|
|
Post by laurencox on Jan 14, 2016 0:12:04 GMT
Solving poverty should be a shared responsibility because not everybody has equal opportunities to advance in society and it would better all of society if we worked together to end poverty. One example of this is that poverty is associated with higher crime rates, so if we end poverty we would also be lowering the crime rate and creating a safer and better community for everybody. In this way, poverty effects us all, emphasizing that it should be a shared responsibility to end poverty. Also, not everybody has equal chances to rise in society and pull themselves out of poverty. Although many argue that education enables all people to rise through society, this is not always true. Not everybody has equal opportunity to succeed in school. For example, a high school student from a low income family might have to work a job to help pay their family's bills, and when they're not working they might have to take care of their younger siblings. This student probably would not have time to do their homework and might be so exhausted that they are not able to focus during class. Therefore, because of the effects of their lower economic status, they were not presented with the same educational opportunities.
|
|
|
|
Post by camillo on Jan 14, 2016 0:39:24 GMT
I agree with your analysis especially your point about how low-income students generally don't have an equal opportunity to compete in school. However, I dont think that this disadvantage is limited to low income families, although it certainly is more common for them. There are poorer students who excel at school, but there are also high income students who struggle at school. Aside from innate intelligence I think this issue arises from conflicts outside of school such as divorce of the parents, physical harm to a loved one, drunkeness, abuse or other occurrences that emotionally drain the student so that he/she is ill-equipped to deal with school on top of the adversity he/she is already facing. These circumstances are hardly the fault of the student and thus their failure to get the most out of an education and the resulting poverty cannot be blamed exclusively on the student. As such, it is societies responsibility to help alleviate poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulbargar on Jan 14, 2016 2:32:12 GMT
I likewise agree, with the exception that many of the impoverished reached their current state through poor choice rather than circumstance. Subsequently, many remain in a perpetual state of poverty without truly attempting to improve their situation. Although society still hold the responsibility of providing assistance to these people, it may not be effective to simply provide them with additional welfare.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresaamor on Jan 14, 2016 3:10:14 GMT
I agree that not all people try to improve their situation. Furthermore, when the people that don't try to improve are parents, they aren't giving their kids a hard-working role model. The main adults in these kids' lives are showing them that it's okay not to try, and so unless society tries to help and provide them with more motivated role models, these kids could very likely end up in the same situation as their parents, continuing the cycle of poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by camillo on Jan 14, 2016 4:18:37 GMT
I like Teresa's reference to a role model and i want to expand a bit more on societal role models and socially backed institutions that might lead to poverty. For example, the lottery. Why are we providing people with the opportunity to throw away their money in the vain hope of winning the jackpot? I feel like the lottery contributes a lot to the continuing cycle of poverty. Financially struggling Americans often see no way out of their dilemma and thus decide to buy lottery tickets for at least a chance at a better life. In reality however, the lottery just takes their money with no compensation. The worst part is, we as a society promote this kind o institution. What kind of role model are we presenting when we endorse systems like the lottery or gambling. While these people rationally understand that the odds of winning are incredibly small, they perceive the lottery or gambling to be their only avenue out of their misery. While I agree that education and welfare are important measures to alleviate poverty, I think there are much less controversial solutions to reducing poverty, such as changing or eliminating institutions that support being wasteful with money.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurelpatrick on Jan 14, 2016 5:09:42 GMT
Furthermore, it becomes increasingly more apparent that poverty is a shared responsibility when you consider the fact that poverty is often linked to higher crime rates, systematic disenfranchisement, and higher unemployment rates. Although poverty may appear as though it does not directly affect the wealthy, distancing them from a need to help fix it, these are the members of society who have to pay for increased numbers of policemen when crime rates go up, and who see the number of voters able to support causes they care about dwindling as more and more people begin to live under the poverty line, and are either unable or unwilling to vote. Moreover, poverty is directly related to higher unemployment rates, which can impede the progress of the nation as a whole- the labor force suffers when its citizens are unable to contribute to the economic development of a country. As such, it follows that it is in the best interest of the general public to share in the responsibility of alleviating poverty, in order to benefit both themselves and the nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresaamor on Jan 14, 2016 5:23:04 GMT
In addition, poorer communities with higher crime rates often exist right next to more affluent areas. As well as resulting in more money going towards paying policemen, rising crime rates also directly endanger the wealthy living nearby. If the general public works to stop poverty the safety of everyone, not just the poor, will improve.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxwellheller on Jan 14, 2016 6:37:19 GMT
High-income areas have just as much crime as low-income areas. While assaults, gang violence, and robbery in low-income areas make the headlines, drug use runs rampant in affluent neighborhoods. Over 30% of teens in high-income regions participate in the use and the sale of illegal narcotics. Expensive drugs, such as methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin and other opiates dominate high-income areas; and coincidentally, cause more damage to the body than cheaper drugs, such as marijuana, available in impoverished regions. Therefore, while a person in a low-income neighborhood may become involved in a gang fight and be hospitalized for two weeks due to a physical wound, the chronic abuse of some of the most damaging substances on the planet in high-income areas causes irrevocable damage to the human body, specifically the loss of brain cells. This damage results in an increased level of peril in living in a high-income area.
