World Hunger and Poverty

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are approximately 13.7 million single parents in the United States. 26 percent of children in the United States live in single parent homes. About 1.7 percent of single mothers and less than 1 percent of single fathers were widowed. 52.7 percent of fathers ordered to pay child support do not pay all that they owe, and 53.8 percent of mothers ordered to pay child support do not pay all that they owe. In other words, most single parents who are supposed to be receiving child support are not receiving it all. 27 percent of custodial single mothers and their children live in poverty. 12.9 percent of custodial single fathers and their children live in poverty.

It doesn’t take a statistic to tell us that a child who is only being supported by one parent has more of a chance of being in poverty than one who is supported by two. If one parent takes custody and the other supports the child financially, that may work out fine. But a poverty-causing problem arises when one parent does not provide their fair share of support to the child.

I believe it goes without saying that poverty in the so-called first world is often caused in great part by deadbeat parents.

For example, 62% of custodial mothers in the United States do not receive child support. Needless to say, many of those children are in poverty but wouldn’t be if they received proper financial support from their fathers.

I don’t think anyone would deny that the prevalence of deadbeat parents is a major social problem and that it significantly contributes to poverty. So I have made a thread in the Philosophy of Politics Forum to discuss ways to prevent or otherwise deal with deadbeat parents. Check it out and post your comments and ideas.

This blog and other publications like it often raise questions like, “How do we inspire people to take action against poverty?”

The world has more than enough food to feed everyone and more than enough resources to provide clean water, clothing, shelter, education and health care for all. I firmly believe we can end poverty. So the question stands there as an elephant in the room: Why the inaction? Why do we not end poverty? Why does the average person not do more to help eradicate poverty?

I think ignorance causes the inaction.

We all know poverty exists. But many of us do not realize the extent of the problem. We do not realize how many people actually fall into poverty. We do not realize how much the typical family is at risk of poverty. We do not realize just how much widespread poverty does exist in places like the United States.

With 12% to 17% of people living below the federal poverty line at any given time in the United States, maybe many Americans can mistakenly think of poverty not as affecting society as a whole but as affecting some marginal other group of people. Many of us may mistakenly think of fighting poverty as charity rather than as an organized group effort to help ourselves. And that ignorance can make it hard for us to relate to the poor.

But let’s remember that over a 10 year period, 40% of people in the United States fall below poverty.¹ And let’s remember that most Americans will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between the ages of 25 and 75.² And let’s remember even those numbers do not show the full extent of poverty because of the fact that the poverty line is drawn way too low, so the government does not consider many people poor whose incomes do not cover the true cost of living.

When we forget to remember those facts, we may fail to realize the extent of the problem and how much it affects us and people like us. And then we may fail to recognize coming together and fighting poverty as the smart thing to do. That’s what I mean when I say ignorance causes inaction.

Of course the problem exists not only domestically in the US but also throughout the globe. If we cannot end poverty at home even in places like the United States, we will not end it globally.

In my next blog post, I will come up with a series of questions that we can ask ourselves to help us relate to people currently caught by poverty and understand how much poverty actually threatens and affects those of us not currently living in poverty.

What do you think? Do you agree that ignorance causes inaction on poverty? You can post your comments and discuss this blog post in this thread at the Philosophy Forums.

References
1. Zweig, Michael (2004) What’s Class Got to Do With It?: American Society in the Twenty-First Century. ILR Press.
2.Hacker, J. S. (2006). The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: Oxford University Press.

Check out the followup to this blog post: Questions to Ask Ourselves about Poverty

Yesterday, I posted the full text of Obama’s speech on race in the forums, and I posted my comments on the speech in a blog post. Today, I found the full video of the speech on YouTube. If you have not already, I beg you to read or watch the whole speech:

I love that speech. I think speeches like that change the world more than elections and pieces of legislation. I post about the speech here because Obama’s speech addresses many fundamental issues that this blog addresses. Namely, he stresses the need for self-help, for social investment in healthcare and education, and for ensuring that all children receive equal opportunity of success. By coming together for those purposes, we can not only beat the fear and anger that causes racial divisiveness, but also we can end poverty.

What do you think? Post your response to the speech in this thread at the World Hunger and Poverty Forums.

