|
|
Post by jolson03 on Jan 15, 2016 3:17:59 GMT
Capitalism is a system guaranteeing winners and losers in an extremely risky game. There will always be winners and losers, no matter what. But modern capitalism ensures that the winners keep winning and the losers keep losing. From this, poverty and the wealth gap continue to increase to unstable levels.
Individuals living in poverty struggle to get themselves out, as most are born into environments without income, motivation, or opportunities to become a "self-made man". Without supplying social support to these individuals, they will continue to live in poverty and society will continue to separate. And I believe it is our moral responsibility to prevent this. Standing by and allowing people to suffer with the justification that it is their fault ... that they can dig themselves out of the hole "they made" ... is unacceptable.
So we can't rely on an individual to fight poverty, instead we need the government to fund social programs that present opportunities to those in poverty and promote ways and ideas to stay above the poverty line. I say the government because there is no guaranteed dependence on wealthy individuals to create business ventures or social programs. Only so many of them will create new charities or new opportunities. But if we have the government, capable of regulating social programs with resources, it might stand a chance. However, the only reserve I have for this is the effectiveness the government will have. Welfare programs that exist today can be taken advantage of, for example a person who takes the unemployment welfare despite not actively looking for job opportunities. If this "problem" (more like kink in the system) can be solved, I feel we have a presentable solution to poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahelisofon on Jan 15, 2016 3:45:33 GMT
I completely agree, Josh. I like the way you analogized capitalism to game as I think that was a great way of depicting the system. This cycle of poverty, that is only accentuated in a capitalist society, must be broken in order for the society to progress. The responsibility however cannot simply fall on one individual whether that individual be at the top of the wealth ladder or the bottom. I also agree with you that the most efficient way to reach an end to this cyclical issue of poverty is through the granting of opportunities and benefits through socioeconomic programs funded by the government. Like we discussed in class, there do exist wealthy individuals, like Elon Musk, who put their wealth and enterprising skills to good social use. However I agree with you that we cannot depend on them and must therefore share the responsibility amongst our government and society as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by erikroise on Jan 15, 2016 4:20:59 GMT
I agree. Wealth and power have become so strongly connected that they end up forming a sort of perpetual motion machine, each feeding the other without losing any momentum. A wealthy business person can make donations to a politician to buy their influence. That influence can then be used to force changes in tax legislation that in turn make the business person even more wealthy. With this new wealth, he/she can make even more political contributions and continue the cycle.
I think that, though this may not entirely solve the problem, enforcing strong restrictions on campaign financing is a good place to start towards political equity.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinefenyo on Jan 15, 2016 4:39:55 GMT
I agree. The individual born into the cycle of poverty needs government assistance to get the resources and skills to be able to prosper in life and a working environment. While the individual with the resources to help can make some difference, it is up to the government to make a plan and have the plans in place to help those who need help get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jolson03 on Jan 15, 2016 4:45:57 GMT
That is definitely one way we can even out the playing field. There is no denying the politics the wealthy can buy, and it presents a major problem to representation of all people. Our current state of politics is headed directly toward oligarchy, run by the wealthiest individuals or corporations ready to buy their interests even if it jeopardizes the interests of the people. While it is a great place to start, and restrictions can start to weaken the power money has in politics, I believe it also is within the voting class to take responsibility to vote for candidates not swayed by lobbies or organizations ready to throw money at them to pass legislation favoring their agenda. If the voting class can show the power it still has, the thousands of votes it has in comparison to the few of the wealthy, we can limit monetary value in the campaign process.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbyknapp on Jan 15, 2016 5:03:57 GMT
I think you're right Josh - there is a growing wealth gap between the different social classes in our community. The government should be the ones creating solutions to the poverty problem.
