|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Scrap the space program and spend the billions and billions of dollars being wasted on finding ways to ruin other planets on saving this one.
Lack of water, both sanitary water for washing and drinking, and irrigation water for growing food a big problem in much of the world. Teaching people in that situation how to get a sustainable water supply would be the most important thing to get them out of poverty.
Teaching people to fish will do no good if they have no water.
I was going to give the same answer. Good one Sherry.
You are right-- water comes first, except for air. Education in all of these areas is key.
Water does no good if you're going to pollute it with human waste. Along with wells, then, must come waste treatment or the fresh water only allows the waste problem to grow. Ancient Romans knew this, and did the best they could by taking it out of the cities, but that just fouled the rivers for downstream peoples.
I suggest you read the book "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty " which pretty much explains the reason why is not because due to lack of money but the power structure. Pretty depressing at times but can download the audio book.
A GOOD Place to start Curbing the very Root of POVERTY is the following: ~ ALL of which are supported by Democrats, Democratic Socialists, & Progressives and ALL of which are Vehemently OPPOSED by Conservative Republicans except for item #2 ~
* Raise the MINIMUM Wage across the Board in ALL States to at least $12-15 per hr ~
* Re-Think Employment Applications / Qualifications for Non-Violent ex-prison persons ~
* Drastic CHANGE, Modification, Restriction, and or Alterations of Wall Street & Related Persons ~
* Single Payer Federal GOV Sponsored & Administered or UNIVERSAL Health Coverage / Care for ALL Americans at Birth ~
How will that affect prices? If commodities rise in order to offset the hourly wage hike, the lower incomes still be in the same boat.
How will that help?
Share your plan.
That would ease the effects of poverty. I'm not opposed to a plan. But, we would have to stop thinking a drug will cure all ills and that a sniffle warrants a doctor visit.
There is NO Connection between the "Price of Commodities" and "Hourly Wage", that's simply an OLD Worn out Republican Talking Point ~
Interested in "Questioning" WAGES or Concerned about economic impact? Try comparing the Working Wage for the average American which has either stagnated or gone DOWN in recent history, to CEO & Corporate Officer Salary which has virtually SKY-Rocketed to "OBSCENE" levels over the same period of time ~ Compare the $7.50 Federal Minimum Wage to a 1 MILLION Dollar CEO Salary for someone who doesn't even EARN it ~ Is the VALUE of a Human Being that DIVERGENT? I don't think so ~
The reason for such unjust OBSCENE CEO enrichment lies within the Corruption of Wall Street & the FAILED Capitalistic Society in which we unfortunately must endure until changed ~
And what is the CONservative Republican PLAN? GIve even MORE of our WEALTH in the NAME of "Capitalism" to Wall Street then PRAY mightily that they share it with those below, a FAILED Greed Driven Concept which NEVER materializes ~
Say what??? I'm a business owner. I can tell you if I had to increase wages by that extent it would have to affect the cost of our services and our services affect the cost of the commodities our clients are selling. How, exactly, do you expect a small business on a tight margin to absorb that? It isn't a Republican talking point. It is a fact of life that you, as apparently a person who has no business experience, needs to learn about. If my customers do not want to pay for the increase in the price of services I am out of business. If I absorb the costs involved, I am out of business. Those are the only two options. And, those will be the only two options for them. To say otherwise is either naive or worse. It isn't rocket science. So, I can assume you aren't that naive.
I'll tell you what I'd advise any other legitimate, astute business owner, if indeed you truly are one ~ If your "Margin" is that "Tight, FRAGILE & Fickle" and or your Bankroll is in-flexible or anemic, you shouldn't be in business anyway because you are indeed destine to fail ~
When starting a small business the "Action Plan" should include ROOM to pay any and all additional employees a "LIVABLE Wage" NOT "Slave Labor Wages" and it should also include a viable plan to provide adequate "Health Insurance" at a minimum for said employees until we as a nation implement a "Single Payer Program" ~ The days of USING Americans as "Inhuman Labor" in a concerted effort to make someone else wealthy will hopefully come to an end soon ~
If these essentials cannot be met, in all REALITY, you should consider an alternative venture or simply MOVE it to China where all the other GREED Driven Companies assemble because obviously "Owning, Operating & Managing" a business is not your forte' ~
"When starting a small business the "Action Plan" should include ROOM to pay any and all additional employees a "LIVABLE Wage" NOT "Slave Labor Wages" and it should also include a viable plan to provide adequate "Health Insurance" at a minimum for said employees until we as a nation implement a "Single Payer Program" ~ The days of USING Americans as "Inhuman Labor" in a concerted effort to make someone else wealthy will hopefully come to an end soon"
A living wage as defined by you, no doubt. But you forgot to include a 32 hour work week, 16 paid holidays, 6 weeks paid vacation, free on site daycare, free onsite workout gym (every McDonalds should have one of those!), unlimited Long Term Disability and a 30 minute rest break every hour.