In a recent post at the Philosophy Forums, I speculated that a society could avoid problems such as the recent credit crisis by not coercively enforcing contracts. In other words, lending would not exist in a formal way in that borrowers would not be forced to pay back what they borrow. I believe it would put the onus on the lenders to only lend responsibility. Additionally, it would mostly eliminate credit-based economics which would help stop usury and thus help alleviate what some people call wage slavery. Of course, that is mostly a philosophical proposition; in practice, it would take a long time to safely transition from a credit-based economy to an economy without enforced contracts. Anyway, you can join the discussion at the following URL:

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=380

Basically, I believe that an economy without as much usury would have less poverty. In such an economy, laborers would get to keep the full fruits of their labor rather than have to pay it to rich, unproductive usurers. As a result, such an economy would have much higher wages and laborers would not need to borrow money. That would lead to much less poverty.

Of course, we could not implement it abruptly in our current economic system. Currently, most working-class people depend on credit to survive. It would help them to change that, but we need to change it carefully.

Forbes named Warren Buffett as the richest person in the world as of March 5, 2008. Personally, I admire Warren Buffet for a variety of reasons. Namely, he behaves in a down-to-earth way, and he has earned the title of philanthropist. Last year, he pointed out that he pays a smaller percentage in taxes than his secretary. He also has pointed out that he believes the CEOs of all the top companies pay less in taxes than their secretaries.

Mainly, the rich people do it because they get to just pay a smaller “capital gains tax” rather than the regular income tax that most workers pay.

Ironically, workers are not really making an income if you ask me. Out of desperation, the typical working person has to sell his or her labor at extremely low prices. The typical working person is not profiting, but just desperately trading his or her labor away for whatever low amount he or she can get from the powers that be.

The lazy usurers who actually profit pay a smaller tax rate!

I think many working-class people believe taxes can help them regain some political standing. But I believe the rich can always manipulate the government to use it in their favor. As a result, in theory, I oppose taxation.

I recommend that the working-class demand tax relief.

Additionally, for people who feel some taxes remain necessary, I suggest taxing property ownership rather than income paid for labor. Let me explain why.

Unfair economies mainly oppress the working-class by letting the upper-class monopolize control over the natural resources. By claiming to own more than their fair share of the natural resources, the upper-class can make money by making the working-class pay them for permission to use the natural resources.

Taxing property ownership instead of income paid for labor would possibly help hinder the monopolization of natural resources by the upper-class. It would work most effectively if the tax only existed for people who “owned” an excessive amount of property, but not those who only “own” less than their fair share. For example, let’s not let the government tax the average working person who may purchase a cramped house on a small plot of land with a mortgage.

In theory, I do not support any form of taxation because I do not trust government with that power. However, as a matter of practical reform, I much prefer taxing property ownership and usury than taxing income paid for labor.

Remember, I think we could end poverty by giving all people fair access to natural resources. Poverty exists, in part, because working class people have to pay just to use natural resources to get the fruits of their labor. And that money flows to an unproductive ruling class. In other words, the so-called “owners” of the land, machines, oil, and other natural resources demand a huge cut from the workers’ production. And that is, I believe, the main reason why wages are so low. (Lack of education is the next reason, but working-class families could afford more education if they had higher wages.)

Whatever we do, we need to alleviate the unfair economic burden put on the working-class. As I have said before, that unfair economic burden causes poverty in the so-called first-world.

What do you think? Do you agree that it would help to tax property ownership and usury instead of income paid for labor? Post your responses to this blog post and those questions in this thread at the World Hunger and Poverty Forums.

I have noticed some people have a tendency to try to underestimate poverty in the United States. These people try to make United States poverty out as mostly an illusion. They seem to most often think that “liberals” try to play with the numbers to make it seem like many people live in poverty when the people actually live comfortable lives.

The myth that widespread poverty does not really exist in the United States seems utterly absurd to me. The people perpetuating the myth could easily see the falsehood of it by simply driving down an inner-city street. But I suppose many people would choose not to drive around in those dangerously poor neighborhoods. On the same token, I wonder if they have ever watched any of the many movies displaying United States poverty such as Boyz N the Hood–one of my personal favorites.

