Poverty – there will be a multitude of bloggeries whipped out today about this subject, some calling for radical changes, some for idealist reforms, some for donations, and many missing the essential realities of this very human condition.
Lucky for you, I’m here to set things back onto the straight, narrow, and funky.   Because, as you well know, the world needs more F.U.N.K.
I see the problem as a component of two difficulties: Correct definitions and Correct actions.  These days, neither of the arrows shot at these two issues come anywhere near the bulls-eye (and most end up pegging Cousin Eddie), but I think with some plan-of-attack changes and management, it’s foreseeable to have a better handle on the world’s impoverished.
A Lack of Diamonds is Forever
Poverty is never going to go away; I know this because it exists because of a very fundamental part of the human psyche – greed. This is not always a necessarily evil part of us, as it is the same part that enables us to survive and beat off the competition so we can catch the deer first, pick the best fruit, or mate with the least hairy of the females.  But it is this greed that also enables poverty to exist in the world, as it is a matter of someone not having what someone else has, and whether or not they have it legitimately, it is greed that prevents us from giving it up to the poorer.
The only real way around this is either a) a fundamental change in the way humans approach greed and the drive to survive, or b) socialism.  The problem with the latter is that, while a nice concept that everyone goes and shares and gets along and nobody ever backs over anyone else’s petunias, it doesn’t work.   Been there, done that, hello U.S.S.R., anyone?  The theory, again, violates human nature.  The former won’t happen until we all learn to transcend our physical bodies and turn into pissy little beams of light.  Unless you’ve got some mad skillz that you’re hiding from me these days, I think we’re a bit off of that one happening.
Why fight at all, then, if it will never go away?  Simple — because poverty, as defined, can be improved. That is, the level at which we accept that the worst off of us have to live can be raised.  Sure, they may not be ritzy by the time we’re done, but at least they won’t be swimming in their own feces, and I think that’s a good goal for starters.  That, and nobody should have to subsist on Twinkies.   Nobody except cockroaches.
Who is Poverty and Why is it in my Backyard Grilling Brats?
One of the biggest problems I think we have with poverty is Correct Definition.  If you ask someone, “So…what’s poverty?â€Â  Sounds like a simple question at the get-go, but if you really ask, you might get a pretty widely varied answer.  This is because the actual definition of poverty, the one everyone else has, and the one we should be using are vastly different.
Essentially, when one thinks of “povertyâ€, either they imagine the fly-ridden, emaciated masses somewhere in the armpit of Africa, subsisting on a thimble of rice and mouse turd garnish, or they think of the godforsaken trailer-trash hells of Kentucky and similar areas. Perhaps shacks come to mind if you’re feeling exceptionally generous.
The government, on the other hand, sets a “poverty level†at an income number that, frankly, some of us wouldn’t be sneezing at were we to actually make that in a year for sitting around and doing nothing.  It’s not a good wage – don’t get me wrong, but it’s better than Spam and ramen every day.
So, the first big problem is to get an essential, minimalistic level of poverty defined.  I might be in poverty compared to a corporate CEO, but I’m richer than heck to a bum in a cardboard box.  These definitions don’t help us and only cloud the issue.
Instead, we need to be specifying things like, “Nutrition that meets an average of 75% of the RDA†or “Shelter that maintains a dry and warm environment of at least 55F or higherâ€.   Specific, non-culturally-specific definitions are what will help us the most in starting to bring the level of living upwards.  Since we cannot, per above, eliminate it, we can at least establish a minimum level under which we want NO human to live is we (or Sally Struthers) can possibly help.
Wrong Direction, Tapioca Lobe
Many feel the way to attack poverty is to trot on down to the local homeless shelter and start handling out Twizzlers and cans of Yoohoo.  Unfortunately, while it’s going to make the guy in the brown-crusted bunk feel better for a few minutes (that is, until he gets massive heartburn), it doesn’t really do anything in terms of fighting the situation of the poverty he is in itself.
Thus are the efforts of thousands of organizations around the world wasted each year, battling poverty from the ground-up in providing food, clothing, and supplies to the en-roached masses, while the root cause of their desolation remains unresolved.
This is why I’m all in favor of top-down approaches to making the situation better.   Attacking the system that got people in the situation in the first place will ensure that it breaks once and for all, bettering their lives and their progeny as well.  Laws are a good start, but oftentimes influences like cultural influences, economic systems, and political turmoils play a vital role in establishing the standard of living experienced.   It is a complex and confusion game to play, heading off the system at the root, but it is the only one with true long-term advantages towards poverty.
That’s not to say I don’t support the bottom-up efforts; rather, these should be used as a stop-gap measure, not the primary means of assistance.   Their reward, while much more measurable than the former, is less sustainable.  Forward-thinking and visionary people will have to choose between giving bread to a man or fighting to change the economic system of his country such that a decent living isn’t out of reach anymore.   For those on the front lines, this is, no doubt, a bitter pill to gaze at levelly.
One must always be careful to closely analyze efforts in light of whether they are bottom or top attacks, as some can masquerade as the other.  For instance, teaching job skills or giving education to an impoverished group looks to be top-down, but is actually bottom-up if they do not have the resources to actually USE the skill in the end.  It makes no sense to teach job skills if there is not a sustainable job market waiting to absorb them on the other end.   Short-term solution, long-term problem = bad.
Skinny is Not Always Better
The particular extent to which a solution applies itself is also important to consider.  Widely-spread solutions are most often better because, although their effect may be muted due to being raked over a large problem area, they raise the net level of the whole place vs. only isolated pockets.  In other words, if you had the opportunity to give a buck to everyone in an entire city of low-income people, or $100 to one, particular person, the former solution is better because the entire populace will benefit, improving the situation as a whole, albeit by a tiny bit.
Finally, artificial situations are killing valuable donations all the time, and poverty especially needs to watch out for this trick question.  Going into an area and raising artificial job markets, education, resources, supplies, funds, etc. will not work in the long-term without support.  Efforts to combat poverty need to work with the local climes, not against them, and not in such a way that when all supports are pulled, that the cave collapses around the heads of the townspeople and they wonder what the hell just happened.
Is poverty solvable?  No.  Can we do better?  Yes.   Can we at least make poverty something that at least ensures you can eat, drink, and stay warm?  I like to think so.
What are your feelings on poverty and the problems we face with solving it — if it is at all?
(19 comments) said:
(58 comments) said:
