Topic: Which problem will you choose to solve? - page 4. (Read 1454 times)

That's right, when you are self-employed, we know how many or to what extent we can help people. And if there is a rich person we can help, I'm sure it's not financial. That's rich and has a lot of money, because we often help other people who we don't know are rich. You know what that means.

There are rich people because sometimes their lives are saved by something that a poor person did not expect, the poor person had no idea that the rich person was saved from disaster. The rich person owed a debt to a poor person. So in order for him to somehow repay the poor person for saving him, he will reciprocate with financial help that the poor person did not expect, although the rich person knows that he cannot afford to have a poor person save his life. This is just an illustrative example.

When we talk about problem of poor people and rich people in this case poor people problems is always a financial problem while the rich people problems is also financial problems because the poor need little to survive and the rich aiming for money, but there is a saying that "the higher the money, the higher the problem". Rich people problems are also beyond the financial alone, it also comprise of some many things.

I will not choose who to help among the poor and rich people, this will only depends on the kind of problems they had then choose the one I can survive. For someone to say I can't help rich people because the have money and they only love themselves is a bad idea. You are poor today and I think you will be praying to be rich tomorrow, so if you turn out be rich tomorrow will you be happy with your intentions.

So true. That is a reality that we must be aware of. Every time we solve one problem, another problem will arise. But in problem solving there are indeed many factors that must be considered to decide which problem should be fixed first. And so it is in fixing the problems that the rich and the poor have. I personally would probably start with myself. And after the problem itself is fixed. Only then will I start to help fix the problems of the people closest to me. It doesn't matter if it's poor or rich.

If this question were asked to us as ordinary people, of course we would prefer to help the poor because without help the poor will find it difficult to escape poverty, while the rich will need help from their fellow rich.
But if this question were asked of state officials, I'm pretty sure they would answer the rich, because helping them will help the poor to have a better life.
We can see that when a country is experiencing economic problems, a larger portion is given to entrepreneurs, compared to direct assistance to the poor, because the calculation is that the poor only need help with food, while the rich or entrepreneurs have a more complex problem.
Assistance to the poor should not only be in the form of food but also employment and education because food is only temporary assistance while employment and education are to help them to be independent, and later can help others who need help.

If that's what you want, then dream while trying. Because any dream will not come true without being accompanied by effort.


Everyone's rich and poor are only seen from a few things and that is usually judged by others, not by ourselves. Every person who is considered rich by other people must be seen from several aspects through their life, one of which is through their wealth which is already very large so that other people will definitely think that people who are considered rich have a lot of money and do not have problems in their lives. However, not everyone is like that, because rich people also have problems in their lives, even though these problems are not related to money.

Likewise with people who are considered poor by those around them from several assessments, be it through social status or wealth. Not all poor people experience serious enough problems in their lives, although most poor people experience problems with their finances which are indeed taken seriously. But there are also those who are considered poor who can live with gratitude and affluence even though other people consider them poor people who in their opinion do not have much money.

We know that people varies in terms of their needs and how urgent they appear to them, we can also consider this that apparently everyone has one or two challenges that they needs solution to in what they do, we can also finds many other means of getting other people's needs solved when we see that ours can still be managed up over time without us being affected, we need to realize that life itself has many challenges and people's needs are never ending, the more we solve one the more others are coming after each other.

Problem solving depends on the field and area you find yourself, you can a little problems by saving thousand of soul by either preventing a serious incident that could cause a building to burn down, at this point you have solved a problems that involves all kinds of people which is either left for the government of such country to choose between which area you should be employed to function as a problem solver in that department.
Solving a problems for the rich gives you an access to became known while solving for poor gives you the room to become of charitable, whereby depending on God for your rewards.

But however, working for the rich or solving a problem for the rich most times doesn't guaranteed your success because many individuals who are working with the government doesn't solely became rich, typical example are teachers in my country. They are teaching at this point solving problems not only problems but help to raise the country and then government aren't increasing their salaries. Yet they are still under financial stress which I think isn't worth working for such people either be it Rich or the government. Self employed is always better at least it reliefs you from financial hassle.

Given that you don't seem to recognize inequality as an issue, I'm not sure whatever element of inequality speaks to you. According to what I've read in the responses thus far, inequality has been shown to hinder economic progress, exacerbate poverty, foster societal mistrust that can lead to the dissolution of social ties, and even threaten the democratic process itself.

Even if they see some income growth, the poor nonetheless suffer from high inequality since it raises their cost of living. Luxury and useless products are frequently purchased by wealthy people in search of higher returns, which drives up prices particularly for things like housing, faster than the wages of the poorest. Do you disagree that high inequality creates these problems and makes it harder for the poor even while they obtain some part of growth?

I wont be sentimental on this because getting rich is a choice and as well getting poor is a choice. You choose which one you want to be. This question is kind of tricky to me but il solve problems for everyone for everyone class in the country. Something that would benefit both the rich and the poor. Wealth and income aren't limitless, although the hope is that they can become larger in the future than they are right now.

Also, while rich people getting richer doesn't inherently harm the poor, that doesn't imply that there aren't ways the rich might get richer that do harm the poor, either intentionally or as a side-effect.  I don't see inequality as a problem and at that even it is it affects both the poor and rich so why not solve problems for both.