You do not need the numbers and statistics to see the widespread poverty in the United States.

I understand the desire of people to point out the contrast between the United States and “third world” communities so desolate that the majority of people live in huts with dirt floors, where watching others literally starve to death becomes a daily routine. I can see that the hungry children in the United States have a better situation than those who starve to death.

However, in some ways, I find United States poverty even more disgusting than “third world” poverty. Something makes me even sicker at the thought of hungry kids suffering right down the road from a grocery store overstocked with food. The social juxtaposition of overabundance and poverty in the United States–the most socioeconomically unequal country in the world–in some ways bothers me more than the harsher devastation of people who live in nations with so little. In some ways, I get more disturbed by poor people suffering next to rich people than starving people suffering next to other starving people.

In any case, poverty exists throughout the world. It exists in the United States. It exists in an even more widespread way in nations plagued by devastation and international economic exploitation.

Fortunately, the world has enough food to feed everyone. We, the people of the world, have the resources to provide food, clothes, shelter, clean water, education, and healthcare to everyone no matter where in the world they live. We can end poverty anytime we wish.

Unfortunately, we have chosen not to end poverty so far. As of now, we have continued to choose to let children suffer in poverty and, in the worst parts of the world, die from starvation. Even in the United States and the developed world, we still let millions of children grow up hungry in poor neighborhoods, where they go to substandard schools, surrounded by violence, hopelessness, and bad role models. As a result, many of those children will remain in poverty their entire lives, which will continue the poverty cycle for even more generations.

Let’s not let ourselves shrug off poverty in the United States or in the developed world. Let’s work to end poverty everywhere, namely by breaking the poverty cycle.

What do you think? Have you ever heard people try to claim poverty in the United States does not exist? Tell us what you think about it in this thread at the World Hunger and Poverty Forums.

In a recent post, I said that the unfair economic burden put on the working class causes poverty in the United States. In this post, I want to explain how I believe the ruling class puts the unfair burden on the working class. By ruling class, I mean the government and more importantly the rich, special interest groups that control the government.

Obviously, it involves some sort of trick or illusion to oppress the working class. Otherwise, the working class would not let the ruling class oppress them.

Because of their control over politicians and the media, the ruling class tricks the general public in many ways whenever it suits them. Nonetheless, I see the overarching trick as the illusion of economic freedom and fairness. Slaves do not revolt if they think that they have freedom and think that they live in a fair society.

A while back, I made a post entitled, The Myth of Meritocracy. In that post, I explained that the false idea that wealth has been distributed fairly hinders the fight against poverty.

But even worse, I think that the working class lives in a form of slavery–”neo-slavery” if you will. The general public thinks it has freedom but it truly does not.

The working class has an illusion of choice. They can choose to work for scraps or they can starve. They have a little choice between which jobs they take at which companies, but the working people still have to work long hours for low pay while the ruling class lazily leeches off the labor of the working.

Despite the illusion of freedom, the ruling class enslaves the working class by, most of all, appropriating natural resources. Throughout almost all of recorded civilization in every society, a minority of people have controlled the majority of natural resources and thereby controlled the general public. A minority of people control the majority of land and other resources such as lumber and oil. In parts of Latin America, they have even started privatizing water and literally making it illegal for citizens to collect rain water.

It may seem free and fair enough for one person to offer to pay a second person for a service. However, when combined with the appropriation of natural resources by the first person, that same process becomes clearly authoritarian. For example, it may seem free and fair for John to ask Greg to cut John’s hair for $5.00 and for Greg to accept. However, if John first claims to own the air and says that Greg has to pay him $5.00 just to breathe, then we can see the slavery in the situation.

In our modern society, the working class has to provide an extremely excessive amount of labor to the ruling class because the ruling class claims to “own” the natural resources which the working class need to use to live. The process uses supply and demand. The ruling class has taken control of the natural resources, and the working class desperately needs those resources. That desperation causes the working people to “sell” their labor for rock-bottom prices.

So I hope you can see how the ruling class has put an unfair economic burden on the working class. And I believe that that unfair economic burden causes poverty. If the working class weren’t slaves and they were able to keep the fruits of their labor, then they would not always be at risk of poverty, and the working people could fully support themselves, their families, and their communities.