|
|
|
|
Post by alissamcnerney on Jan 14, 2016 10:20:05 GMT
A better and more equal education system is often suggested as a way to combat the issue of poverty, but as Lauren mentioned not all students have an equal opportunity to succeed in school. Many lower class students need to work a job, giving them less time to focus on schoolwork than the more well-off students, while students not facing financial hardship can get private tutors to help them and make them more academically successful. Also, if schools were to become more equal then those with the money could get a private school education instead, which would again create an inequality in the opportunities to succeed between the poor students and the wealthy ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashgordan on Jan 14, 2016 19:10:18 GMT
Looking at all these replies, I think that more needs to be done then just funding education. Though this is definitely a huge part of it, the comments which Theresa made about role-models and Laurel made about crime suggest that investing money into non-profit organizations which make efforts to support children outside of school (in their domestic life, etc.) are going to be very beneficial in the overall attempt to create equality. Examples of organizations like these include: Big Brothers Big Sisters (an organization that pairs up children and young adults to nurture them and provide a safer environment), and KidSport (which gives financial aid to children looking to play sports).
|
|
|
|
Post by jordankimbo on Jan 15, 2016 1:27:38 GMT
I think that advancing and funding education for children (not just colleges, though that is very important to move people into society) is the best and most important think to do. The whole root of the problem is because children are born into low-income areas, and a lot have very little ability to change their situations and improve. While social improvements like Gordan said are integral to have an equal society, I feel like children will grow and learn best through schools, and will benefit much more from outside programs because of it. Many children go to school as a place to escape problems in the lives either at home, or outside. And I feel if we make schools more nurturing towards these children they will be more likely to respond well to these programs and grow up to be better from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolecsn on Jan 15, 2016 2:17:47 GMT
Lauren, I absolutely agree with your point. Education can't always be "the rise to success". Instead, it's more of a road to a bigger downfall. Low-income people don't have the money to provide for themselves and to pay their bills. If we're thinking realistically, the only people who could rise to an even higher life are those with a good income and financial stability. If we're talking younger children in school, then I believe the government should provide programs that could prepare them and help them towards the "rise to success". Poverty is a shared responsibility because the poor need the help they can get from anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by griffink on Jan 15, 2016 2:24:39 GMT
I agree, improving the quality of education doesn't solve the problem by itself, many people in poor communities will be unable to take advantage of the education regardless, and other factors will keep them from success.
|
|
|
|
Post by jennifergormish on Jan 15, 2016 4:02:51 GMT
I think improving education is important for future generations escaping poverty, but we cannot ignore the people who are already working and raising families in poverty. Education cannot be the only solution we look at because it does not address a variety of issues that keep people impoverished; mental or physical illnesses/disabilities and racism are some factors that keep people from opportunities to gain wealth even if they have received a good education.
|
|
|
|
Post by anapark on Jan 15, 2016 4:07:00 GMT
Poverty should be a shared responsibility, reducing poverty in all of its forms, hunger, homelessness and lack of opportunity is a social good that should be the responsibility of the entire community. We may succeed as individuals, but it’s the obligation of the institutions with power and those with resources to provide the access, funds and programs to help the poor. Anyone who is poor may have made a few bad choices, but we should not hold that against them. Our social system has institutionalized poverty for large portions of our population where lack of resources and education has become a pattern that goes back for generations. People are born into poverty and it is difficult for most to overcome the odds. As John Stuart Mills pointed out, we should have the freedom to pursue our own interests, but not to the extreme of “depriving others of theirs.” If we want to have a modern civilized society, it’s everyone’s obligation to help solve the issue of poverty. The 1% have used their political power and resources to such an extent, they are “depriving” the bottom of society.
|
|
