Is poverty a natural part of society?

The answer also depends on what the word "natural" stands for.
.

 

Society without poverty is possible,it is socialism.

 

Yeah, thats why theres no poverty in Russia.

 

I never knew that there are some morons in the world who believe that Russia is still socialist.No comment,medicine is helpless here.

 

The question "Is poverty a natural part of society" should have simple answers for a poll, not convoluted ones. A simple yes or now would have sufficed, however the author wanted to bend the answer so he could slam people.

The answer is yes, it has always been a part of society since the first cavemen had one guy who didn't have an animal skin to keep warm. It still is that way. Attempting to pigeon-hole people to try and make them feel bad about poverty is abhorrent. It is not our fault. It isn't something we smile in glee about, but we didn't make them poor and there are avenues in which they can begin the climb out. The first one is get an education then get a job.

 

Were there any poor in communist Russia?

 

It has perpetually been part of society, but it does not follow then, that it must always be part of a society!! Our current society is so much richer than any other society in the history of humanity(I mean generally the "western" world). So it was not possible for medieval societies to get rid of poverty, because enough wealth did not exist. Now we have enough wealth, that programs to at least attempt to do so become much more practically possible. I believe in the future, as we get more and more productive, it would ABSOLUTELY be possible to completely eliminate the most extreme forms of poverty.

 

Relative poverty is always going to exist. To answer one poster's question yes poverty did exist in the Soviet Union (actually incomes were quite unequal).

An advanced and prosperous nation (USA for example) should certanly be able to eliminate destitution and extreem poverty and should do so.

A very poor country (most countries in Africa for example) can't afford to do that. A middle income country (Mexico for example) should be able to do better than the very poor nation but not as good as the USA should be able to do.

 

"Should be able" or "is able" ?
.

 

Wide spread poverty is a part of society when government and big business bottle up resources and eliminate competition through crony capitalism..or socialism.

 

I don't understand what you mean by this. What do you mean?

 

I believe that poverty can be reduced, but never eliminated. Further, I do not believe it should be the government's responsibility to eliminate poverty, but rather foster a healthier environment for economic growth (loosen up a bit on regulation and lower taxes on everybody). In turn, the economy will do what is best for itself, which is always good for growth and competition, while being beneficial to a vast majority of society in one form or another.

 

I don't think that this poll accurately describes all the options.

My answer would be somewhere along the lines of, "It is society's responsibility to reduce poverty."

 

And what is poverty anyway? Only one car? Only 3 TV's? The truth is we see the standard of living rising much faster than centuries ago, yet there is always a "bottom 10%" or whatever demographic you want to call it. No matter how much money you dump into government programs, you cannot bring those who live in "squalor" to zero. I believe in an even playing field, i.e. eliminating privilege, which is really to say "corruption". But enforcing equality on unequal personalities and intellects means enslavement---at some point you are forced to centrally dictate responsibility, wages, and benefits, which is inevitably a tyrannical, dystopian model of society.

 

Poverty is a part of any culture, it is needed so there can be different classes, and the elite power grabbers and money grubbers need poverty to survive. Without poverty, there would be no need for government, or socialism. Poverty is socialism from the bottom up if you investigate it. Follow the money train and the resources and see where it leads.

If you realy want to learn about society and culture take a few upper graduate classes in cultural anthropology, It takes into account history but with more emphasis on evalutation/investigation of cuture and societies in retrospect vs the common history-someone said this is what happened so it must be true.

With the rapid intergration of information over the internet the concept of poverty will take on a whole different perception in your culture than in other cultures. That is to say, what you think of poverty may not be poverty or the perception of poverty in another culture.

Ask yourself, were you told via history or social study teachers wat poverty is, or do you look into what factors in time, culture, and country poverty is described as?

Go figure......

 

we need poverty as part of our wage structure. its a great thing.

 

There is always going to be poverty in the USA. In order to have a capitalistic system... you not only have the opportunity to succeed, you also have the ability to FAIL.

There is no better system than capitalism. Not one. Poverty will never be completely eliminated.

 

Society should do it's best to set up safety nets, but I agree, it can never be eliminated, but it can become a problem if there is no hope or opportunity to succeed for those on the bottom, so society must always try it's best, but accept that it can never succeed in eliminating poverty completely

I think we need public schools, including colleges (people with money can send their children to private schools if they prefer)
I think we need safety nets
I think we need a public health care system that no matter how far you have fallen you can get basic health care

America uses the best of ALL systems and there is no better system then that

 

Poverty can and should be eliminated. And government should be heavily involved in eliminating it.

It's no secret that povery rates are highest in nations that do absolutely nothing to stop it. It's no coincidence either. Government is the strongest possible way to reduce and eliminate poverty.

 

We've known since the days of Smith and Marx that poverty is a relative concept. It therefore cannot be eliminated. Instead the discussion should be focused on trends in income/wealth. Countries with a relative lack of social mobility and evidence of an underclass (e.g. UK and the US) are obviously wasting resources and eliminating possible economic opportunity

 

Yes, that is how our tax money should be used. Charity alone does not eliminate poverty.
.

 

This is just simply wrong. Anybody that thinks this has no clue how things work. Government is the absolute worst money manager there is. There is nothing that government does more effective than the private sector. (save military and public roads)

Government has created all of these poor people. Liberals have created an entitlement society that doesn't work. That is what liberalism is founded upon. Ideas that don't work long term. Every big government idea that liberals come up with always fails to work. See SS, medicaid, etc.

 

Yes, our poor usually have a car, a color tv or two, food, housing and yes, health care.

 

Don't forget internet, cell phone with data plan, A/C, and xbox.

 

Is that a good or bad thing in your mind?