|
| 20 Feb 2012 09:03 AM |
Poverty has claimed over 2 billion lives around the world. Think about it. We have the millionaires, billionaires, the mid-class, and the low-class, and the poverty and the extreme poverty. Why can't everybody be a mid-class so that others don't have to suffer what others are happily living their lives. I feel sorry for the people in poverty, since it's not really their fault their in poverty. Most of the cases is because by generations their left in poverty, meaning that their parents don't have jobs, their grandparents don't have jobs, etc. That means the next generation would be born without basic human necessities, since where does the parent gets their money from?
Billionaires/Millionaires however, just live their lives trying to gain as much money as possible or be simply called 'Corporate Greed'. Of course, they have millions or probably billions of cash to spare! Why can't they use this cash to help out other than advertising so they could get more money? Whilst they have more than enough?
"Knowledge talks, wisdom listens." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 09:12 AM |
Marx was right, some people are always ripped off.
Honestly, something is wrong with this world if over 30% of its inhabitants live in poverty. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 09:16 AM |
"Honestly, something is wrong with this world if over 30% of its inhabitants live in poverty."
Agreed.
"Knowledge talks, wisdom listens." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Ryplayer
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2007 |
| Total Posts: 6484 |
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 09:20 AM |
| Inb4 rich kid, gun owning republicans who think poor people are subhuman. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 09:24 AM |
Cool.
Now assuming our current culture and all other things are constant, where would the incentive to work come from? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 09:27 AM |
| Raising the minimum wage could be a good start as it doesnt remove the incentive to work. Altough economyfrags will soon slaughter me with things i dont know about. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 09:29 AM |
Minimum wage creates unemployment. Yay.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Branch14
|
  |
| Joined: 10 Jun 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5383 |
|
| |
|
Ryplayer
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2007 |
| Total Posts: 6484 |
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 09:31 AM |
Raising the NMW increases the rate of inflation and discourages investment in said country. It encourages multinational companies to look overseas to locate a viable workforce, and discourages people to start businesses.
Also, there are always loopholes in the NMW which can be easily exploited - for example, using a pay-per-piece pay system.
It's a good idea, but it's not really effective in reducing poverty. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pepper0
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 12032 |
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 09:34 AM |
| Mostly those 2 billion people either live in China, where authoritarianism is still rampant, North Korea (derp) Or any country that is isolated and horribly land locked like most of the African nations. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 09:35 AM |
Minimum wage doesn't discourage people from working; it discourages employers from hiring.
Look at what the La Folette Seamen's Act did to the merchant marine. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Ryplayer
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2007 |
| Total Posts: 6484 |
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 09:35 AM |
The only way you could effectively reduce poverty is increase wealth distribution and literally force people to work. But for people to work, there must be places available for them to work...
Thank Margaret Thatcher for that problem. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 09:37 AM |
The only way you could effectively reduce poverty is increase wealth distribution and literally force people to work.
____________________
Very true. Technically, a socialist economy could work and work very well. But in our culture, with its value of private property and whatnot, capitalism seems to be a better fit. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 10:13 AM |
I think that making people work would be a good idea, not raising wages. Since, raising wages would make people who are NOT in poverty higher wealth. I think that first of all, governments should give money to the people in poverty to increase economic stability. Since, the saying 'you gotta lose money, to make money', works with the global recession of 2009, whereby countries would give money to the citizens so they could shop, and there is a need in products, and that the factories would start to work again, and that the workers would be needed. If governments gave people in poverty money, then they could start shopping and giving education to their children, so their children could get a job and the economy would start to boost right there, whilst decreasing poverty. Wouldn't that work?
"Knowledge talks, wisdom listens." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
NilPirate
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Jul 2010 |
| Total Posts: 3077 |
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 10:15 AM |
It's not as easy as just socialism or communism. The ending of poverty depends on a total turnaround for the way people think. It requires business owners to collectively seek out unemployed individuals an train them for the job, in a world where time is money and money is scarce. Poverty cannot be ended without almost the entire world getting a sudden turn of conscientiousness and knowing what's right over greed, something that probably won't happen until there is a huge boom into the black as far as economics.
-GD's resident minimod and lurker.- |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 10:21 AM |
"The ending of poverty" We can't end it; but we can REDUCE it.
" It requires business owners to collectively seek out unemployed individuals an train them for the job, in a world where time is money and money is scarce." That's true, and that's what I mean by giving them money at first - so they could get a job, and earn money for their children, so their children can get a job, and for other generations to come.
