Capitalism is so not the way to address poverty

I believe that no long lasting, true improvement of the issue of poverty will be made by forcing the higher class to help, whether that be through higher taxes or other forms. Instead, I think that the real reform can only be a result of a substantial amount of people genuinely wanting and choosing to take action and help. The problem is, the system of capitalism gives people too much freedom in this situation, resulting in people ignoring the poorer classes of society, yet communism can result in people feeling as though they are forced to help (which won't lead to lasting reform either). However, there is a possibility that if people do follow the communist system, they may develop a genuine desire to help. So, ultimately, it seems as though neither complete capitalism nor complete communism will provide lasting effects for this problem, leading me to believe that an system in the middle may be the best solution.

I find it confusing as to how you can state "Capitalism is so not the way to address poverty", yet end the post with "Capitalism is the best kind of government for America". Regardless, simply raising the minimum wage will not save impoverished families from being impoverished. Not every minimum wage job is a major fast food conglomerate that can afford to spend money on their workers, and not every person is a poor mother or father working for the family. Many minimum wage jobs are small businesses and restaurants that often cannot feasibly pay for their workers, which over time can create fewer small businesses and opportunities due to not being financially lucrative.

Outside of that, one of the beautiful things about capitalism is that it is a meritocracy, which essentially means that people are rewarded based on their skills, knowledge and abilities. Some are not given as nice a hand as another individual, but you need to look at it from a perspective that people are often given the same bare essentials. Public education is always available, as well as community colleges. Another available path that is often an overlooked part of society is vocational education for jobs such as welders, repairmen, pilots, designers, and many more. I would never say that poor people are inherently lazy, stupid, or worthless to society, but the work one puts in will have a direct output on they are rewarded later in life.

If you haven't seen it before, I would recommend you watch the true story movie "Stand and Deliver", in which one teacher joins a school that is near bankruptcy and takes in a class of poor, underprivileged individuals with a path to nowhere in their near future. The teacher refuses to let them make any excuses and makes them take late hours to learn material for AP Calculus. In the end, the class takes their AP test and each person got a 4 or 5, passing the test, attaining college credit, and giving themselves an opportunity for higher paying jobs and upward mobility. Many other stories such as Ben Carson's rise from one of the dumbest children in his class to being accepted into Yale and becoming an accomplished surgeon. Regardless of if you agree or disagree with his ideas, it is admirable nonetheless.

People are given opportunities based on their value. Poor people or members of minority groups are not useless members of society by any means, but if someone is not qualified to be a doctor, they will not be a doctor. Raising minimum wage can only do so much, but changing education can help people help themselves. One major problem is that some teachers are given a disadvantage by not having the resources or authority to have a productive learning environment. Many poor areas have a mindset that they are stuck where they are and that school is worthless. As a result, a handful of highly disruptive students can, without proper authority to keep them in line, ruin a classroom environment for other students that are willing to learn. "Stand and Deliver", the movie I mentioned above displays a classroom environment just like that, and again, I can't recommend that movie enough.

With capitalism comes meritocracy and the idea of personal responsibility. If someone is not qualified for a job, it only makes sense that the job be given to someone more qualified, and that the value of said job determine their pay.

Clinton Eastwood Impersonator:

First of all, a conglomerate is a corporation that holds many disparate businesses, such as a chain of grocery stores, a restaurant, and a shoe store, for example. 

Let me restate what I meant. The current way Capitalism is being perceived or acted upon is not the way to solve the problem of poverty in the country. However, the country cannot easily just "flip" political systems. There are changes, or tweaks, that need to be done in order to change and improve the poverty issue that we have, while still having a capitalistic country.

I don't think meritocracy is at all present in America. I think there is underlying white privilege all over the country. With whites being the majority, I believe that things come easier towards them than to others, such as African-Americans or Latin Americans. I think that America still has a lot of room to change it, but I don't believe that all people in this country accept all races as just that; human beings from different places. You say that people are rewarded based on skills, knowledge, and ability, but how can you be so sure of that? How do you know if a woman did not get the same job that the man did, simply because she was a woman? How do you know that all employers base their hirings solely on those three things, and don't make their choice based on ethnicity, age, or gender?

I agree that education needs to be changed as well, but that is a long process. I think that changing minimum wage will at least be a stepping stone to changes in poverty, and then we will be able to change it more permanently through education reforms.

In response to Cole, I absolutely understand that the "rags to riches" situations are often rare and not always feasible, but I think you and I both seem to understand that if the quality of public education became more uniform, those stories may be able to be more feasible. Not every public school has the quality of MA, but imagine for a moment a world where everyone has access to the same resources that one can find from MA, even in a public school environment in a marginalized area. Giving people a more level playing field to hone their skills and prepare for life in the work force would seem like a great thing.

If two people go to the same school, take the same classes, but one person gets a 4.0 and the other a 2.0, most people would say the person with the 4.0 deserves to be paid more. This is assuming none of them have any tutors or other wealth-based advantages that, I'm willing to concede, will keep the playing field from being level on some level. Even then, in some cases, simply putting in more time can sometimes work more effectively than a tutor.

Other problems are unfortunately more complicated. I have a friend who happens to me Mexican that has to work a job after school to support the family. Gangs and anti-education values in certain marginalized areas can be a huge setback towards educational values. I wish there was an easy solution, but the easiest and more effective route is education reform.

"man universities?" What about co-ed universities?

Also increasing minimum wage would create greater unemployment.