|
|
Post by kirbyknapp on Jan 15, 2016 4:35:19 GMT
Fixing poverty is a shared responsibility because a society is efficient when everyone is contributing. People are born into different social classes – some are born into affluent families with means of profiting or receiving good education while others are born into lower-income families. However, it is not poor people’s fault they do not have excessive funds nor is it a wealthy person’s choice to be born into a rich family. Therefore, there is a moral obligation to improve society as well as an economic incentive because, as John F. Kennedy explained in his 1963 speech, “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The government, because wealthy individuals might assist people or organizations of their preference and not the impoverished community as a whole, should implement a series of programs to try and help people escape their poverty. First of all, state and federal governments should establish fair, equal-opportunity schools for anyone to attend because education is one of the most effective ways people can move social classes. The quality of these schools should be independent of the demographics of the area so people will indeed have an equal opportunity to learn. Another solution is a government-funded food program where impoverished families or individuals could apply to receive food packages periodically to encourage them to spend their money on other things like searching for a job or shelter. A final solution to help solve poverty is that governments can implement housing programs for homeless or impoverished people. For example, in 2005 Utah implemented a strategy called “Housing First” that provided homeless people with houses. According to The New Yorker, “one [homeless] individual’s…care…one year cost nearly a million dollars” (because of trips to the emergency room, police, and shelters), while “putting someone into permanent housing [cost] the state just eight thousand dollars.” Housing programs are also effective because it is a lot easier to find and keep a job when you have a consistent living space versus living on the streets, making society more functional as a whole. Poverty is a shared responsibility that is not only moral but also beneficial to the remainder of society.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilykbrumley on Jan 15, 2016 5:05:41 GMT
I agree that housing programs should be an important part of helping to alleviate the problem of poverty. For people forced to live on the streets, even getting a roof over their heads can be a big step towards building a life out of poverty. I believe this would work as an incentive to work harder, as people would no longer have to worry about having a safe place to sleep and could focus on improving their situations. As well, it would help them get jobs as many businesses require job applicants to include a place of residence, or simply wouldn't hire people who don't have the money to practice good hygiene or wear presentable clothing. Providing a place for the homeless to live would essentially provide them with a platform from which they could build their lives rather than expecting them to find a way to do it on their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by jvollrath on Jan 15, 2016 5:18:26 GMT
Emily, you have a great point in bringing up job interviews. I believe that tackling this issue (helping poorer people get the things necessary to apply for a job such as a shelter, proper clothes, basic interviewing skills ect) is a useful way to spend money, time and energy. A job (which starts with an interview) is a gateway to a more stable life and is a much more realistic solution to poverty than giving a homeless person on the street a dollar, or even more realistic than food stamps. This goes back to the quote "Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime".
|
|
|
|
Post by jolson03 on Jan 15, 2016 5:23:49 GMT
I agree and like how you prefer solutions that can benefit the poor immediately and provide tangible opportunities to escape poverty (other than physical money), like your permanent housing. To take it even further, this reminds me of an article I read in the San Jose Mercury, where in San Jose there is an initiative to create jobs for the homeless in the growing food truck/cart industry. "Kartma Street Cafe" started by the Downtown Streets Team provides the homeless a way to earn money but also make connections with their customers and other homeless who may be interested in running their own cart. As their network expands, so do their opportunities, and they grow out of poverty. www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_29157192/coffee-cart-helmed-by-homeless-baristas-officially-opens |
|
|
|
Post by jennifergormish on Jan 15, 2016 5:35:38 GMT
Joanna and Emily make great points. One of the problems for the homeless is that they have a very hard time just being hired. Existing organizations such as Hotel de Zink provide temporary shelter but someone in these temporary shelters has to move around a large area and their transportation to work may not be reliable, which is a common question for hiring.
|
|
|
|
Post by katiemoffitt on Jan 15, 2016 5:47:47 GMT
These long-term, permanent, and established solutions illustrate how poverty is a shared responsibility as opposed to the problem of the individual. Temporary solutions such as homeless shelters, food banks, and even offering money to the people you meet on the streets all have positive immediate impacts, however, in order for us to accurately address this issue that is a reality for 14.8% or more Americans, we have to acknowledge the realm of possibility for each individual. Lacking a functioning, resourced, or supportive school is not the fault of the individual nor are outside factors such as an obligation to support one's family or a student's need to provide a second or third income for his/her family. How could poverty be the responsibility of the individual if that person him/herself had no influence on their situation?
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolesalz on Jan 15, 2016 6:54:06 GMT
I completely agree with your statement that the government has a moral obligation to improve the impoverished society, particularly that these fair and equal-opportunity schools should be independent of the demographics of the area. I think this is an essential aspect to providing an equal education, as many schools located in a more impoverished area tend to have a lower standard of education then those located in a more wealthy neighborhood. This is exemplified in a recent study involving two elementary schools, the La Jolla Elementary School and Horton Elementary School. 99 % of the Students of La Jolla Elementary, which is located in the wealthy area of La Jolla, San Diego testes proficient or advanced in the state reading and math test, contrastingly to Horton Elementary, which is located in a much more impoverished neighborhood in San Diego, only about 20% of the students reached the same level of education as those in La Jolla. This study illustrates the importance of having all schools in different demographics reach the same standard of education to provide equal opportunities to all students.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolesalz on Jan 15, 2016 6:54:33 GMT
I completely agree with your statement that the government has a moral obligation to improve the impoverished society, particularly that these fair and equal-opportunity schools should be independent of the demographics of the area. I think this is an essential aspect to providing an equal education, as many schools located in a more impoverished area tend to have a lower standard of education then those located in a more wealthy neighborhood. This is exemplified in a recent study involving two elementary schools, the La Jolla Elementary School and Horton Elementary School. 99 % of the Students of La Jolla Elementary, which is located in the wealthy area of La Jolla, San Diego testes proficient or advanced in the state reading and math test, contrastingly to Horton Elementary, which is located in a much more impoverished neighborhood in San Diego, only about 20% of the students reached the same level of education as those in La Jolla. This study illustrates the importance of having all schools in different demographics reach the same standard of education to provide equal opportunities to all students.
|
|
|
|
Post by meganmcdonnell on Jan 15, 2016 7:35:42 GMT
I find the study Nicole mentioned very interesting; it just goes to show how deeply education and poverty are related. I agree that equal-opportunity schools are extremely important. However, there are some factors that would significantly affect a child's educational development besides the opportunities at his or her school - factors outside of the control of the government. These can vary from home life situations to a lack of transportation services, but they all have an impact on how a child approaches education and the deepness of their relationship with education. I also agree with Katie. I think she makes a really important point, that poverty can't be thought of as an individual's own personal responsibility when they have little influence over the situation.
|
|
