Your views and feelings of poverty

[ribozyme]

Unlike many Catholics, I do not vociferously oppose abortion. However, I do have a rather passionate opposition against poverty, largely because I realize that I could have been misfortunate enough to be born in an environment rife with poverty. My feels of sympathy lead me not to wish such a situation and as a result I fervently want poverty to reduced. Unlike many Catholics, I do not see ANY utility to poverty. For example, some Catholics acknowledge that such poverty is an opportunity to show our love. (Mother Teresa also said the suffering of the poor is such a beautiful thing.) However, such love will not efface the misery and suffering of poverty, and as a person who adheres to negative utilitarian ethics, I do not find such reasoning acceptable. I do not feel that charity should be used to as a palliative measure to alleivate some of their pain by having the more fortunate throw a few crumbs at those less fortunate. I therefore believe in more comprehensive methods to dealing with poverty such as a welfare state and the Millenium Development Goals whose goals are motivated by reducing poverty, not appealing to a conception of love.

I found that the view of Jack Atlus in these Yu-Gi-Oh! scene reflects my own views. Also, such a description is similar to the current situation of illegal immigration in the United Stated.

youtube.com/watch?v=0_S5LmeISpc (start playing at 2:55 and end at 4:45)

I found that the view of Jack Atlus in these Yu-Gi-Oh! scene reflects my own views.

scene of Jack Atlus in a penthouse staring at the ocean and a card with Rex Godwin behind him

Rex Godwin:
The King, reminiscing about the past…?

Jack Atlus:

I used to live in that dump.

Rex Godwin:

You were chosen by the stars. You should forget about that dark abyss.

Jack Atlus:

There is no way that I could forget! The days in the Satellite [a] were nothing but humiliation! A world like that should disappear from the face of the Earth!

Rex Godwin:

I am afraid that is not possible. The Satellite is essential to this Neo-Domino City.

scene flashes to the plant in the Satellite showing people sorting garbage

The Satellite is a world which supports the prosperity of those that have been chosen. The ones that live there only exist to recycle our trash. It is true that there is nothing in this world that is useless.

…
Rex Godwin:
In the history of Neo Domino City, no one who had come from the Satellite had been able to obtain

this position besides you. Therefore, you are the one chosen by the stars.

[a]. In Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D’s the setting is divided between two cities: Satellite and Neo Domino City. The Satellite is a ghetto whose citizens live in squalor whose only teleological purpose is to
serve the residents of Neo Domino City by recycling their trash. Unfortunately, the residents of the Satellite are considered pariahs by the residents of Neo Domino City

I believe Jack Atlus’ attitude reflects mine: I sincerely believe the world would be better without poverty. Unlike many liberals I am not sympathetic to illegal immigration, as it forces the unfortunate to suffer for the sake of the privileged as expressed in this post in another thread.

“if you enjoy the benefits of what America has now, the least expensive, best quality, most varied food available in the world, you had better pray on your hands and knees that nobody passes immigration reform, or enforces the laws already on the books. Price of poultry, any meat processed in a packing house (95% of what is consumed), produce fresh, frozen and canned will skyrocket if “they” are not allowed to work these jobs for substandard pay in appalling working conditions.”

Of course, that also reflects that scene I alluded to.

I see some hypocrisy in political liberalism (liberal politics in the United States) although I adamantly agree with liberal political philosophy. Liberals, much the “Wall Street Journal conservatives,” generally tolerate such economic conditions. Unfortunately, some people (middle to upper middle class) who are generally opposed to illegal immigration realize that they will pay a larger percent of their income although not in absolute terms (their income cannot be hidden in shell companies or treated as capital gains) for welfare programs supporting public welfare programs for them and education for their children so the benefits of cheap labor are privatized (such as having a larger “reserve army of labour”) while costs are generally socialized. In addition, people such as Rush Limbaugh do not care about the welfare of illegal immigrants and use it as a means for people to redirect their hatred at the unfortunate. He is not primarily interested in cracking down on employers that hire them.

I do not think one should benefit from the misery of another.

 

[RWMorris]

…I do not think one should benefit from the misery of another.

Your major malfunction is that you believe economics is a “zero-sum” game. As soon as you realize it is not, the happier you will be.

