid unplanned pregnancies.
Don't gamble.

Follow these steps and you are almost guaranteed not to be poor. If you're poor in the western world it is most likely your own damn fault.

what if you can avoid all those things, but have been living in a household where most of those have been issues for as long as you can remember? in such a household, your health and education will almost certainly be compromised, and there will likely be familial obligations to start working ASAP, probably for min wage, or helping out at home. that person is still gonna have to live in poverty.

The Corinthian

SLUSK wrote: »

Follow these steps and you are almost guaranteed not to be poor. If you're poor in the western world it is most likely your own damn fault.

Don't underestimate the effects of fortune.

mkahnisbent

It's necessary, and the people have evolved so it will remain that way. It's no coincidence the majority of people are a bit thick, and so few people have the necessary skills to become the big boss.

amacachi

The only way to eliminate poverty is some form of socialism/communism which in my opinion goes against pretty much every basic human instinct and would limit freedoms far too much. Human nature being what it is and differing abilities and values in different people will keep relative poverty around for a long time to come.

The Corinthian

mkahnisbent wrote: »

It's necessary, and the people have evolved so it will remain that way. It's no coincidence the majority of people are a bit thick, and so few people have the necessary skills to become the big boss.

By that logic, leaders and entrepreneurs should all be smart. Indeed, the smarter you are, the richer you should be. Easily disprovable.

We live in a World of finite resources and as long as this is the case there will be some who have more than others. The Socialist / Communist approach would like to eliminate this, but has never offered a workable solution to the whole finite resources problem, while the Capitalist / social Darwinist would claim meritocracy and evolution is served by their approach, while ignoring the terrifying influence that blind luck, and not merit, has in our existence.

I don't think there are any simple answers to this issue. More correctly, I'm too old to have all the simple answers.

mkahnisbent

The Corinthian wrote: »

By that logic, leaders and entrepreneurs should all be smart. Indeed, the smarter you are, the richer you should be. Easily disprovable.

Sorry that's not what I was saying, I should have said it better.

If you look at the different psychology studies into personality types, they all come to roughly the same conclusion:

About 50% of people are thick and are unwilling to use their brain. These are the sorts of people who blindly believe whatever their leaders or newspapers tell them.
About 20% are creative/adventurists.
About 20% are a mix between creative/adventurists and rational.
About 10% are purely rational.

It has been like this for years, and no amount of free education has changed things.

If everyone was rational, there would be little poverty, but the world wouldn't move very quickly as everyone would be making good decisions.

With 50% of the world being thick, it means there will always be people to do the crap jobs and who can be taken advantage of.

These people will always be a month or two away from poverty.

The world is set up this way, and is the reason poverty cannot be eliminated.

Crumble Froo

but for the 50% who are "thick and unwilling to use their brain"... i'd be interested to see the sociological and psycho-social influences in their lives... the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate. any facts/stats on that side of it, mkahnisbent?

mkahnisbent

Crumble Froo wrote: »

but for the 50% who are "thick and unwilling to use their brain"... i'd be interested to see the sociological and psycho-social influences in their lives... the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate. any facts/stats on that side of it, mkahnisbent?

Most studies believe it is nature, as the numbers are too consistent. As stated, the advent of free education (primary/secondary) has made no difference.

If I wasn't so knackered I'd google a few links for you, but I learnt all this stuff when I was in college many years ago and is something I think about a lot as I see it all around me.

The Corinthian

mkahnisbent wrote: »

If you look at the different psychology studies into personality types, they all come to roughly the same conclusion:

About 50% of people are thick and are unwilling to use their brain. These are the sorts of people who blindly believe whatever their leaders or newspapers tell them.
About 20% are creative/adventurists.
About 20% are a mix between creative/adventurists and rational.
About 10% are purely rational.

Do you have sources for these "different psychology studies into personality types"?

As you said, there will always be people who are 'thick'. However, as I said, life is not so simple. Luck plays a big part too unfortunately and it does not discriminate between the 'smart' and the 'thick'.

mkahnisbent

Sure, start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

They use politically correct language, but the big one (Guardian, etc.) means thick.

The Corinthian

mkahnisbent wrote: »

Sure, start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

They use politically correct language, but the big one (Guardian, etc.) means thick.

The article discusses traits, not types. Also, I see no mention of 'Guardian' types or traits. Indeed, there is absolutely no mention of relationship to intellect, much less the demographic breakdowns you claimed.

Did you post the wrong link?

SLUSK

We need poverty, otherwise Ireland's No 1 export Bono would be unemployed. You know the make poverty history guy.