Should be no problem, though - we all know that McDonalds nets $4 off that $2 Big Mac you had for lunch and Safeway nets $3 from that sack of potatoes you paid $1 for. 200% profit is the norm, after all!
But perhaps you need help around the house - I'll cut your grass every week for only $1,000 per week - that "living wage" in operation that I'm sure you'll be happy to pay. I'll even throw in a free car wash for another $250!
Yup, your right wilderness and you seem to agree with Dunce Jed Bush's PLAN to force AMERICAN's to "WORK Even Harder" ~ That's his brainless solution and essentially EVERY CONservative Republican's Backward intitiative and just look where it got him ~ Keep falling for that GOP "CON Job" ~
Oh, and let's not forget the BRILLIANT idea EVERY Republican Candidate is Peddling ~ Let's just give "MORE MONEY to Wall Street & Corporations" while OBSTRUCTING Minimum Wage Increases for Hard Working Americans, that should pretty much solve everything ~ Do you even understand how RETARDED that sounds? But unfortunately there are actually dim-witted republicans out there who Fall for this Scheme ~ Idiot W Bush managed to pull that TRICK Off in early 2000's and his intentional "Mal-Practice & Negligence" nearly DESTROYED this entire Nation ~ Same Retarded Republican Scam, Different ELECTION Cycle ~
Naw - no need to give it to wall street. Instead we'll give more the the workers than is available and tomorrow we'll ALL be out of work. At least that's what you're claiming is the thing to do. Sounds kind of RETARDED, doesn't it, when the suggestion actually sees light of day? (You might keep in mind that no one actually believes that your precious "living wage" is anything but all that can be squeezed until the well is completely empty - that enough to live on is not the goal at all.)
It's called "Sharing the Wealth" by NOT affording a tiny hand full of unconscionably GREEDY individuals some of whom are not even citizens, the luxury of using Human American SLAVES to Control EVERYTHING on Earth, including the Cash FLOW ~
There is something desperately afoul when a Grotesquely Large & Bloated Wall Street Corporation NETs 1 Billion Dollars in Profit yet uses Republican Congressional Puppets to Fight & OBSTRUCT a Minimum Wage Increase ~
Yep - "sharing" until it's all gone and no more is being created.
But wait - you DO understand that businesses, unlike liberal governments, do not have unlimited money at their disposal? That they can't simply rob the "rich" to get more, but have to sell their product at a profit to get more money to give out? You do understand that?
Or do you really think that a business can just pass a law to get more money from greedy consumers that refuse to pay for American labor, just like liberals with a Trillion dollars in government "income" just raise taxes and take more whenever they decide to give more away?
Or, maybe, you truly do find that earning a $100 bill from a part ownership of that Billion dollar income corporation is Large & Bloated? That no business owner should ever earn that obscene amount to live with? Is that it? That worker greed should be able to deny reasonable profits to business owners?
Perhaps you think that as a corporation grows and invests in more labor, more manufacturing, , more owners, more of everything it should not increase it's profits? That the total profits should remain at the minimal levels of a mom & pop country store regardless of the investment or how many owners there are? That would certainly be a fine reason to grow a business and hire more workers - that there would be no increase in income from it!
We have an ENORMOUS Problem in America when a GREED Driven Wall Street Corporation is allowed to NET 1 Billion in Profit while paying their SLAVE Labor $12 per hour versus accepting a 900 MILLION Net Profit while paying their SLAVES $15 per hour which is still Inadeuqate & Unacceptable long term ~
Your assumption of "TRUSTING" a Corporation to Share the WEALTH is Obscenely Naive' ~ Wall Street HOARDS Assets while ENRICHING CEO''s and OFFICERS and that's an unfortunate FACT and a company will EXPAND only when it benefits a select few regardless of TAX Advantages ~
Sorry wilderness, but that's the REALITY in your Failed Capitalistic Society ~
LOL! You're a funny man! Did you bother to do the math on your wonderful proposal? 100 M will only give 16,000 employees a $3 raise, and no billion dollar corporation has only 16,000 employees. It would help a lot if you would actually think about your proposals before voicing them. HP, for instance, had income of not one but 5 B...and 304,000 employees. Do the math yourself if you can, and see the cost to raise every employee by $3. (Hint: it's 4X what you're proposing, per employee).
How about this: every share in a corporation is worth a lousy $100 per year to the owner. NOW how big a raise can you give? Or do those people not count because they don't need to eat? HP has about 2B shares outstanding, and made 5B. If every penny went to stockholders (it doesn't; some goes to growth, charity, etc.) that's $2.50 per share. Big return, isn't it, for a $50 investment: less than 5% per year. Horribly unfair that owners earn 5%, return, isn't it?
So the REALITY is that you don't know where the money for your grandiose schemes will come from, and don't care. They should be carried out anyway, right up to the point of bankruptcy for every company in the country. Which is what the liberal view always ends up being - bankruptcy for the country because they don't care where the money for their plans comes from. Too used to robbing people with higher taxes for their utopian share the wealth schemes while never bothering to consider what the results will actually be.
Go back to your monopoly game where you may actually know something about how the game is played. You certainly have no clue as to basic economics or business.
Since there is absolutely no evidence that you know what you are attempting to talk about, I'll look toward more experienced people for advice.
I don't pay slave labor wages. But, I can't afford to pay those levels of wages in the market we are in. If anyone who works with us considers it Inhuman Labor, I would advise them to seek employment elsewhere. When our business grows our employees know they will grow with us.
Your suggestion to move to China has been taken up by many corporations and is one of the things hurting America right now. Which shows just how pointless advice from someone ill informed can be.
Just wanted to add that your response showcases the fact that you know absolutely nothing about the topic and would do well to learn something about real life. And then, if you feel the same way, come back.
How to reduce poverty in the world?
Birth control for out-of-control places like Africa and India.
+1,000,000,000,000,000! Birth control education & practices should be implemented among the poorer classes of Africa, Asia, and South America. Such education & practices also should be implemented among poorer people in post-industrialized, computerized countries. The more people are taught about the detriments of large families in terms of impoverishment, lesser educational, & socioeconomic opportunities, the more large families will decrease in favor of the small family.
Furthermore with the increase of education of women particularly, family size will become smaller. With education, there will be increased options & opportunities for women. Such women will have outside options & won't have the need to have so many children. Let's add that with the decrease of religion, automatically there will be a marked decrease in large families & the raise of small families.
People have large families because they are uneducated regarding family planning technology. They also have very little to no education(developing nations) or are lesser educated(in post-industrialized nations). People who are highly educated tend to have knowledge about family planning technology & know the benefits of small families.
Totally agree & also for America. There are out of control women in America who need to be educated regarding birth control.
I know many of you don't want to hear it, but here it is:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/20 … story.html
Okay, I did it the low tech way and it should work now.
Yes, it works better now.
But I'm not impressed; just the same-O same-O. Take from the worker and give it to someone else. The thing that's ruining Europe and will ruin the US if allowed to grow much more. I'd also comment on one of the later paragraphs on the second page: that no, we won't ever end poverty. Because the bar will be forever raised, not because we can't support everyone. What was "rich" 50 years ago is now poverty stricken, and that will never change.
This reminds me of the "how to reduce abortions" discussion. The easiest and most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is to provide free birth control to those who want it, including teens. It has been shown to dramatically reduce abortions and save health care costs. However, there is a certain faction who believes that providing birth control to teens encourages immorality, so they push against an easy solution. They use their own personal version of morality to prevent a simple solution (seemingly ignoring that more abortions are the by-product of their strange concept of morality).
Poverty is not quite as simple, but it is a fact that if you give poor people money, housing, food, education, and security they will be lifted from poverty. It works. But, here again, you will hear from those who think it's immoral to give money to the poor, in the form of increased tax revenue. How much would you be willing to give if you could lower the poverty rate in the US from 25% to, say, 5%? Would you support cutting our bloated defense budget and funneling it to social services? Would you pay an additional 3% in taxes?
Another example of moral judgment overriding common sense is the war on drugs. Venezuala has decriminalized all drug use. Crime rates, especially drug-related crime, have decreased. Addiction has gone down. Did you know that in states in the US that have legalized marijuana, heroin use is already decreasing? Why? Because you can go to your local dispensary to purchase marijuana, where you are not exposed to a drug dealer who is also pushing other drugs. Simple solution: legalize drugs and don't arrest people simply for using. But, you will hear from the moral judgment police that it is wrong.
"Poverty is not quite as simple, but it is a fact that if you give poor people money, housing, food, education, and security they will be lifted from poverty. It works"
BS, it does not work. Show one instance where entitlement programs have lifted anyone out of poverty. All you get is lazy people using the system to stay lazy and poop out a bunch of babies to get more entitlements. Look at any inner city housing project neighborhood for proof of that.
"lovetherain" is a PERFECT Example of WHY I'm in favor of REMOVING the State of Texas from the Union and the ONLY requirement for entrance to said FREE State is to "Surrender" your Social Security, Medicare, & Health Insurance at the door ~ YOU R ON YOUR Own and don't forget to make room in the dog house for Grandma & Grandpa once their Benefit CHECKs are no longer ~
The perfect solution for those mindless individuals who continue to oppose these programs which are critical for senior citizens ~ "MOVE to Texas & B FREE" could be your slogan ~
There's a simple way to reform welfare: give poor people cash
Read and learn. An open mind helps.
Of course people will do well in the short term if you give them money. Duh. It's the long term that matters, if they are going to STAY out of poverty.
And where the hell are you going to get the money to help out every poor African, Indian, American?
I'm not going to get it anywhere. It takes a village and all that. I'm merely showing that there are solutions, if we have the temerity and resourcefulness to pursue them.
I see you didn't think this through. SOMEONE has to pay the trillions it would cost to get everyone "out of poverty". And how long would that lasts, when the money runs out? Millions back in poverty.
Some individuals primarily of the CONservative Republican BREED are OBLIVIOUS to a Grotesque 1 BILLION Dollar Corporate NET Profit booked by Wall Street Entities ~ That's "NET" not "Gross" and that's BILLION not Million ~
AND ALL Dim-Witted CONservative Republican Presidential Candidates have unwavering PLANs to GIVE Corporations EVEN M*O*R*E MONEY in the form of TAX Breaks, Subsidies etc etc yet they begin a MASS Jump from 10 story buildings when someone mentions a MINIMUM Wage increase for Hard Working American SLAVES ~ Insane ~
You are thinking in a very limited way. I am not willing to get into the details because I don't care to take the time. If you truly want to learn more, it will take a lot of reading and learning, something I cannot offer on this forum.
All you have to do is look at a ghetto to see what welfare does to people. I think you maybe haven't learned that yet. Your rose colored glasses have obscured your view.
So, you have a degree in "ghetto looking"? This qualifies you to understand the complexities of poverty? Glad to hear it.
Sorry, I get sarcastic when actual evidence is countered with "ghetto looking." It's a personal fault of mine.
And YOUR qualifications to "understand the complexities of poverty" are?
Well, I have not made a grand pronouncement about welfare: "All you have to do is look at a ghetto to see what welfare does to people."
You explicitly stated that ghetto looking was enough to determine the efficacy of welfare.
I made no such statement about anything, other than solutions are out there and maybe we could help. I am not an expert, but I would never rely solely upon ghetto looking to make a determination about the effectiveness of anything, much less a federal program.
lovetherain ~ In some cases welfare is the difference between living in a "GHETTO" and resting your head on a CONCRETE Pillow at NIGHT ~
in addition, a social security check in some cases is the difference between trying to EXIST in "POVERTY" and ending Up HOMELESS ~
And then there is something called a "job", which seems to be a foreign concept to welfare queens.
Even though it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject at hand, when the day comes that you can GUARANTEE ALL Americans a "JOB" or Slave Slot" even in the BEST of Economic Times please let us all know ~
APPLE Computer BAGS Billions in NET Profits yet they Create and or EX=Patriate precious "JOBS" by the bushels to Foreign Lands ALL in the NAME of GREED & to Appease Wall Street ~ That's an unfortunate FACT ~
But that's how it goes in a FREE Market "Capitalistic" society, a select few are Unlawfully Pillaging this country at the EXPENSE of her citizens ~
From your link:
"Give poor people cash without conditions attached, and it turns out they use it to buy goods and services that improve their lives and increase their future earnings potential."
