From the earliest times, it acts as a social marker, sifting the poor from the wealthy, the cereal from the chaff. The exceptional from the mediocre.
Ryan Messmore Winter After a financial crisis, a deep recession, and a stalled recovery, it should be no surprise that poverty in America is on the rise. This is a troubling figure, and it should certainly move us to act to help the poor as we strive to grow the economy.
But efforts to address poverty in America are frequently derailed by misguided ideology — in particular, by the notion that poverty is best understood through the lens of inequality. Far too often, policymakers succumb to the argument that a widening gap between the richest and poorest Americans is the fundamental problem to be solved and that poverty is merely a symptom of that deeper flaw.
Such concerns about inequality are not baseless, of course. They begin from a fact of the modern American economy, which is that, in recent decades, incomes among the poor have risen less quickly than have incomes among the wealthy.
And such growing inequality, some critics contend, is both practically and morally dangerous. A growing income divide can foster bitterness and animosity between classes, threaten democracy, and destabilize the economy.
Above all, they argue, it violates the cherished moral principle of equality. Implicit in much of the critique of our income divide is the assumption that inequality per se is inherently unjust, and therefore that the gap between rich and poor is as well. That perceived injustice in turn spurs support for redistributionist policies that are intended to make levels of prosperity more equal across society.
President Obama commonly uses the language of justice and equality to advance such an agenda — speaking, for instance, of "the injustice in the growing divide between Main Street and Wall Street. Some religious figures have even used their moral concerns about inequality to justify the imposition of specific redistributionist economic policies.
For example, Jim Wallis, president of The poor and the rich liberal religious organization Sojourners, has said that inequality in America — "a sin of biblical proportions" — necessitates a higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich, and increased welfare spending.
But though the gap between rich and poor may be widening, this obsession with inequality — and this preferred approach to mitigating it — are fundamentally counterproductive.
They are born of a misconception rooted in a flawed understanding of both justice and economic fact.
Even if their premises and objectives were sound, these policies would have perverse unintended consequences — fostering class resentment, destroying jobs, and reducing wages and opportunities for the poor most of all. Such policies also tend to undermine the family and create a culture of dependence on the state — unleashing harmful consequences that would, again, fall disproportionately on the poor.
Before we can seriously address the state of the poor in America, then, we need to seriously question some popular assumptions about poverty, equality, and justice. We must ask whether justice is always synonymous with equality, and explore the economic realities underlying the claim that a resource gap is inherently unjust.
Such an examination will show that the left's intense focus on the income gap is severely misplaced — and that, if we fail to correct their error, our society runs the risk of neglecting the poor for the sake of an ill-advised ideological quest.
Indeed, in America, we often use "equality" as a synonym for justice. A just society, we imply, is one in which everyone is treated equally.
After all, the guiding first principle of the American founding, according to the Declaration of Independence, was that "all men are created equal. And justice also requires that we recognize these differences. Where people are equal, it is just to treat them the same; where they are different, it is unjust to treat them the same.
So in what respects are people equal? According to the Declaration of Independence, all men are equally endowed with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, wrote elsewhere that no one is born either with a saddle on his back or with boots and spurs to ride his fellow man.
In other words, no person has an inherent duty by birth to submit to another, nor does anyone enjoy an inherent right by birth to dominate another.
On the basis of this principle, justice demands that all people be treated equally before the law. Moreover, every life, by virtue of being a human life, is equal in value.
No matter how young, old, weak, or poor a man may be, his life is just as worthy of respect and protection as any other. No one should be excluded from the opportunity to live freely and contribute to society. But our equal worth as human beings does not mean that we must be treated equally in every sense and in every situation.
We need not expect to possess equal faculties; society need not provide us with equal material circumstances. Consider, for instance, an elementary-school class. It would be foolish and unjust to insist that the teacher and a third-grade student have equal say regarding every choice made in the classroom — including who gets to determine classroom rules, set the curriculum, and assign homework.
It would also be wrong to insist that every student — regardless of ability, effort, and achievement — receive exactly the same grade. But if a school-bus accident during a field trip resulted in the teacher's and students' being admitted to a local hospital, all of them — as human beings whose lives are of equal worth — would have an equal claim to life-saving care.
This distinction was made particularly clear in the writings of James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and one of the six original justices of the Supreme Court. When we say, that all men are equal, we mean not to apply this equality to their virtues, their talents, their dispositions, or their acquirements.This part of the urbanagricultureinitiative.com web site looks into some of the causes of poverty around the world.
Issues covered include inequality; the relationship between the rich and poor; corruption; the roles of the IMF, World Bank, debt, the United Nations, United States, Britain and other wealthy countries.
One of the functions of the vertebrate skeleton is the buffering of the blood with alkali minerals stored in bone. As blood pH drops, osteoclast resorptive activity is increased and the deposition of alkaline minerals in bone by osteoblasts is reduced.
poor - traduction anglais-français. Forums pour discuter de poor, voir ses formes composées, des exemples et poser vos questions. Gratuit. Feb 14, · The rich who oppress the poor can expect no mercy from God.
But today, the rich continue in their relentless pursuit of more riches and wealth, materialism, the need to have more and more with at best a cursory inclination for God.
There are many poor people with a rich mindset, financially poor due to circumstance. And there are many trust fund babies with a poor mindset. A simple shift in your mindset can point you in the right direction to becoming as wealthy as you want to be. Despite the headlines dedicated to donations made by superrich celebrities like Mark Zuckerberg and Oprah Winfrey, data shows that the most charitable people in the U.S.
aren’t those making six.