 

[tassitus]

“Unlike many Catholics, I do not vociferously oppose poverty. However, I do have a rather passionate opposition against abortion, largely because I realize that I could have been misfortunate enough to be killed as a fetus in our environment rife with abortionists. My feelings of sympathy lead me not to wish such a situation and as a result I fervently want abortion to be reduced, hopefully eliminated. Unlike many non-Catholics, I do not see ANY utility to abortion. For example…”

Sorry, but that was pretty much the way my tired brain read that first paragraph…

 

[mapleoak]

Unlike many Catholics, I do not vociferously oppose abortion. However, I do have a rather passionate opposition against poverty, largely because I realize that I could have been misfortunate enough to be born in an environment rife with poverty. My feels of sympathy lead me not to wish such a situation and as a result I fervently want poverty to reduced. Unlike many Catholics, I do not see ANY utility to poverty.

So what are you doing to reduce poverty?

For example, some Catholics acknowledge that such poverty is an opportunity to show our love. (Mother Teresa also said the suffering of the poor is such a beautiful thing.) However, such love will not efface the misery and suffering of poverty, and as a person who adheres to negative utilitarian ethics, I do not find such reasoning acceptable.

Love without action is false love. What are you doing to efface the misery and suffering?

I do not feel that charity should be used to as a palliative measure to alleivate some of their pain by having the more fortunate throw a few crumbs at those less fortunate.

Don’t worry about having the fortunate throw a few crumbs at those less fortunate. Worry about what you should do for them.

 

[ghaybyers1]

Wanting to eliminate poverty is a very noble intention, but murder is a great evil and a mortal sin. Advocating it is also bearing false witness to our faith.

Please consider doing good works for your community and advocating for others to do the same. Simply aborting babies will not break the cycle of poverty- education, support, and faith will.

God bless.

 

[bilop]

Jesus told us we will always have the poor. This is true definitionally because we measure poverty as a percentage of average income.

The poor in the U.S. today are better off materially than most of the world’s population and better of than 99.9999% of people who ever lived before 1950.

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

— Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.

— Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

— The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

— Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

— Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.

— Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

— Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132956,00.html

99.9999% of our ancestors lived in poverty according to today’s definition.

Did they not enjoy life? Woudl they have been better off dead?

Poverty is not evil, abortion is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.

God Bless

 

[Lisdogan]

Your major malfunction is that you believe economics is a “zero-sum” game. As soon as you realize it is not, the happier you will be.

Can you put this in English please? I am a development specialist and have worked around the world to alleviate poverty for forty years. Even I don’t understand what you are trying to say, and it may be good for others to have an understanding too.

 

[Lisdogan]

So what are you doing to reduce poverty?

Love without action is false love. What are you doing to efface the misery and suffering?

Don’t worry about having the fortunate throw a few crumbs at those less fortunate. Worry about what you should do for them.

This is the first time on this forum that I have actually seen someone concerned about real practical issues of being a Christian - a Catholic Christian - whatever. So why is everyone taking potshots here, instead of having a decent discussion.

I find that all the fiddly bits of the faith are nought compared to Christ’s very clear mandate - which cannot be argued in any way - to us all to effect change, especially when 98% of the global population lives below the poverty line. They live merely in order to survive. We are among the other 2%: so can we not take this posting seriously?

 

[Lisdogan]

So what are you doing to reduce poverty?

Love without action is false love. What are you doing to efface the misery and suffering?

Don’t worry about having the fortunate throw a few crumbs at those less fortunate. Worry about what you should do for them.

So what are ***you ***doing to reduce poverty?

What are ***you ***doing to efface the misery and suffering?

Or do you just worry? Or perhaps you don’t even worry?

This is the core of Catholic Christianity surely: how we complete Christ’s mission.

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

Jesus said we will always have the poor. But it seems to me this is one of the most misquoted verses in scripture. Jesus was talking to Judas at the time and Jesus was not condemning helping the poor, he was comdemning Judas for not being concerned enough about Jesus. Jesus in no way ever intended, as some seem to think, that we shouldn’t help the poor just because we will always have them. I think Jesus on several ocassions showed His great compassion for the poor and the sick. I have been poor before and it is just about the most humbling you can go through. I want to help because I can.

Over the last few months I have seen an increase of beggars in my area. I try to help when I don’t feel threatened. I did have recently one yell at me when I didn’t help, saying it was because I was a certain race. I had another one that was very kind and asked if I needed any work done and then I gave him some money. There are 2 which have been pretty much standing in the same place on Friday and Saturdays for the last few weeks. I try to help.