This is very true for at least some of those given cash (a minority in my experience). But even then, that potential is seldom realized as people come to understand that they have no need to support themselves; that someone else will do it for them with no effort on their part. There are very few people that would perform work they dislike if they didn't have to, and unending charity means exactly that.
I don't have an all-encompassing answer, I just know that unlimited charity only produces slaves, not productive citizens. When we have people "trying" to find work year after year and failing, or constantly being laid off or quitting because the "boss was mean to me", well, it says something about the willingness and the need to work. Very few people will die of starvation because they don't want to work, whether we feed them or not! Some will choose to be homeless rather than work, but is that a reason to supply housing for anyone not wanting to pay for housing? I think not.
No, simply feeding money that others have worked to earn is not the answer to reducing poverty. In the long run it only makes everyone poor; half the population cannot support the other half, at least not at above what we laughingly call "poverty" today.
We've had these types of discussions before. I do not advocate for "unlimited" charity.
Maybe not, but simply throwing money at anyone determined to be "in poverty" does sound like it.
Giving money is fine, and can be useful, but must be tempered with great care lest it become a way of life. As it has in the US and other developed nations wanting to help their citizens.
Thank you, social welfare programs make people lose incentive & initiative to improve themselves. As a result of social welfare programs, there is generational welfare. When people receive handouts, they become complacent, viewing such handouts as a normative lifestyle. People have to want to get out of poverty through education,planning & smart work. People have to MAKE opportunities & believe in responsibility & accountability instead of victimhood.
People are poor in America, for the most part, because they make unintelligent life choices. If one refuses to finish school, get married in one's teens, & have children before one is financially, emotionally, & psychologically prepared, one is going to be at the minimum, poor & at the maximum, downright impoverished. People are poor in America because they fail to see things long term, they believe in immediate gratification. Poor people are emotionally & psychologically children, they act instinctively instead of intelligently & maturely.
Also, poor people tend to have LARGER families as opposed to middle & upper class people who have SMALLER families. Children in LARGE families don't have the proper nutrition. They also have very little or no medical care. They oftentimes have to quit school to supplement their family income thus continuing another generational cycle of poverty
There are ways to reduce, if not eliminate poverty in America:
(1) Get an in-demand education or trade.
(2) Obtain the highest possible education.
(3) Wait until one is financially, emotionally, & psychologically established to get married & particularly to have children.
(4) Have a SMALL family. Studies show that the larger the family, the higher levels of poverty.
+1,000,000,000,000, this is ONE thing I agree w/lovetherain on.
"How much would you be willing to give if you could lower the poverty rate in the US from 25% to, say, 5%? Would you support cutting our bloated defense budget and funneling it to social services? Would you pay an additional 3% in taxes? "
There are two major problems with your question. The first is that shackling people to the largess of government is a very poor method of reducing poverty. But the second may be worse - should we raise taxes 3% to "reduce poverty" the poverty line will simply be raised, putting more people in "poverty" and requiring another 3% in a never ending cycle to equalize the wealth. I have watched this happen for 50 years and find no reason to think it would suddenly be different this time.
"...but it is a fact that if you give poor people money, housing, food, education, and security they will be lifted from poverty. It works."
Unfortunately, for the reasons listed above, it does NOT work. It just produces an even larger generation of people dependent on charity to provide their needs. Charity can be a wonderful thing, lifting people from temporary financial problems and putting them back on their feet, but when it becomes a way of life (and it very definitely has for a great many Americans and even more Europeans) it can only damage the society that is generous enough to "help".
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
(6 or more children per household) in the postmodern, 21st century United States, being fully cognizant of the fact that they will be subjecting their children to an extremely rudimentary and primitive socioeconomic...
by H C Palting2 years ago
Do you believe that poorer and/or less educated people have more children whom they can't support?Do you know any ill effects to the child(ren) born to these families and society? If so, what are they?
by Grace Marguerite Williams22 months ago
What are the 7 factors causing children in large/very large families to be the LEAST educated/economically successful in comparison to children in small families who're the MOST educated/economically successful? In...
by DinoMommy2 years ago
I'm just wondering what people thought about them....
by Divakara2 years ago
What can be done to help the poor apart from giving them money or food ?
by Nichol marie4 months ago
Do you know someone who is prejudice of larger families?Why do some people have an ignorant belief that moms of large families cannot be the same as moms with one or 2?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.