It occurs to me that a solution requires a problem. Why is poverty a problem? Someone define it in clear and non-emotional terms.
That's an interesting question. But how can you remove the emotional component when one of the most fundamental goals in life is happiness? If you want to completely remove emotions from the equation, then please explain to me why we should care about atrocities like the slaughter of innocent children.Emotion can certainly be abused, but so can logic. I think a balance is necessary, where true compassion is a critical element of the emotional side.
I agree that money is an easily moveable/exchangeable form of resources/time/work. But money is nothing but a tool to get happiness, even if for some that just means collecting it.
My take, after some thought: In a healthy economy money goes to those who produce or otherwise perform a useful function for society. The more productive the more money, the more useless the greater the poverty.
In a society where survival depends on maximizing the use of available resources this is obviously the case. We live in a time of abundance, so we no longer seek to maximize the use of resources. But it would still be desirable to do so, because everyone would be wealthier in real terms, if not in relation to eachother, which would make it possible to work fewer hours and spend more time on self-actualization which according to one school of thought is the way to happiness. It would also reduce the risk of economic collapse, ensuring that it is not a bubble-period of wealth but a sustained one far into the future.
Thus, in a healthy economy where the use of resources is maximized poverty is a good thing for society but a shitty thing for the individual; but it is also fair. Likewise, wealthy people would have earned their wealth so that too would be fair. And charity is always available for those of a socialist mindset, so there is nothing stopping you from giving your money away. But it would be voluntary, and not enforced at gunpoint as it is presently.
In a society where there is little or no relation between personal ability/use to society and the amount of money one has, poverty is a problem for wider society and wealthy people become villains. It also creates what some people call perverse incentives. I live in one of the biggest welfare nations in the world (Denmark). People who can't or won't work are paid enough every month to live a pretty decent life in exchange for little to no work. The more useless and difficult you present yourself the less is demanded of you. Thus, the optimum effort to income ratio is to be unemployed and unemployable, and as difficult to deal with as possible within the bounds of the rules.
In a society where survival depends on maximizing the use of available resources this is obviously the case. We live in a time of abundance, so we no longer seek to maximize the use of resources. But it would still be desirable to do so, because everyone would be wealthier in real terms, if not in relation to eachother, which would make it possible to work fewer hours and spend more time on self-actualization which according to one school of thought is the way to happiness. It would also reduce the risk of economic collapse, ensuring that it is not a bubble-period of wealth but a sustained one far into the future.
Thus, in a healthy economy where the use of resources is maximized poverty is a good thing for society but a shitty thing for the individual; but it is also fair. Likewise, wealthy people would have earned their wealth so that too would be fair. And charity is always available for those of a socialist mindset, so there is nothing stopping you from giving your money away. But it would be voluntary, and not enforced at gunpoint as it is presently.
In a society where there is little or no relation between personal ability/use to society and the amount of money one has, poverty is a problem for wider society and wealthy people become villains. It also creates what some people call perverse incentives. I live in one of the biggest welfare nations in the world (Denmark). People who can't or won't work are paid enough every month to live a pretty decent life in exchange for little to no work. The more useless and difficult you present yourself the less is demanded of you. Thus, the optimum effort to income ratio is to be unemployed and unemployable, and as difficult to deal with as possible within the bounds of the rules.
Maximizing the use of resources would be great. But that requires that everyone is concerned about the collective good, which doesn't seem to be the case a lot of the time.
Your ideal healthy economy does sound nice. Reading between the lines, it sounds like you're saying that everyone would basically be able to choose how much wealth they get by choosing how much they want to work. If you're poor, then it really is because you chose it; you had the opportunity for better but chose not to take it.
I think the issue is that there's a lot of abuse at both ends (poor and rich). Too many people try to take advantage of the system instead of working. And too many rich people use their wealth to buy power, which they use to collect more wealth in ways that usually aren't "fair," which leads to a villainous reputation. Sadly, these stereotypes mask the poor people who really do need help and the rich people who do really good things with their wealth.
(Edit: hopefully that all makes sense. I'm a little scattered-brained right now.)
