[gemnomnom]

Hello all,

I have been faced with the debate question, Up to what point is poverty a personal choice? I would like to know your opinion on it.

Is it different in the "first world" compared to the third world?

For example, in the first case, poverty can arise from unemployment. Do you believe there is a genuine lack of opportunities due to the recession - or, in your opinion, do first worlders have a poor work ethic e.g. to be lazy, half-hearted and passive as the state will care for them?

Any help would be appreciated, especially if the examples relate to France Discuss

[meganharcus]

In my experience, the majority of people who claim income support or jobseekers allowance from the government do so because it is necessary for them to survive. I'm sure the majority would love to be able to get a job with a steady income. However, there are so many variables which affect those who live below the national average. My mum, for example, hasn't had a job in years and claims income support. She suffers from depression and anxiety and struggles to even leave the house once a month. I genuinely believe she isn't mentally stable enough to hold down a job and therefore I would argue that it is not her choice to have such little money.

In addition to this, a close family friend has recently been made redundant (not through lack of skills but instead due to the "last in first out" mentality). Since he lost his job he has been handing out his CV to every company he can yet he remains on jobseekers allowance and struggles to pay his rent each month. His lack of money certainly isn't his own choice as he is someone who lives to work and is trying his hardest to get back into a career. There just aren't enough jobs to go around right now.

With all the above said, I'm fully aware that there are exceptions to those claiming benefits and everyone knows the stereotype of a benefits claimer. However, we're not all "thieving scroungers" or "scum", contrary to popular belief. Growing up in this environment has just encouraged me to work harder in order to try to avoid ever being in this situation. However, that isn't solely up to me. I can gain all the qualifications I want but that doesn't necessarily guarantee me job security.

With regards to the third world, I think it's even harder for those who live in poverty to improve their finances; there just aren't the same opportunities provided as there are in Britain. In many countries the problems just seem to worsen because the rich get richer whilst the poor get poorer.

In France I think the problem is prejudice and the environment in which children (whose families are below the poverty line) grow up in. An example of this is the Banlieues of Paris which are full of HLM buildings (similar to council estates in Britain). If you know much about France then I assume you'll know about the social unrest there, much of which stems from the banlieues. These areas are typically thought of as unsafe and many of the children who live there are immigrants who turn to crime and have been known to riot. Remember the London riots? It's a similar situation to that. People from these areas tend to experience prejudice and racism which often prevents them from bettering their lives. For many others, they simply feel like that is their lives and so do little to improve their conditions, instead continuing their lives in poverty.

In answer to your question (and to stop me ranting ) I don't think many really choose to live in poverty. Although, undoubtedly, there are some people who could do much more to help themselves, a life in poverty can often be hard to escape. There are just so many variables and people from all backgrounds and classes can end up this way.

[Martyn*]

In my view poverty thrives under these conditions:

a) lack of opportunity
b) lack of jobs
c) a combination of a) and b) within d)
d) where you are brought up, or where you presently live.
e) your character, personality, and Will.
f) GOVERNMENT

[najinaji]

I would argue yes. I also disagree with how the word 'poverty' is used in countries such as the UK and find it disrespectful to people who are genuinely impoverished. Now, here are some factors that cause 'poverty':

- Laziness, either in regards to one person finding work, or having one half of a household being unwilling to find work, so there is a sole breadwinner.
- Having children too early, thus not progressing in terms of a career or education properly.
- Lack of opportunism, esp. when it comes to finding a better job and moving house (for example, moving from a poorer house in the city to a better one outside of it).
- Difficulty in finding work due to poor performance in school.
- Lack of priorities. I see many living on rubbish council estates who drive cars.

[DannyBoy123]

Of course people could always do more to be helping themselves, I could , for instance, be revising for my finals instead of posting on this thread.

The thing is though, I am consciously making the choice to be posting here...I'm fully aware of the ramifications of failing my degree. Is an 11 year old from an estate who hates school fully aware of the ramifications of his actions when he skips school? Are the parents (if they are around at all, and not pissed/high) aware of the ramifications? They've probably never seen anyone succeed because of school, many in fact encourage truancy.

When does poverty stop being a choice and become an intractable problem? Just because you or I could make the choice, doesn't mean everyone has that same choice. When everyone and everything you've ever known is a certain way, do you really have a choice at all?

[py0alb]

(Original post by najinaji)
I would argue yes. I also disagree with how the word 'poverty' is used in countries such as the UK and find it disrespectful to people who are genuinely impoverished.

I despise the insistence on using the concept of relative poverty rather than absolute poverty.

Absolute poverty is a meaningful term: it means being unable to afford to maintain an sufficient standard of living to actually be able to survive: ie shelter, clothing, heating, water, food etc.

But when people in the media talk about poverty in the UK, thats not what they mean, they mean relative poverty, which is defined as earning below 60% of the average wage. Which is utterly meaningless, seeing as a single person in the North east might be able to live in a nice warm house with a playstation and all the food you can eat on the same wage as a single mum with two kids in London who is starving herself to death so her kids can eat.

[najinaji]

(Original post by py0alb)
I despise the insistence on using the concept of relative poverty rather than absolute poverty.

Absolute poverty is a meaningful term: it means being unable to afford to maintain an sufficient standard of living to actually be able to survive: ie shelter, clothing, heating, water, food etc.

