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

Answer 1

Since poverty is a relative state, one method of determining the poverty line is usually done by finding the total cost of all the essential resources that an average human adult consumes in one year. This approach is needs-based in that an assessment is made of the minimum expenditure needed to maintain a tolerable life. This was the original basis of the poverty line in the United States, whose poverty threshold has since been raised due to inflation.

Obviously, poverty in the US is far differnt than poverty in other parts of the world. People who are considered to live below the "poverty line" live in apartments, have jobs and can purchase minimal food. In some parts of the world, all 3 of those are missing.

The "socio-economic system" is not unjust. The problem comes from a disparity in skill training to life requirements. Not just for job skills, but for basic life training. Classes once categorized as "home-ec" should be teaching people the basics of checking, credit, nutrition, and other lacking skills.

It is not capitalism which is failing, but rather the overall educational environment. Schools today are social clubs, not centers for learning. They are what are failing our youth, and our society in general as a result.

Answer 2

you are implying that because a economic system fails or does not support all its members that an injustice has occured.

Economics is a balancing act to keep it afloat. Watch the stock market on the best of days.
Poverty is a results of an inbalanced economics in the worst case. At the best in econimic times poverty is due to people refusing to accept change, in their livestyle and move with the tide.

Unjust simple does not apply to economics related 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

no. the existence of a large percentage of poverty implies the injustice of the system. poverty will always exist, even in a "perfect" capitalist & democratic society--unemployment and a separation of money is part of the process. communist and socialist systems are some of the only systems where poverty would imply an error in the system.

Answer 5

i t might imply and reveal that it is not utilized properly,that is not to say that it is corrupted, by corrupt people, although that exists, people are ignorant and do not know what to do, let us say that greed and envy and none of these emotions enter in, here is a scripture, "God gave eyes to the rich and the poor" this could be interpreted as what prevents the poor from becoming rich, they have the same basic tools or ingredients as the rich,
but ;poverty exists for reasons beyond our comprehension, to try to do away with it and eradicate it is a mistake, huh, duh? did you hear me right, well who are the lucky benefactors you ask, as no one really wants to be poor, this is something we all have to be aware of and live with, Jesus said "the poor you always have with you" i wonder who and where are the rich people who would give me enough money and assets to become rich, even if it were a loan, where and who are they,or just a gift, if they exist i would like to meet them personally,
do you think poverty is enforced and used as a tool to oppress and depress, you seem to have answered your own question to some degree have a rich prosperous day at no ones expense

Answer 6

the issues are the same~no respect~no satisfaction~disabilities are overwhelming in all fields that, today few business are engaged in life threatening work that is the focal point of oversight today~unreasonable physical damage to most of the builder bob generation has no equal: their numbers are still falling out of rank today as the boomers generation is struggling to handle the diversity of equatable meaning to live in a adjusting system=implying removing the money from the game of life and do more for less is why they all unionized one hundred years ago ~ those who don't learn by the past are bound to repeat it ~ why don't u understand SAM Walton from the wiped out ma and pa small business side of it?

Answer 7

NO.... the existence of poverty in a first-world country such as USA means laziness of people....

Poverty in Africa means lack of education and segregation from the rest of the World...

Poverty in Cuba means the result of Communism...

The cause of the existence of poverty depends greatly on its location in the world.....

Answer 8

It mostly implies that there are alot of people out there that do not want to work. Not to mention there are places where you can live comfortably in the US for 40 grand a year. You cant rent a decent apartment in NYC for that. The figures don't show the difference in the cost of living for rural areas of the country

Answer 9

No. Not at all.

This is the effect of variations in one's intelligence and thinking levels. Not all human beings think and act alike. Those variations cause the imbalances in the social and economic status in the society.

The total wealth in the universe is conserved. Wealth lost at one point is wealth gained somewhere. How one loses and gains depends on their intelligence quotient. This doesn't mean that all the person with high IQ become rich. IT is upto them how they want to pursue

Answer 10

No; it implies that it tends to generally reward hard work and merit.