The Missionaries of the Poor have a very good distribution system and teach Jesus at the same time. If you want more info on them, it is in my signature.

 

[Lisdogan]

Jesus told us we will always have the poor. This is true definitionally because we measure poverty as a percentage of average income.

There are a hundred million people dead of HIV, already and another 200 million or so infected out here in the real world. I live in Africa, where poverty, pain, starvation, homelessness, disease, lack of education clean water and health care, anomie, crime driven by carelessness about life are rife. So should I be satisfied that Jesus told us we will always have the poor with us? What proportion of the people should be poor? 98? (which is the global figure).

There is a whole world out here.

The poor in the U.S. today are better off materially than most of the world’s population and better of than 99.9999% of people who ever lived before 1950.

That is good for Americans but perhaps not great for anyone else.

99.9999% of our ancestors lived in poverty according to today’s definition. Did they not enjoy life? Woudl they have been better off dead?

Most of them *were *dead. Females in Rome during the time of Christ married at 12-13 because life expectancy was about 25 for a variety of reasons including lack of hygiene, poverty, lack of health care (especially during pregnancy and during childbirth) etc. Have you ever thought that penicillin only came into use during WW2? So if you had an infection of any kind, it was likely to be terminal. What about teeth, cancer - eish, think about what it was like to be alive during the 1300s. Why do you think so many monks died young in damp, cold, hungry monasteries; why do you think many of them went there in the first place?

Poverty is not evil, abortion is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.

Let’s not overlay everything with the abortion issues, important though they are. An entire thread on HIV last year got eaten up by condom issues, as if keeping people alive is less important than creating more people. (Google Fr Michael J Kelly on the Catholic Church and HIV).

Can we be less callous about those whom Christ served?

 

[ghaybyers1]

This is the first time on this forum that I have actually seen someone concerned about real practical issues of being a Christian - a Catholic Christian - whatever. So why is everyone taking potshots here, instead of having a decent discussion.

I find that all the fiddly bits of the faith are nought compared to Christ’s very clear mandate - which cannot be argued in any way - to us all to effect change, especially when 98% of the global population lives below the poverty line. They live merely in order to survive. We are among the other 2%: so can we not take this posting seriously?

There is a difference between taking the question seriously and agreeing with what has been suggested.
Please refer to my previous post, #5, about the logical error in simply suggesting that aborting children will solve the problem.

And, for reference, asking what someone is doing to effect change in their own demographic is not a “pot shot”. It is however a good way to weed out someone that is more than happy to start conversations about situations and isn’t proactively (and/or logically) working to fix them. In the case of the OP, I’d be rather relieved if they WEREN’T working to “fix” the issue, given that their solution isn’t the most logical or morally correct one.

 

[bilop]

Jesus said we will always have the poor. But it seems to me this is one of the most misquoted verses in scripture. Jesus was talking to Judas at the time and Jesus was not condemning helping the poor, he was comdemning Judas for not being concerned enough about Jesus. Jesus in no way ever intended, as some seem to think, that we shouldn’t help the poor just because we will always have them. I think Jesus on several ocassions showed His great compassion for the poor and the sick. I have been poor before and it is just about the most humbling you can go through. I want to help because I can.

Over the last few months I have seen an increase of beggars in my area. I try to help when I don’t feel threatened. I did have recently one yell at me when I didn’t help, saying it was because I was a certain race. I had another one that was very kind and asked if I needed any work done and then I gave him some money. There are 2 which have been pretty much standing in the same place on Friday and Saturdays for the last few weeks. I try to help.

The Missionaries of the Poor have a very good distribution system and teach Jesus at the same time. If you want more info on them, it is in my signature.

I don’t quote Jesus to say we shouldn’t help the poor, of course we should, it is every Christian’s duty.

I quote Him to oppose the viewpoint that we can eliminate “poverty” if only we abort enough children, or force contraceptives on people, or follow some socialist economic plan.

