Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman
ok and I'm the one that gets ridiculed for being optimistic or idealistic - Geez!
|
Now who would do that...
But getting rid of poverty is quite easy. You see it is a term that doesn't have a set meaning. Which means that if I set the poverty rate down to -$100,000, we have no one in poverty!!!
But realistically, getting rid of poverty with this many people on the planet and our level of technology is impossible. If we want to get rid of poverty we would have to either kill off billions of people (hint: this will backfire don't try (see Hitler)) or somehow become so efficient with our technology that we can feed, clothe, and house everyone. The backdrop to the second part is that by the time we do get to that point, the population will rise again and then we will have a new number to catch unless there is some form of birth regulation.
But getting rid of poverty in a first world nation is technically possible but not realistic since there are people who actually prefer to live on the streets, usually mentally ill, and the fact that we live in a heavily stratified society so there will always be the lower class. Also, I am kind of going out on a limb here so correct me if I'm wrong, but in a regulated economy, there will usually always be some unemployment so that will not be something we can get rid of.
Getting to my original point, even though we will not get rid of poverty in the United States, we can make realistic improvements to lower the number that are currently in that state or at least improve the social mobility.