"Poverty cannot be ended without almost the entire world getting a sudden turn of conscientiousness and knowing what's right over greed" Greed is in human nature. The more you have, the more you want. Have you ever seen a farmer wanting a huge mansion with all the state-of-the-art technology and other crap? No! All they want is a small livable house, with enough money for food, water, etc. However, mid-class citizens would want nice houses, mansions, and more stuff, whilst billionaires would start and become really greedy, and would then attempt to grab as much income as possible *ahem* McDonalds, and they could never satisfy their need.
"Knowledge talks, wisdom listens." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
NilPirate
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Jul 2010 |
| Total Posts: 3077 |
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 10:23 AM |
Lies about greed. There is such a thing as human compassion. It's apparent though that it's not prevalent enough to make a difference in our world. What we need is an alien invasion or something so that people will realize how fragile and interdependent every single human is.
-GD's resident minimod and lurker.- |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Avogadro
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4011 |
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 10:24 AM |
The average person has never been better fed than today. Between 1961 and 2002, the world average daily food supply per person increased by 24% (38% in developing nations). Chronic undernourishment in developing nations declined from 37 to 17 percent of their population between 1969-71 and 2000-02. Greater agricultural productivity and international trade has caused inflation-adjusted prices of food commodities to decline by 75 percent since 1950. Access to safe water and sanitation has increased. Before industrialization, at least one out of every five children died before reaching his or her first birthday, equivalent to more than 20%. In 2003 the worldwide rate was 5.7% which is approximately the same as the developed nations had in 1950. The progress is illustrated by that many developing nations, such as India, Peru, and Ghana, in 1998 had a lower infant mortality than the US had in 1913. For much of human history, life expectancy used to be between 20-30 y-rs. By 1900 it had increased to 31 y-rs. By 2003 it was 66.8 y-rs. Even in Africa, the poorest continent, it has increased to 45.6 y-rs. Not only are people living longer, they are also healthier in o.-l-.d age. During the course of the 20th century, the average onsets of diseases such heart disease (9 y-rs), respiratory disease (11 y-rs), and cancer (8 y-rs), have been delayed. Between 1970 and the early 2000s, global illiteracy rates dropped from 36 to 18 percent. Globally, the percentage of relevant population enrolled in tertiary education increased from 6.8 to 25.6 percent between 1965 and 2001. Worldwide child labor (a.-g.-.e 10-14) has decreased from 24.9 percent in 1960 to 10.5 percent in 2003. Total lifetime spent working for the average British worker declined from 50 to 20 percent of the total "disposable life hours" between 1856 and 1981. Due mainly to improved and cheaper lighting, the increase in free time is arguable even greater, since darkness previously greatly restricted available activities, especially for the poor. In 1900 no country had universal suffrage and only 12.4 percent of the world's population had even limited suffrage. Today 44.1 percent of the World's population live in nations deemed free by Freedom House and another 18.6 percent in nations deemed partly free.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Ryplayer
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2007 |
| Total Posts: 6484 |
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 10:25 AM |
| Just a sidenote: Here, Farmers are MUCH richer than the majority of people - they have massive houses and really it's quite ridiculous. They're middle class for the most part. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Ryplayer
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2007 |
| Total Posts: 6484 |
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 10:25 AM |
| That's nice info you got there, but poverty still exists. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 10:26 AM |
@Ryplayer; Lol. I think their people who owns lots of farmland and employ farmers to work.
"Knowledge talks, wisdom listens." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Avogadro
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4011 |
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 10:28 AM |
| I never said it didn't. I'm saying that there is a clear and undeniable trend in world history. Everybody is getting richer, healthier, more educated, and more well fed; especially the poor! I don't know why no one recognizes this. People seem to believe everything is so terrible now. But it's just not true. I would rather be alive today than in another era. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
NilPirate
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Jul 2010 |
| Total Posts: 3077 |
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 10:31 AM |
Everything IS terrible now. Let's look at your stats. It said only 25% of people in relevant population are enrolled in tertiary school. And that's only in RELEVANT population! There is still HUGE amounts of people out there that need help, and with the added condition that in today's world we have nuclear threat and a more dynamic economy to worry about it is a bigger issue than it has ever been!
-GD's resident minimod and lurker.- |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Avogadro
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4011 |
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 10:33 AM |
| What percent was enrolled in 1965? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Feb 2012 10:33 AM |
The world would never be perfect, and it is completely normal for everything to not be perfect, just like now. I'm not saying it's terrible, but it might become more terrible if more and more people are in poverty, and that these Corporations are increasing in their wealth, with billions to spare.
"Knowledge talks, wisdom listens." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|