But when people in the media talk about poverty in the UK, thats not what they mean, they mean relative poverty, which is defined as earning below 60% of the average wage. Which is utterly meaningless, seeing as a single person in the North east might be able to live in a nice warm house with a playstation and all the food you can eat on the same wage as a single mum with two kids in London who is starving herself to death so her kids can eat.

Indeed. Part of me suspects that people like to create issues that aren't really there to avoid more important ones or purely for the sake of feeling useful.

[gemnomnom]

(Original post by Martyn*)
In my view poverty thrives under these conditions:

a) lack of opportunity
b) lack of jobs
c) a combination of a) and b) within d)
d) where you are brought up, or where you presently live.
e) your character, personality, and Will.
f) GOVERNMENT

All but e), and perhaps the latter part of d), seem to suggest poverty is not a choice, but something out of your control which is inflicted upon you.

Therefore do you believe poverty is not a personal choice?

[Chumbaniya]

Within the UK, wealth within a family does tend to normalise over time, but the expected time for a family with substantially higher or lower than average earnings to get to roughly average earnings is around 200 years (can't remember the source I'm afraid and I'm not sufficiently involved with this to search for it). Unless this 'personal choice' can be inherited, the idea that poverty is about the individual just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The children of the rich, by and large, stay rich regardless of what they do, while the children of the poor stay poor.

[gemnomnom]

Thank you very much for you help everyone, I have now written up my plan into French!

[Martyn*]

(Original post by gemnomnom)
All but e), and perhaps the latter part of d), seem to suggest poverty is not a choice, but something out of your control which is inflicted upon you.

Therefore do you believe poverty is not a personal choice?

Poverty is not a personal choice under favourable conditions where poverty is less regarded as a virtue, and prosperity and opportunity is regarded more. The flipside of poverty is prosperity (and wealth) since money and material possession are not always and necessarily regarded as riches; this is also a virtue.

Really, virtue aside, poverty need not exist at all, except in very rare cases where the conditions are the result of unfavourable forces. This must be allowed because no organising system is absolutely perfect.

[Tambourini]

(Original post by Martyn*)
In my view poverty thrives under these conditions:

a) lack of opportunity
b) lack of jobs
c) a combination of a) and b) within d)
d) where you are brought up, or where you presently live.
e) your character, personality, and Will.
f) GOVERNMENT

I agree with a,b and c. Though I think F is the most important point that should be expanded on, the government has well and truly ****ed this country up, though they can inflate figures to suggest otherwise, as they do, propaganda ftw.

There are very little opportunities for people to actually go out and get a job, more importantly a job that suits them. People say "working in mcdonalds is better than not working at all". It really isn't, I have a friend who has a degree that cost a good few grand, and took like, 5 years to complete. Who wants to study for such a long period of time, then end up in a **** job.

The government cuts back have severely affected almost every type of job available, the cut backs have also severely affected a lot of city councils, so the areas people are living in are now becoming more deprived.

I could probably sit here for an hour and write about the changes the government have made, and how they're pushing a lot of people in this country into "poverty" but we've heard it so many times now. Frankly I'm sick of talking about it.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Tambourini)
I agree with a,b and c. Though I think F is the most important point that should be expanded on, the government has well and truly ****ed this country up, though they can inflate figures to suggest otherwise, as they do, propaganda ftw.

There are very little opportunities for people to actually go out and get a job, more importantly a job that suits them. People say "working in mcdonalds is better than not working at all". It really isn't, I have a friend who has a degree that cost a good few grand, and took like, 5 years to complete. Who wants to study for such a long period of time, then end up in a **** job.

The government cuts back have severely affected almost every type of job available, the cut backs have also severely affected a lot of city councils, so the areas people are living in are now becoming more deprived.

I could probably sit here for an hour and write about the changes the government have made, and how they're pushing a lot of people in this country into "poverty" but we've heard it so many times now. Frankly I'm sick of talking about it.

The current socio-economic system in the West is Capitalist and Plutocratic; it is also based upon a narrow utilitarianism and lacks much, if any, economic justice. Where is the justice whereby many people are over-worked (and often under paid) and others have no work at all? We live in a Slave State run by the Capitalist system and their economist turkey-cocks, and maintained by rich Plutocrats espousing the 'virtue of work' (which they themselves do not believe and avoid at all costs) as a duty and as an end in and of itself, rather than a means to end, which is reasonable stability, well-being, and comfortable life for as many as possible. This is made all the more horrible by the narrow utilitarian view of industrialists and Government.

It really is a tryannical and oppressive system we have got going, and it shows no signs of improvement, except that its demise may give way to more trynnical and oppressive systems, like Fasicism and Nationalism, no way an improvemnet! That's why we have the BNP in Britain today; this system is the fanatical and Nationalistic reaction to the complete betrayal of social justice and unionism amongst sections of the proletariat. When a system (one based upon Socialism), which gave some economic prosperity for the majority in the past, collapses, due to absence of any humanitarianism owing to unintelligible organisation and a a lack of forethought, fanatical impulses rise-up once more. This what we are seeing. The three main parties - Labour, Libdem, and Conservatives - all three serve the Capitalist system, and what they stand for is what they have preached to the proletariat as narrow utilitarian propaganda by the rich and the Plutocratic elite.

[gemnomnom]

Thank you to everyone for your help.

The exam went mostly well, although the last question, If you were the President of France, how would you resolve the problem of poverty threw me a bit! Any ideas?