Do you believe that poverty is largely due to some fault of the individual, or that society plays a major part in creating poverty in America?

John wiped the sweat from his brow. This caused only a slight pause in his work of assembling widgets. John had been an assembly line worker for over ten years, and had mastered the process of assembling widgets. It was hard work and didn’t pay much, but it let John and his family get by. Well, it got them by as long as his wife worked as a cashier.
“John!” someone called and disturbed John from his Zen-like state. Foreman Smith walked over. “John, I need to see you in my office today after your shift is over,” he said.
“Yes, sir,” John replied, and he returned to his work as the foreman left. John’s shift was ten hours long, and he spent the whole time wondering what his boss wanted with him.
Ten hours later, John finished up his shift and entered the foreman’s office. Foreman Smith was filling out paperwork as John walked in. Smith stood up and spoke.
“John, I have some bad news. The company is downsizing people and maximizing theirs wallets and, well John, you’ve been let go.” John’s mind whirled from the news. His distress was obvious on his face. “John, you’ve been working here for ten years, and if I had my way you’d be working here for another ten years. But I don’t, and there is nothing I can do for you.”
John’s mind was numb with shock. He nodded blankly at the foreman’s sympathy and left Smith’s office. He clocked out and drove home. John told his wife the news when she got home, and that night the only ones who slept well were the children.

A nurse wiped the sweat from John’s brow. He was an old man now, and dying. My body might be dying now, he thought, but my spirit died long ago. After losing his job at the plant, John had to work two full time jobs to make ends meet. But after injuring his back, he couldn’t work a job anymore. His wife left him because he couldn’t support the family anymore, so she decided to find somebody who could. John had been alone ever since. The worst thing though, was the visits from his children. Whenever he saw them all he could see was the pity in their eyes for the man who once stood so tall in them. It was the only thing that ever hurt worse than his back. Yes, John thought, I could’ve died so long ago and it wouldn’t have mattered.

After the story, what do you think now?

A bit of both.
The story illustrates how sometimes it is structural. But this does not fully cancel out the part that is not. Poverty is a structural thing, but it can be minimized by individuals.
We must learn to balance compassion and responsibility, economic development with economic prosperity. Not an easy task.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

as well. While the story certainly shows a side that needs compassion there are stories of people out there who are just plain lazy and don't want to work. However, there are many in this country who would spend money on ridiculous items like sheets and clothes for their pets when there are people like John out there who could use some assistance. I am not in favor of regualar monetary handouts however. I would rather see free educational programs that can give people skills to help them start careers.

Society is to blame. Few people want to live in poverty. It's a simple fact that if your hungry you want food and if your cold you want shelter. If you need to work for it almost everyone tries to. Society doesn't provide people with the opportunity to remove themselves from poverty.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

I think the problem is more that society does not provide people with the knowledge of how to get out of poverty.
Another problem is that when we say "society", we generally mean someone else. It is about time that when people say "society", they include themselves in it. For most people, that is primarily just the offering of money to just causes, possibly some volunteer time.
But what we really need are more socially conscious entrepreneurs. Government's role should be to carve out a way for the market to be conducive to such people.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

I think the problem is people cant get out of poverty. When there's not enough jobs to go round there's always someone who's going to be out work whether people are educated or not. When wages are low and you aren't qualified for anything better there nothing you can do but work for nothing.

As far as society goes i agree. Peoples will watch the news about how a new drug for cancer isn't available on the NHS and blame the government but as soon as someone asks for a few pence extra on the pound in income tax to pay for improving public services the'll scream theft. That's why government needs to be devolved to local level, so people can't hide from responsibility anymore.

Socially conscious entrepreneurs? I don't care how caring they are there still going to hang on to a fair bit of money and therefore power. I don't like thew idea of people having power over others, even if they are nice (besides you'd still get allot of evil ones even if you did manage to rig the economy to make niceness viable).

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

Poverty is maximized by capitalism. In capitalism we see a complete disregard for human rights like food, water, and shelter, 32,000,000 people basically starve in the wealthiest country in the world. People are like books. The higher up they are, the less they are needed. Our world depends only on workers, people who sell their labor hourly.It is the workers who should own and run society, not a few wealthy elite who destroy lives the way your story described.

__________________
http://leftyhenry.blogspot.com

That is only true if a society has no scarcity. Every communist society so far has failed to grow economically beyond copying other nations and has left most of its citizens in poverty, then wound up having to stoop to totalitarianism to keep the population under control.
There is a paradox. Capitalism maximizes growth so that there is more wealth and resource to go around... but places it in few hands and sometimes leaves others with nothing coldly and regardless of reason.
Socialism is stagnant but allows resources to go around... but it does so in such a way that incentives are lost for work.
My take is that there are three ways to handle it:
1. Capitalism until society and the world reaches maximum growth... meaning that the utility to be gained from economic growth would be so marginal that it would not be worth it to grow more... ie a stabilized world population, all countries more or less maximized in production, technology replacing most labor, enough resources for all to get maximum utility from. Problem: It's Utopian. We'll never reach that point. And with no regulation, the elites will change society to maximize their growth, making life more difficult to the poor either leading to totalitarianism or to a revolution... which leads to unstable conditions and more tyranny.
2. Going back and forth...
meaning that we take a purer capitalist model when the economy is good and switch to more (but not totally) socialist policy during times of strife... But the system must always be flexible enough to change with economic circumstances. Problem is the lag of each phase.
3. A mixed economy...
Capitalism with a safety net and some programs to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds compete. This is IMO y=the best system. It might give up a little speed on growth, but it ensures we maintain a compassionate society and helps to stunt the flaws of capitalism... provided bureaucracy doesn't grow out of control.

Frankly with any of these I don't see the problem as the economy. Corruption, special interests, and culture are bigger problems. In a laissez faire system, people should be giving if they are rich and motivated enough to organize decent social programs. But they do this in a limited way and their charity is focused completely on safety net with little in the way of helping the underprivelaged compete. But like the issue with socialism, this expectation defies human nature. We have compassion... but no real drive to use it when we can instead ignore problems or better yet dismiss it as character flaw ($%&* Calvin, that @$$hole).

But overall, government should be a referee and setter of boundaries, not a babysitter that micromanages. We need regulation to stop corruption and programs to better the opportunities for the poor, including a safety net for the very weakest in our society.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Just the opposite, actually.

Those are not human rights. Human rights are the rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and private property.

If this were true, we would expect worker-owned cooperatives to massively out-compete other businesses and establish socialism on the market. But they don't, because talented CEOs are essential to business success.

Then let them buy it.