|
|
Post by camillo on Jan 14, 2016 4:01:34 GMT
Seeing as the other threads are all pro-shared responsibility I thought it would be interesting to create a thread where we could outline some of the arguments for individual responsibility. Here are a two commonly used arguments
1. The difference between a poor person and a rich person is that rich people worked hard to attain their wealth whereas poor people are stuck at the bottom of the social ladder because they are unwilling to work and are not motivated. In other words, success and wealth directly correlate to merit and effort put into improving your life. Why therefore, should the rich, those who worked hard to achieve their wealth, give aid to the poor, who are lazy and stupid?
2. Poor people are irresponsible i.e. they gamble their money away, spend their money on alcohol or other drugs, conceive more children than they can afford, and take unnecessary risks.
*Disclaimer* These views do not necesarily represent my own nor those of any organization or group affiliated with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaellandolfi on Jan 14, 2016 4:22:04 GMT
I believe that both arguments are basically describing the ideas behind social darwinism which is a general assumption that groups all impoverished into one group and all wealthy people into another group. This assumption is wrong on both ends of the economic spectrum because although some people do make terrible decisions and bring poverty on to themselves others are born into it. This goes as well for the wealthy that even though some people do in fact work hard to gain economically others are born into privileged homes and do not need to work to achieve wealth. So in conclusion although this theory that the poor are poor because they messed up and the wealthy are wealthy because they worked hard is a generalization and it falsely groups together people that are actually different.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurencox on Jan 14, 2016 4:40:18 GMT
Another argument for poverty being an individual responsibility is that if the government provides welfare to the poor, they will no longer have any motivation to find work and will simply stay at home, living off of the money they receive from government assistance. Therefore, why should the hardworking rich people have to give up their money to pay for a poor person to stay at home and do nothing?
(not my personal opinion)
|
|
|
|
Post by ascoffone on Jan 14, 2016 4:42:09 GMT
While I think those two points are somewhat over simplified, they form the basic premise of this point, which I consider more valid.
Competition is a fact of life, whether or not it is fair in this country (it isn't) and you cannot fault someone for looking out for the interests of him or herself and his or her descendants first. Accordingly, it is not fair to ask those of means to sacrifice their own comfort and security for the comfort and security of another. Lastly, as camillo mentioned, this competition creates opportunities, which a determined person could use to lift themselves out of poverty. Thus there is no moral burden on the wealthy and middle class to combat poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by camillo on Jan 14, 2016 4:46:55 GMT
I completely agree with your comments Michael. There are generally two factors that mould a person: genetics and environment. Like you said, both poor people and wealthy people make terrible decisions, and both poor and wealthy people work hard. The difference between the two groups is the enviroment. Few poor people grew up in priveledged enviroments and had access to a good education and were taught how to use their money effectively and had great role models. Many wealthy people, on the other hand did. Conversely, most poor people grew up with little access to educational and technological resources and probably had poor role models, whereas few make it from "rags to riches". In addition, it is just as hard to go from wealth to poverty, as it is to go from poverty to wealth. This is because a rich person can spend or risk hundreds of thousands of dollars without much consequence, whereas a failed investment or even a stollen wallet can be disastrous for a poorer person. Wealthy people have much more of a safety net with their finances than those who have very little to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattcwirla on Jan 14, 2016 4:51:30 GMT
In response to Camillo's first point, I think we can all agree that in our society, some are far more privileged than others, and this advantage directly correlates to the economic situation of the family one is born into. The assumption that poor people are "lazy, not motivated, unwilling to work," is false; rather, those in poorer upbringings are less likely to have access to quality education and therefore often remain at the bottom of the social ladder. On the other hand, we have figures such as Donald Trump, who received his "small loan of a million dollars," upon graduation from college, which undoubtedly improved his chances at success in the business sector. In comparison to those who work two jobs to simply put food on the table, Trump and other wealthy Americans like him often rely on the achievements of their parents and grandparents in order to give them a leg up in the start of their career. By never having to worry about things such as mortgage or feeding their children, wealthy Americans can focus on becoming wealthier rather than merely on surviving.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaellandolfi on Jan 14, 2016 5:06:08 GMT
