does the existence of poverty imply that our socio-economic system is unjust?

Answer 1

No, on the contrary, it implies that the system is just. In the free market, one gains income by providing goods or services that benefit society. Therefore, the only people who are in poverty are those who fail to benefit society sufficiently. In this way, poverty acts as a disincentive to being unproductive for society.

Answer 2

you're implying that because of the fact a economic gadget fails or does no longer help all its contributors that an injustice has occured. Economics is a balancing act to maintain it afloat. Watch the inventory industry on the better of days. Poverty is a results of an inbalanced economics interior the worst case. on the terrific in econimic circumstances poverty is by human beings refusing to settle for substitute, of their livestyle and pass with the tide. Unjust straightforward does no longer observe to economics concerning to poverty.

Answer 3

No. There is more to poverty than the system being unjust. One cannot completely life a strata of society simply by employing a just system. Poverty is ruled by several things. Being under employed, using up available resources, squandering in other words, improper utilization of funds or education and more contribute to poverty. There is a huge role to be paid by every individual if one has to come out of the poverty level.

Answer 4

Not necessarily by itself.

A system is only as good as its application. Because ideological systems need to be implemented by human beings, their 'ideals' need to be filtered through faulty human beings in order to become actualized.

In addition, poverty is the result of wealth. For people to become 'wealthy', they must become wealthy in relation to someone else. In other words, if everyone was wealthy, no one would be wealthy. For a person's million dollars to have a significant impact upon their life, the value of that concentrated million dollars must be different from a 'normal' standard.

Human beings are human beings fundamentally, whether they are rich or poor. In other words, money does not 'elevate' or 'eliminate' the problems the individual brings with them. A person who is inconsiderate of others is inconsiderate of others, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. Saying that because one is poor that one is oppressed is a false generality. One does not have the same opportunities as 'rich' people do, but having the same opportunities would also mean that one has the same 'faults'. If a poor person gains wealth, do they not gain it at another's expense? If a poor person becomes rich, how does their being 'rich' somehow make everything better, since the arguement is that being 'rich' is the problem?

The human desire for more is universal, as such, the desire for more (including the desire for more than others) is what creates 'poverty', which is also promoted by the poor themselves.

Answer 5

Yes in its most basic and true form. Unjust is a bad term for it really its unbalanced to a great degree. Especially considering the rising costs involved with inflation and the level of pay that is being offered to most American workers. Its easy to see the scales are tipped, and once ahead its easy to stay that way, but when you fall behind it just runs itself back over again.
-NmD!

Answer 6

no. nowadays there are things called government grants for college.