I know many people may disagree to varying degrees with how I have portrayed the political status quo. Please post your comments and your own views in this thread at the World Hunger and Poverty Forums. You can join and participate in the forums completely for free, and we welcome all viewpoints.

I just read a great article by Barney Blakeney about the working poor and their health.

Basically, Barney Blakeney points out that the actual health problem for the working poor is that they cannot afford to get sick and that they have to go to work even when they are sick because they cannot afford to not earn a paycheck.

I think he makes a great point.

Regarding health and the working poor, society has a problem far more extensive and deep-rooted than the lack of healthcare insurance. The working poor need to work more than they can to earn an incomplete income, and they cannot take time off to recover from illness. They must work through illness because they have bills to pay.

I just read an interesting interview with Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause.

For the sake of remaining bipartisan, he does not take positions on presidents. But he does make some good points about issues. Internationally, he wants the next U.S. president to focus on ending secret prisons, torture and pre-emptive war. Domestically, he stressed the importance of healthcare and poverty.

Referring to the current presidency of George Bush, Edgar pointed out that over the last eight years we have seen a focus on giving tax cuts to the rich, while little attention has gone the way of the poor. I find that point especially important considering the aforementioned international policies. The Bush administration has given tax cuts to the rich while increasing spending and turning a surplus into a deficit.

By increasing spending, the administration has increased the amount that taxpayers will have to pay in taxes. By giving tax cuts to the rich, the administration has made it so the working class and the poor will have to pay a higher proportion of the spending than before, which especially hurts since the Bush administration has increased spending.

I guess people think of tax cuts and think that means they will pay less. But obviously that is not correct. The tax rate simply determines the rate at which the taxpayers pay the money that the government spends. How much the government spends determines how much the taxpayers pay in total. And giving tax cuts to the rich changes the proportions of who pays, making it so that the non-rich have to pay a higher proportion than they did prior to the tax cuts.

Simply put, the government shifts the tax burden to the less privileged by giving tax cuts to the rich. Then the government increases the overall tax burden by increasing spending. That combination has a terrible effect on the working class, which has a horrible effect on the poor.

Working class people cycle in and out of poverty. In a ten-year-period, the poverty rate reaches about 40%. The working class needs tax cuts, not the rich. The working class cannot afford needless wars costing trillions of dollars.

The unfair economic burden put on the working class causes poverty in the United States.

Unfortunately, I doubt any new president will change much. The rich have enough money to influence government and who can get elected. For example, the oil companies and the military industry have both donated billions of dollars to both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The major corporations literally own the media and fund the campaigns of the “front-running” politicians from both parties.

I do not think we can rely on politicians to use their political power to save the working class or to alleviate poverty. Positive change and the alleviation of poverty depends on the general public not the politicians. I fully believe that only non-governmental solutions will work to end poverty and help the working class.

What do you think about the relationship between tax cuts, poverty, and the working class? Post your thoughts about it in this thread at the World Hunger and Poverty Forums. It’s completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.

I just read an interesting article about a study by Frank Furstenberg that shows that teen motherhood does not perpetuate poverty.

According to the 30-year-study, postponing motherhood does not have a significant impact on a person’s chances of escaping poverty. For all intents and purposes, impoverished girls who bear children tend to do just as well economically and educationally as the ones who do not.

In other words, poor teens tend to get pregnant more often, but teenagers who get pregnant have the same odds of educational and financial success as the ones who do not.

Mainly, the economic conditions in which a person grows up determine their odds of ending up poor. Whether or not the person gets pregnant as a teenager has little affect.

Although the findings go against the common perception, I guess it makes sense. A poor girl will likely end up in poverty later in life regardless of whether or not she gets pregnant as a teenager. A wealthy girl’s parents can still ensure her success with their money even when the girl gets pregnant as a teenager.

I still see teen pregnancy as a significant mistake, but we have such a classist society that making mistakes has little statistical effect on who ends up poor and who does not. While we need to help people not make mistakes, we have to find a way to eliminate the classism of our society to ever end poverty.

What do you think about the relationship between classism, teen pregnancy, and poverty? Post your answers to that question and your thoughts about this post in this thread at the World Hunger and Poverty Forums. It’s completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.