God Bless

 

[ribozyme]

I’ll use this definition of poverty:

To me, being poor isn’t just about stuff, it’s about being able to participate fully in society … Yes, the poor might have been well-off in, say, 1821 given the societal standards of the time, or some other historical period one might choose to compare, but this isn’t 1821 - things have changed and so have the minimum standards necessary to be part of the society. I’m sorry if there are people who don’t want to share, an indication that even with all their wealth they don’t think they have enough (if they did, why balk at sharing with the less fortunate, people who, according to the Cox and Alm article, are “drawing down … bank accounts” and selling other assets like cars just to keep up?). Giving people the things they need to be a full part of the society they live in is the decent and right thing to do. As our society elevates itself and the requirements for full participation increase, when things like computers are as necessary as a stove, our standards of decency - what we are willing to accept as a minimum standard of living - must also rise. Just meeting physical needs - food and clothing - is not enough to be a full part of the society we live in today. We can and should do better than that.

economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/02/consumption-and.html

More entries on povert:

economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/06/adam-smith-on-p.html
economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/03/adam_smith_on_r.html

Relatively Deprived, by John Cassidy, The New Yorker: …The concept of relative deprivation was first described by Adam Smith in “The Wealth of Nations,” in a passage on the “necessaries” of daily life:

By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but what ever the customs of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-laborer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into, without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England

Let’s use the TV example. A TV, is, “strictly speaking, not a necessary of life.” Suppose a family cannot afford a color TV (a 20" flat screen is less than $100). Would the presumption be that the family is living in a “degree of poverty which … nobody can well fall into, without extreme bad conduct”? Would a parent “be ashamed” to have their children’s friends find out they cannot afford a color TV when they come over to visit? If the answer is yes, then Smith would say they are impoverished

On another note: Sahlin’s argued that tribes such as the Kung Bushman are not considered poor in “The Original Affluent Society” by using a non-Western measure of “affluence.”

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

When I was hungry you fed me, you didn’t abort me. Killing someone just because they are poor or hungry is just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Mat 5:21 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.

 

[bilop]

I’ll use this definition of poverty:

economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/02/consumption-and.html

More entries on povert:

economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/06/adam-smith-on-p.html
economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/03/adam_smith_on_r.html

On another note: Sahlin’s argued that tribes such as the Kung Bushman are not considered poor in “The Original Affluent Society” by using a non-Western measure of “affluence.”

I’m sorry, I just don’t buy that.

You can live just fine w/o TV, computer, cell phone, A/C, stereo, even a car (depending on where you live).

You can get free access to newspapers, the internet and books at the public library.

Poverty is material deprivation. Not having the same “toys” as everyone else doesn’t cut it. You don’t need things to live a fufilling and enriched life.

God Bless

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m sorry, I just don’t buy that.

You can live just fine w/o TV, computer, cell phone, A/C, stereo, even a car (depending on where you live).

You can get free access to newspapers, the internet and books at the public library.

Poverty is material deprivation. Not having the same “toys” as everyone else doesn’t cut it. You don’t need things to live a fufilling and enriched life.

God Bless

There seems to be an assumption that poverty is a permanent, immutable thing. But it isn’t. Even by the standards of the time, there were times when I was a child that I was quite deprived. When I was in high school, we were moderately better off than most. When I was in college, I was extremely poor compared to virtually every other student. In my adult life I have been up and down the scale more than once.

The way people live means a lot. I have never met anyone who literally couldn’t afford a tv set. Go to an estate auction. Older, but working tvs often don’t get bought at all, and just get junked. I have been to auctions where a family might have stored three or even more when they bought newer, better ones. The auctioneers turn them on and all, but people will hardly ever buy them except maybe for a kid’s room. Old, but perfectly good appliances of every kind are dirt cheap. Even older cars, depending on what they are, are not expensive. Perfectly good older computers get junked every day. Try to sell one sometime, and see what you get for it. Furniture at estate or “moving” auctions is cheap. I have bought it. Yard sale stuff is cheap beyond belief.

I know lots of people who, technically, are in poverty, but who live well. I have known lots of people who made good salaries that went bankrupt.

Unless a person in this country is physically or mentally disabled, he or she might have some hard economic times, but very few can’t get out of it. Of course, if one drops out of school, gets pregnant, takes drugs…its a different story. I’m not saying some people are not in very bad positions. But what I am saying is that by the yardsticks of, e.g., having a tv, appliances, a place to live, a car, a person almost has to actively avoid getting them to be without them.

In some places in the world, and Zimbabwe comes readily to mind, all the ingredients for prosperity are there, but incompetent, corrupt government keeps people in miserable condition. What is the charitable thing to do about that? It seems invasion of Zimbabwe is just about it. Is that the answer?

 

[ribozyme]

I’m sorry, I just don’t buy that.

You can live just fine w/o TV, computer, cell phone, A/C, stereo, even a car (depending on where you live).

