It is natural in the same sense that disease is natural. It is an obstacle to be overcome, but it does not change the fact that left unattended, these things are the starting point for humanity.
I don’t agree poverty is the natural state of humanity. The first thing we do when we are born is seek food. That is natural. Thus, doing without food is not natural. Doing without food causes disease, this is not natural. In my view describing poverty as natural is a way of absolving ourselves from responsibility.
The problem is that people are refusing to do blue collar jobs. I work as an armored truck driver, my company is always hiring. We make significantly more than the minimum. My brother works as a plumber’s apprentice. No prior experience, no college education. He makes more money than I do. In my area, there are plenty of construction and trucking jobs open. They pay well, but they lack the bodies.We do have laws against it and they are enforced every so often. We should also bring back chain gangs, that way offenders could earn back the money they stole.You still have to gather it and process it in some form. Even then, this assumes that you would want to live in Mr. John Locke’s state of nature.Less than 4% of all hourly workers make minimum wage or less.
bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/archive/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf
Get a roommate, buy things used. That is what I do.
Perhaps in your part of the world people do refuse blue collar jobs, I can’t comment. What I do know is in my part of the world many university graduates are in minimum wage jobs because it’s the only work they can get
Single people can get a roommate, but this solution is more difficult for young couples with young families. It’s a mistake to think if others do what I do then they will be OK.
Don’t get the reference to Locke. The reason why I would say poverty is the ultimate form of control is it is so dis-empowering. There is little to equal poverty in terms dis-empowerment. An example of this is legal rights. Where legal rights are denied and individuals have not the capacity to advocate their own case or pay a lawyer, the legal right has little value.
It is not a question of money though. In the United States, we spend $84,000 for every four people in poverty every year. In other words, we could be cutting every poor family a check for $60,000 and we would still be ahead. However, this is the government in operation and what government would want people to not be dependent on them? Before I set up my Objectivist utopia and completely dismantle the welfare state, I have some ideas on how to reform the system. One such idea would be having welfare benefits scale with income into the lower middle class bracket. The welfare would be such that working and welfare would give more money than welfare alone assuming you are working 40 hours a week.
The question I posed in the OP was - Trickle down policies should encompass strategies that compensate for the effects of poverty other than charity.
The answer to that question is either a straight yes they should or no they should not.
If the answer is yes - what should those strategies be?
If the answer is no - why not?
Some posters have responded positively by stating policies that facilitate education assists in reducing the effects of poverty.
Others like you have said dismantle the welfare state. I fail to see how this would compensate for poverty. I take your point about dependency, but surely no welfare at all would create more poverty. It cannot validly be argued if the welfare state was dismantled everyone on benefits would get a job and become upwardly mobile. I can understand why you used the term objectivist utopia. I am more interested in the here and now and the realities on the ground.
A strategy that appeals to me is people who work should be better of than those who do not. Many people who work find they are worse off than they would be if they claimed benefit. I would also say in my part of the world there are some who claim benefits can have their gadgets, expensive jewellry and trips abroad because they sell drugs. Thus, what is needed is not stopping benefits but tackling drug dealings. Stop the drug dealers benefits and chances are they will get by or end up in prison where they will not need benefits. Stop benefits altogether and those in greatest need are hit.