I also really like your point about the hidden politics behind our society, Erik. Although the government may appear to have the community's best interests in mind, it's often the case that politicians or government officials can be paid off to support a specific policy that may benefit the upper class.
|
|
|
|
Post by katiemoffitt on Jan 15, 2016 6:41:45 GMT
Eloquently put, Josh. I agree that it is every voters responsibility, no, obligation to use the resources democracy has provided us to elect someone with the right mindset, the right focus to represent the 99% that is ignored for the 1% that comprises the politically vocal and active, a privilege they are granted through money. However, we, as consumers and members of a community focused on providing equal opportunity, can vote with our money as well. In order to staunch consumer ignorance, we can promote avoiding buying from or into companies and corporations that perpetuate this cycle of poverty. Avoid Walmart with its insensitive and inadequate leadership leading to few benefits for its employers. Don't support business that don't pay below minimum wage and advocate for those that pay more than minimum wage. Protest companies and organizations like Facebook that cause gentrification in neighborhoods like Belle Haven for the sake of building employee housing and in doing so, are forcing many low income families to pick up their lives, take their children out of school, and move into an even more exploited area.
|
|
|
|
Post by marthamcgee on Jan 15, 2016 9:22:29 GMT
I agree with Josh's argument. Individuals who grow up in environments where career expectations are very low have little incentive or example to follow when attempting to climb out of poverty. We cannot depend on wealthy individuals, for example Mark Zuckerberg, to always be willing to share their profits in an effective manner that benefits the entire population and cares for every societal need of the lower class. The government must step in to support these families. However, I don't think that money should be generously distributed to solve the issue of poverty. Low-class individuals are inexperienced with handling finances because they rarely have the opportunity to grow their skills when handling larger sums. In order to reduce poverty, education programs need to be implemented that guide families with little financial experience so that they can effectively use their money and therefore raise their living standards, bringing them out of poverty. Even if an impoverished individual succeeds in finding a job, he or she will have little chance of taking advantage of their income if they do not have an understanding of the most effective spending, whether it be on nutrition, electronics, housing, vacationing, etc. as they have never been given the opportunity to acquire this knowledge. A new system of financial advisors, family low-cost nutrition programs, and other institutions can be implemented to support and guide families out of poverty by helping them make the right financial choices to maximize the effect of every dollar of income. In this way, individuals will hold a certain degree of responsibility for their success (whether or not they choose to follow the guidance of these programs), but the government will also be supportive of impoverished families by giving them the knowledge necessary to succeed and guiding them throughout the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by connor on Jan 15, 2016 16:32:10 GMT
If anyone watched the video in the essential readings section for this chapter it is quite obvious that sharing is the solution of poverty. In the video the curve of wealth extremely unbalanced. It showed that if the top one percent where to share even half there wealth they might solve our practically all of Americas poverty issues and still be immeasurably rich. another source from the new york times agreed with this; they restated the assertion that we are only as strong as the weakest link. Therefore from simple hard facts one can only come to the conclusion that sharing the responsibility of poverty would effectively end poverty in America.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasscopazzi on Jan 15, 2016 19:01:08 GMT
Capitalism in America has created people with extreme wealth while others are left penniless. The government has funded programs to improve the lives of the impoverished. However I feel that the best way to decrease poverty is to encourage businesses to grow and develop while fairly paying their employees. People that are part of local communities are much more effective at ending poverty in their individual areas than the government as they are aware of specific problems. When members of a community reach out to those in need it is much better received than when the government tries to step in and help.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Jan 19, 2016 2:56:41 GMT
I agree that promoting business and encouraging individuals at every level to build strong businesses that support their local community is a good beginning to ending poverty. If business is held accountable to pay fair wages, offer good benefits and support their employees and community there will be economic growth and better opportunities for everyone. The problem is some business owners will naturally do the best thing for their employees, while others will be led by greed or selfishness towards taking care of only those they care about. Therefore, government intervention is needed to regulate this and what's happening now isn't working. It means more than offering minimum wage, because that isn't enough for a family to survive on. Obviously, the system needs help. We can't count on people being "good" we have to have programs and guidelines in place that make it economically beneficial to start a business and then make sure that business can support it's employees properly.
|
|
