Poverty has always been perceived as a major worldwide problem. Since early civilization, the slaves of Roman masters were commanded to fulfill their respective duties. Currently, in California, the poverty rate is at 20.4 percent.
Under any circumstances, the concept of poverty will never diminish. Trends throughout history have proved that there were numerous solutions to overcome income inequality, however, those solutions primarily existed because rich people controlled which goods they wanted to buy and which goods they neglected.
There were numerous systematic fiascoes that stimulated poverty to emerge. With that in mind, there is very little that can be done to assist the impoverished citizens unless someone possesses remarkable power, especially in terms of job placement. Due to these conditions, poverty is quite inevitable, which should serve as a wake-up call to our fellow citizens. We should learn to embrace that we were born with different quantities of wealth.
Although massive levels of income inequality are disliked by many due to its undermining impact on society, complete equality is frowned upon too.
A huge range of workers function in various ways, and they should have their own incentive to work harder. Living in a money-oriented and industrial society, earning money is usually an external motivation. If there were total income equality, laziness could potentially arise since there would be no use for individuals to work harder. This leads to the point that equality could be harmful, while a little amount of inequality could benefit the economy.
There is no doubt that there are different kinds of economies prevalent in our world: developed, developing, and newly emerging. In developing countries, there should be an adequate agricultural sector. In developed countries, there should be an economy that accentuates wealth and service. These contrasting economies, in turn, are able to help one another flourish. Knowing that the cycle will begin again, income inequality is inescapable.
Every single person was not born in the same prestige as others. Not everyone is equal, and that is fine because it is vital for several individuals to be in higher ranks. Even in the supernatural world, werewolves have leaders called alpha and beta, constructing a certain hierarchy in their society.
In order for our own to function like theirs, some people would need to follow the orders of high-ranking positions and give them the power to rule. For instance, in a corporation, CEOs are required to direct and guide their employees on the right path to ensure that the company will thrive. In armies, generals tend to command soldiers in order to carry out successful tasks.
If people were placed in equal positions, then it would be tough to make decisions. In order for large organizations and corporations to efficiently function, a certain hierarchy needs to be formed. With that, comes the inevitable emergence of poverty and income inequality.
(Featured Image Credit: Annual Program of Development)
One thought on “The Inevitability of Poverty”
While I do not disagree with everything you said, there are some points that I find hard to stomach. I agree that some people are at the top, be that economically, politically, or socially, while others are at the bottom, and often times those at the top are there at the expense of those on the bottom of the hierarchy. This is the ugly and unfortunate truth of the way the world works. Additionally, the presence of “a little amount of inequality,” as you put it, is not an entirely terrible thing as it prevents stagnation and facilitates upward mobility. However, the notion that everyone should “embrace that we were born with different qualities of wealth” is hard to grasp. The conditions and amount of wealth an individual is born into is not permanent. For most of the world, one is able to improve his or her conditions and life through hard work and move up the socio-economic ladder. Hence, not everyone should embrace their innate amount of wealth. Instead, we should support and provide opportunities to those less fortunate. It goes without saying that at the same time, being grateful and content are good things, but not to the extent that one should become complacent of their current situation, especially of impoverished. A person’s potential is not limited by their situational factors, but by their internal locus of control–that they control their fate. You also assert that not everyone is equal and further that it is “fine” because it enables those at the top of the hierarchy to have power. I vehemently disagree with that, as it is a selfish and ignorant characterization. As I conceded earlier, it might be true that their status or wealth may not be equal, but their worth, dignity, and potential are equal, and further an individual is the master of their own destiny: they are not bound by the chains which they are born with. Often times it is easy to view this argument from only one perspective, especially if an individual comes from a fortunate background, but this should not dissuade us to view it from multiple perspective, from different lenses. Eradicating poverty may not be entirely plausible and it may be inevitable as well, but there are things we can do to lessen the effects–making the quality of life for the individual better, such as providing opportunities through an education and job. The moment we begin to rationalize poverty as necessary for those at the top of the hierarchy and to embrace one’s inequality even innate, is when we, as a society, have failed our people, especially the most vulnerable: the poor and the downtrodden.