I think Matt's final point is spot on in bringing up the concept of focus and how a person's focus can change how we as society view them. For example society views a single mother working two jobs just to feed their children differently than we view a day laborer who works just enough for their next trip. Even though both of them are poor and neither of them are advancing economically they are two very different people because of what their focus is on. I think this shows that some people are unable to advance economically not because they were born into it or because they made bad decisions but because they have other more important matters to focus on. It also shows that effort is not the only thing that can help people advance because even though the single mother is working very hard she is not advancing and she might need a little help, possibly from the government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik Z on Jan 14, 2016 5:23:27 GMT
I am confused as to how society views a single mother working two jobs differently than a day laborer. In the grand scheme of American economics, the main point that both parties are attempting to reach is that of financial stability. However it is true that effort is not the only force in determining one's own economic progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattcwirla on Jan 14, 2016 5:29:14 GMT
I agree with Michael's point about how effort does not necessarily create a massively improved situation. Both the single mother and the day laborer could work multiple jobs for years, and yet still find it impossible to move up the social ladder. People in poverty don't have the luxury of sitting down and deciding one night to move up the social ladder, if it were that easy, poverty would not be an issue. This is due to the circumstances that they were born into or what life has otherwise led them to. Government aid, given that it is substantial, could mean the difference for a person to either make money simply to survive versus better their life as a whole such as only working one job and staying home with their children for longer periods of time. By giving aid, through problems such as scholarships for colleges or simply food stamps so someone can eat, you can give someone an opportunity to better their lives as a whole. Someone cannot attend college and work full time to help their family and pay tuition.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaellandolfi on Jan 14, 2016 5:33:48 GMT
Sorry if I was confusing what I was trying to explain was that society would look at the single mother and see a woman tirelessly trying to provide for her family, a situation that would evoke sympathy in the eyes of an onlooker and bring up the idea that maybe if she had some help, her efforts could go towards her reaching financial stability; whereas society would view the day laborer who works for the sole purpose of drugs as someone who deserves to be impoverished and any help given to him wasted because his focus is on drugs rather than increasing his economic standing, which is something he could do without help. If he refocused his efforts unlike the mother who's focus is on working two jobs to feed her children, he could advance economically
|
|
|
|
Post by allanbeilin on Jan 14, 2016 5:58:38 GMT
I noticed that the arguments presented in this thread and on this debate topic in general have been presented strictly from a moral and psuedo-socioeconomic standpoint. In evaluating political ideas and actions, morality really is not applicable. Reason is a much more effective tool, and it can be utilized in evaluating based on economic considerations above all others. After all, socialism seems to be a brilliant display of morality and egalitarianism, but when it comes down to the small details on how the economy would function, the results are not quite as pretty. So in tackling the issue of poverty from an economic standpoint, it does not make sense to redistribute income from the wealthy to the less fortunate-this artificial leveling of society does nobody any good. It is important to realize that the people of the middle and upper classes are in essence the very people fueling and growing our economy. These are the small-business owners, the investors, the entrepreneurs of America that are the driving force of economic growth and the reason that America is able to compete in an increasingly competitive 21st century global consumer economy. The poor however, through no fault of their own (in most cases), simply do not have the same contribution nor the same effect in elevating America. It is also a well-established tenet of economics, that if the consumer has less money at his/her disposal, he tends to spend less money (such as in recessions), leading to economic stagnation in decline. Thus, instead of artificially transferring resources and income from the wealthy to the not-so-fortunate, which would lead to economic decline and decrease in American international economic status, it makes logical sense to attempt to the grow the economy, by encouraging the middle class and the wealthy to spend their money freely and invest it. In conclusion, the best solution to solving poverty lies not in the redistribution of wealth and removal of incentives, but in the efforts to grow the American economy, and naturally eliminate poverty by elevating the standard of living and job market.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattcwirla on Jan 14, 2016 6:39:30 GMT
