Poverty After 50 Years

This was an article in The New York Times.

This article reviewed some of the progress that has been made since LBJ declared war on poverty. It gave some statistics on the lackluster gains made by some of the initiatives. It compared and contrasted contemporary economist's views on the reality of the statistics, some saying that the government's statistics haven't acknowledged the gains made by things such as food stamps and education initiatives, and others saying that there is still quite a bit more do do. It also reviewed modern day demographics, such as the fact that four out of 10 black children live in poverty as well as three out of 10 Hispanic children, more children are being born out of wedlock and are being raised by a single parent, and, according to one study done in 2011, 1.7 million homes were living on about $2 a day per person in the household. In contrast, malnutrition and infant mortality rates have dropped while college completion has increased, and millions of women have entered the work force.

Poverty is still a significant problem today. I don't think any one really disputes that. The article outlined arguments for eliminating poverty, such as increasing the minimum wage, increasing early education initiatives (a solution that has wide benefits regardless of poverty levels, in my opinion), or increasing incomes straight across the board. The question that has been swirling around in my mind a lot lately is, is it alright to take from the rich and give to the poor? I know that this question makes a simplistic and incomplete summary of the issues at hand, but I can't be the only one who has considered it.

The two biggest injustices that perpetuate this philosophical dilemma are the existence of poverty and necessity of choice. Do I think that it is alright to have any kind of poverty while we have such wealth in our country? Kind of seems dystopian, a societal illness if you will, to me. Do I think that any initiative that forces people to make the right decision rather than choose it for themselves is ethically acceptable? Nope.

So what do we do? We can't hold the 1 percent at gunpoint while they spill their pockets, but, like Pope Francis said in his recent Papal Exhortation, how is it that old, homeless men can freeze to death without anyone taking notice, but when the stock market loses two points everyone loses their minds? I'm paraphrasing (you can look it up, if you want to -- it's on the internet).

I'm reminded of a great chapter from one of the best books out there.

There's a wise, old king talking to his people before he dies. After he tells his people to love the Messiah, he tells them to love each other and to teach their children to love each other. He tells them to help people that need it, even if they feel like those people don't deserve it.

"And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

"Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just --

"But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God."

At this point some of you might be saying, "That one percent worked for all of their money." First of all, philosophically, work has a vague saturation point that is decided by the rarity of work, the ownership of work, the quantity of work, and so forth. On a basic level, work is decided by energy expended. There is no specific work-to-earnings ratio that is acceptable, but the more and more someone earns for a certain amount of work, the harder it becomes to justify, especially when put in comparison to others work-to-earnings ratios.

Watch this video before you continue. It's only a few minutes. Ethan has used it in one of his older posts.

So, now that you've seen the horrific, skewed nature of wealth in this country, you've got to be at lease a little uneasy about the justice of the one percent. The more and more the person receives for his labor, the harder and harder it gets to justify those earnings. I thought it was interesting to consider how, using that basic definition of what work is, a CEO would have to work 380 times harder than his average employee to wholly justify having truly worked for all of that money. Of course, now your saying, "But we can't just give that money to the poor. They worked even less for it." Like work has a saturation point, it has a inherent, basic value. A value that merits living above the poverty level in every circumstance. Now you're saying, "But some people don't work and just take advantage of us." Well, frankly, that's for God to judge. Not us. Either way, the injustice of those few people taking advantage of the system versus a few people sitting on bank accounts that would have made Carnegie weep is considerably less.

The one percent possess the ability to pull every single American that is below the poverty line to living standards. Just like that. Poof. They also have the ability to do so without really losing any assets that their wealth could have provided them.

Think of it like blankets. We have some people who are freezing to death. We also have some people who are rolling around in so many blankets that they are visible from space. If that person were to give even, say, a tenth of their blanket behemoth, they would never notice, because you only need so many blankets to stay the cold. My guess is that the outer blankets aren't even doing anything for them. Before you think I've gotten lost in the metaphor, let me transition. What is the one percent going to do with that cash anyways? Stare at the mountainous stacks of it and watch it sway in the breeze? Now you're yelling at me in a fit of Laissez Faire rage, "They would earn interest on it!" Woop-De-Doo. Now the useless stack of cash is even bigger.

Now, your more sensible and philosophical friend is telling me, "Well that's a personal liberty that you have no right to take away." Your stupid, brilliant friend is right. And that is the only thing preventing liberal commandos from breaking down Warren Buffet's gilded doors to take his solid gold swimming pool filled with gold coins and giving it all to the poor.

So do I think it's okay for us to take from the rich and give to the poor, just because the rich can foot the bill? No. Do I think that it's okay for the rich to not foot the bill just because they don't have to? No, not really.

So what is the ultimate justice that can be done? Everyone, not just the one percent (but I'm still giving them an especially heated stare), can give. Why, you say?

Let's return to that old king. Here's where he delivers the kicker.

"For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?"

Look, even if you don't believe in the God that the old king speaks of, are you not a beggar? Did you not have teachers who stiffed poor salaries to teach you how to be successful? Did you not eat the food that came from some mid-western farm? Did you not enjoy goods crafted by unskilled hands in some minimum wage factory? Did you not, like all of us, take something from society? If you forget that principle then you are more dead-weight to our country than the poor you so abhor.

Comments are appreciated.