Poverty is Inefficient
Apr. 21st, 2007 12:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
forsythRecently, reading a couple blogs, I came up with a completely non-moral, non-religious, non-soft-hearted-liberal, etc reason to try and do away with poverty. It's inefficient. Wasteful. Not just of human lives, but of potential. Imagine all the inventions and businesses that could be started, if people weren't in the deathly grip of poverty, or weren't scared that if they failed they'd lose everything. If there were some reasonable minimum level of security, people would be more free to try something new, get out of the dead end jobs, etc. And then maybe we could get society as a whole out of this position where the most common jobs are dead-end jobs, mostly selling crap we don't need to each other.
But think about it. Think about all the things that people could do if they weren't trapped in their situations by crushing poverty. Think of the things people could do if they weren't trapped and clinging as tight as they can to the crappy place they are now for fear of that crushing grip of poverty. Think of the chances people'd be willing to take if there was something there to catch on besides the hard streets. And then think of what all that could do for the country, hell, the world.
Of course, the problem with presenting this as a practical solution to certain kinds of folks is they don't want people to try, to dare, they'd rather have people scared and dumb, it's easier to get money out of them, and easier to give them somebody else to blame and get their votes. There's quite a few people who use talk about things like economics and stuff only so long as they help them get the answers they want.
But there you go, a completely non-squishy reason to try and end poverty, that doesn't require any concern for your fellow man, just consideration of what that kind of society could do for you.
The moral or ethical or religious or similar reasons are perfectly good too, and general concern for your fellow man should be enough reason on its own. And the people it's not good enough for probably won't be convinced by this either, but this is just yet reason to add on there.
But think about it. Think about all the things that people could do if they weren't trapped in their situations by crushing poverty. Think of the things people could do if they weren't trapped and clinging as tight as they can to the crappy place they are now for fear of that crushing grip of poverty. Think of the chances people'd be willing to take if there was something there to catch on besides the hard streets. And then think of what all that could do for the country, hell, the world.
Of course, the problem with presenting this as a practical solution to certain kinds of folks is they don't want people to try, to dare, they'd rather have people scared and dumb, it's easier to get money out of them, and easier to give them somebody else to blame and get their votes. There's quite a few people who use talk about things like economics and stuff only so long as they help them get the answers they want.
But there you go, a completely non-squishy reason to try and end poverty, that doesn't require any concern for your fellow man, just consideration of what that kind of society could do for you.
The moral or ethical or religious or similar reasons are perfectly good too, and general concern for your fellow man should be enough reason on its own. And the people it's not good enough for probably won't be convinced by this either, but this is just yet reason to add on there.