I am very familiar with your point regarding the obvious difference in treatment and lifestyle of the rich and the poor, however, the topic being discussed here isn't the state of the two statuses but the debate between solving the problem of the poor and the rich and which one will the majority choose. Despite the difference in treatment that the rich and the poor get in society, there is no doubt that both statuses have their own problems to deal with and in some occasions solving the problem of the rich can have an indirect effect on the poor and vice versa. Hence, this post is trying to see how the majority of the members of the community or this forum evaluate whether solving the problem of the rich is easier and more beneficial or is solving the problem of the poor. No one is erasing the fact that the two statuses have a significant difference that divides them into various factors, in fact, it is these difference that members are taking into account as they answer OP's question. I just thought you might need a clarification of the post and question as your answer is diving into a different discussion.

In a situation like this, certain things need to be considered before making your conclusion. Sometimes, helping one or few rich men is equivalent to helping many poor people indirectly. For instance, if a rich man company with hundreds or thousands of poor men working is on the verge of collapsing and you have the capacity to help the company back to functionality again you can see that helping the rich in this circumstance is paramount than helping poor people directly who in few days will still need to be helped again. So, it all depends on the situation at hand.

On the other hand, helping lots of poors to grow will help to bridge the poverty gap in our society as they're likely to render help some days. Poor people are the threat to economy and that's why they need help the most because helping them is an avenue to healthy and standard economy as they'll no longer depends on government or other person anymore.

It's a problem for poor people.. why when you're rich! you can buy everything you can while if you are poor will they trample on your dignity I want you to be rich or poor everyone should be equal I know no one is rich or poor they are the same people!!!

for me I want my life to be good for my family I want to achieve all their dreams my dream is their dream as a first born child I will do everything to make all of that come true even if it's hard to endure just to make my life better families

So true. And actually both options are equally useful. Helping the problems faced by people or helping the problems faced by poor people, actually helping one of them will still bring benefits to both. Well when we help the problems of the rich then in the end the rich will also help the problems of the poor. And vice versa, by helping poor people it will actually help a little with the problems of rich people. Because rich people and poor people actually both need each other. The rich need the services of the poor in helping their daily work. And poor people also need help from rich people, such as to get jobs and receive wages from rich people. So helping both of them will still benefit both of them. It doesn't matter which direction we help first.

If I am to reply to you and share my own opinion and whom I will like to support and the problem I will like to solve based on an entrepreneur mindset, I will have to check scale and observe among the both which will be beneficial to my business and which of the individuals will be able to push my business to the next level, which will bring me to the rich people, as they have the capacity of paying higher if the problem solving tools that I have at hand can be purchased and exchanged for money, then they will be of better choice and interest, as few of them can be able to cover up the sales that you might be thinking of covering in a whole month just under the interval of days. Which is what every business-oriented person will want.
 
But if I'm to look at it the other way around and sympathise with the people who are most needy and those who are actually in need of help, and I need little to nothing in return, then I will have to choose between helping a lot of poor people and helping the rich, as the rich have higher chances of getting whatever they need from somewhere else, whereas those people in the poor category won't have a lot of options presented to them, which will make me consider helping them rather than wasting my resources on few people who won't value it.

The problems of the poor far outweigh the issues that the rich has over their extravagant and little lives. For the most part, they don't have to worry about dying of starvation and being homeless which are pretty massive issues for the poor. Once those are solved we can pretty much rely on these people to be functioning members of the society that could help enhance the workforce of any country on the planet. For instance, in the US alone, the fact that they have millions of homeless people on the streets just waiting to get that big break they deserve so they can turn their lives around is enough of a motivation for any legislator with half a brain and a heart for these people to pass laws that encourage them to get back on their feet and recover with the government's help.

When it comes to potential health problems the wealthy people are more susceptible into those complicated illness or health issues compared to those poor ones.Why? they are living in a surrounding or place on which it is really that clean or something comfortable and out from those bad elements around or not simply that being exposed too much and on the time that there would be some sudden change of environment or able to meet up people who are sick or having those illnesses then they are really that prone and cant really that fight off that much because of their weak immune i should say.
Im not saying that rich peoples does have weak immune but we know that rich people do mostly get those illness which are non curable and despite on having the funds or financial capacity
it wouldnt really be still giving out that assurance that they would really get well. Also, having tons of money doesnt indicate nor assure happy life. Yes, you could travel, you could buy all the things
you do want but there are things which cant be bought like love and respect but of course people are born greedy and having tons of money is something that already a main common goal for most people.

Health related issues are same in both poor and wealthy because they are humans but the main thing is treatment so I think that if poor people get money then they become cured by proper treatment but sometimes wealthy people cannot get cured instead of having money so this issue is very serious for them.

I think the more money comes more healthy related problems originates I don't know what the reason but I have experienced that wealthy people are more sad than poor ones.
According to you statement I think that in a field of business poor are depended on wealthy individuals as if they wants to involved in business then business grows rapidly but if they denied to make investment in any business then such business hardly continues to a successful destination.

This is just my opinion, if the person I am going to help is a rich person, Then I am capable of helping him/her and he/she has good manners to be helpful to others or people who need help, I will do it if I help him/her. Why? because that person because of the wealth that he/she has many poor people he can also help.

Because as the saying goes, what is sown will surely be reaped abundantly. So many people will also benefit from what is planted. Although, it's not bad to help the poor, it's just that a poor person can only be helped to a limited extent. This is just my opinion and perception anyway.

That is a very good goal, eradicating poverty is a difficult thing because it requires power, strength and wealth to do that, it is not an easy thing to do by one person. You also need a lot of time for your goal to run well.
State three is a place where there are more poor people, maybe it will be a very suitable place for you to complete your goal. but in my opinion, eradicating poverty significantly lies in the first step, namely education, where education will greatly influence the rate of human development in correcting life problems, the more people have good education, the less financial problems their lives will have, so in my opinion this is That could be your focus, sir, or do you have another way?