Allan, your theory of encouraging the middle class and wealthy to spend their money freely and invest it seems similar to tenets of a political theory known as "trickle-down economics," or that if the wealthy are able to spend and invest more money, this money is then "trickled down" through all aspects of society due to the increased income of wealth. However, this has been proven to not work, and many reports such as by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have proven that a rise in inequality results in a lower GDP. Additionally, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently released a statement disproving this theory stating that: "Specifically, if the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. The poor and the middle class matter the most for growth via a number of interrelated economic, social, and political channels" www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf Page 4 Using the IMF's analysis, it does not make sense to simply forget about a certain group of people and not assist them due to them not having the "same effect in elevating America." No, we should not take billions of dollars from the rich and somehow distribute this to everyone making less than a certain value, but I think that it is important to realize that simply allowing the rich to get richer and increasing income inequality is not a solution. |
|
|
|
Post by allanbeilin on Jan 14, 2016 7:16:20 GMT
Matt, I am not promoting trickle-down economics or attempting to say that wealth gain should be coming from the top down. I am simply saying that the best, and most meaningful and long-term way to combat poverty is to stimulate economic growth. Taking a look at the views of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that you cited, I noticed some strikingly insightful arguments supporting the idea of economic growth as a solution to poverty. According to the OECD in a report about Building Jobs and Prosperity, "A successful strategy of poverty reduction must have at its core measures to promote rapid and sustained economic growth. The challenge for policy is to combine growthpromoting policies with policies that allow the poor to participate fully in the opportunities unleashed and so contribute to that growth. This includes policies to make labour markets work better, remove gender inequalities and increase financial inclusion." www.oecd.org/derec/unitedkingdom/40700982.pdfYou will notice that the argument is arguing for greater integration of the lower class in the economy, NOT greater handouts. In regards to the statistic developed by the IMF, the idea of the wealthy continuing to grow wealthier while the poor grow poorer is absolutely not what I am advocating. I am saying that the wealthy, having worked to gain a surplus of money, can reinvest this money in the American economy. Investment in the economy is the surest way to foster economic growth on a large scale, and there is no denying that economic growth benefits everybody. It is a common misconception to equate economic growth with rising income inequality. Also, according to political scientist Aaron Zubia, "The rich getting richer does not make the poor poorer: The evidence shows that recent economic growth has made everyone better off. A Congressional Budget Office report from 2011 showed that income grew by 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households, 65 percent for the next 19 percent, just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent. In other words, Peter does not have to rob Paul in order to get rich. When wealth is created, both Peter and Paul tend to benefit, even though those benefits do not accrue equally. The poor are getting richer too: A study published in the National Tax Journal showed that “more than half of the households in the top 1 percent in 2005 were not there in 1996.” In other words, lots of people are rising to the top. It’s true in lower income brackets as well. Thomas Sowell writes, between 1996 and 2005, the income of individuals who had been in the bottom 20 percent of income-tax filers in 1996 had increased by 91 percent by 2005, and the income of those individuals who were in the top 1 percent in 1996 had fallen by 26 percent. … Whatever the relationship between one income bracket and another, that is not necessarily the relationship between people, because people are moving from one bracket to another as time goes on. According to a Pew report on economic mobility, “the vast majority of Americans have higher family incomes than their parents did.” Additionally, as the Heritage Foundation indicates, a majority of poor households have refrigerators, televisions, air conditioning, microwaves, televisions, cars, and cellular phones, which signals an amazing rise in the standard of living in this country over the last several decades. Gary Burtless, an economist from the Brookings Institution, writes that both the poor and the middle class got richer between 1979 and 2010. " As you can see, economic growth is beneficial to everyone and is the surest solution to reduce poverty in the long-term. |
|
|
|
Post by maxwellheller on Jan 14, 2016 7:54:23 GMT
As Allan pointed out, reasoning, not morality, must be used when making economic decisions. One's economic standing is, to an extent, a result of their actions. If a person decides to commit murder, the action of murder falls onto that one person and that one person alone. That individual must face the consequences of their actions. Poverty cannot be a shared burden because it would result in people taking responsibility for other people's actions. If poverty can be a shared responsibility, then why can't murder also be a shared responsibility? Furthermore, if individuals are not held accountable for their actions, then these actions would have no meaning and no purpose. Therefore, in order to validate a person's actions and decisions, poverty must be an individual responsibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by ascoffone on Jan 14, 2016 8:02:29 GMT
Allan, although your statistics do seem to indicate that socio-economic mobility may be greater than it seems in America, this alone does not denote a solution to poverty. As your statistics in fact showed, the benefits of a "thriving" economy become less and less as you move down the income ladder. The reality is, while the system of counting on the wealthy to reinvest their money in the economy serves to benefit the wealthy and even the middle class, it's effect on the poor is negligible.
|
|