You can get free access to newspapers, the internet and books at the public library.

Poverty is material deprivation. Not having the same “toys” as everyone else doesn’t cut it. You don’t need things to live a fufilling and enriched life.

God Bless

Libraries often do not carry many books on them and your Internet access will be restricted.

 

[RWMorris]

Can you put this in English please? I am a development specialist and have worked around the world to alleviate poverty for forty years. Even I don’t understand what you are trying to say, and it may be good for others to have an understanding too.

In game theory and economic theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant’s gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum

When I work a week at my job the owner pays me our agreed upon wages. At the end of the week I am richer, but my boss isn’t poorer. He uses my my labor to earn even more money, which he may use to pay me more, or hire additional help to increase his productivity and make even more of his own money. It is 1 + 1 = 2, the sum of our efforts are 2, not 1 - 1 = 0

Bill Gates is worth roughly $50 Billion. Does that mean the people who bought his products are $50 Billion poorer? No, they bought his product either for leisure or to increase their productivity and make more of their own money.

One of the worst ideas that affect public policy around the world is that wealth is somehow zero sum - that it can be stolen or taken or moved or looted but not created. G8 protesters who claim that poor nations are poor because wealthy nations have made them that way; the NY Times, which for years has flogged the idea that the fact of the rich getting richer in this country somehow is a threat to the rest of us; Paul Krugman, who fears that economic advances in China will make the US poorer: All of these positions rest on the notion that wealth is fixed, so that increases in one area must be accompanied by decreases in others. Mercantilism, Marxism, protectionism, and many other destructive -isms have all rested on zero-sum economic thinking.

• coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/04/wealth_creation.html

I am sure someone out there can do a much better job of explaining this than I can. If anyone else wants to try, please jump right in.

Hope this helped.

 

[Swan]

The problem with economic systems based on profit is that it is often more profitable to let some people die, so they do. In the U.S. we have many children who are born into cycles of poverty that they are never able to escape. To suggest that simply by working hard one can overcome all obstacles is naive. It has never been true and it isn’ true now. The thing is that we hear about the “success” stories - they are trumpeted from the rooftops. They make good copy. The stories of those who suffer until death, often an early one, don’t do so well. I decided to make a mid-life career change to teaching with the hope of making some sort of positive differnce in inner city schools. Here’s what I’ve learned: no matter how good a teacher I am, I cannot compensate for the lack of decent housing, food, health care, nurturing and general safety faced by my students. I cannot make up for the years of poor education that they have received in the 6 or more years before I got them. Especially when you consider I have them less than 5 hours a week for less than a year. If a student’s parent(s) is dead or incarcerated, if they work 3 jobs, if the neighborhood is rife with life and death danger, if all after school programs are cut to the bone, if housing is inadequate or if the student is actually homeless, if he/she is hungry, scared, or just plane worn out from shouldering cares that would cause an adult to shrink - most aren’t going to make it. It’s just too much for them to overcome. They’re just kids! Abortion kills a non-sentient fetus that would grow into a baby. Poverty kills living, born, sentient children every day. Yet the very folks who decry abortion also tend to decry state sponsered social programs. And that results in less (or no) funding, which simply causes more suffering and exacerbates the problem. I know you’re going to say that there are private charities, etc., but they aren’t cutting it. IMO, we need decent social programs and we need to fund them adequate (even NCLB isn’t funded - so it’s truly just a PR idea in most areas, especially poor urban ones). If you really care about people, then you need to be willing to put your money where your mouth is. Sure, gov. programs could be more efficient. Let’s make them more so, not get rid of them. Private charities have problems too - much of what they take in is spent on fundraising, for example. If we had millions more kids living in poverty (and we would were abortion illegal) this would simply add to the problem, it’s not a solution. Again, I just don’t equate the unborm with the born and I find those who are willing to push for laws to protech one and not the other to be hypocrites of the highest order.

And the above is just in the U.S. - look at Africa, Latin and South America, many Asian countries. The poor are great in number and suffer horribly, yet we sit here in comfort debating the “socialistic” aspects of various relief ideaologies while they starve to death. Is that Christian? Do you really think Jesus would approve of such political bickering and hair splitting while children starve? I, for one, do not.

I would also like to suggest reading Ribozymes thread on Potter’s theory of poverty reduction in the Philosophy section (I think that is where it is) as he sums it up in a much more articulate way then I can).