What do you think is best for the people who live below the line of poverty ?

Question

Is it there job, to find livelihoods for themselves still, after living through poverty for so long at time over burdened by the debts the there countries' governments have drawn and which is mostly utilized by a very few for there own benefit rather than to improve the situation for the people on whoses pretext they have recieved any money

How do you get rid of poverty, does economist have a role in it or is it the social developers?

Answer 1

Poverty is a complicated and broad issue. Economists, sociologists, and behavioral psychologists all get involved in the debate about what is best, and all can contribute. Getting rid of it is no easy task, but here are some examples of successful techniques.
The Grameen bank was founded in Bangladesh to give small loans to the poor there to break themselves free, many times, of the landlord from whom they leased, at high prices, their property. By giving them just small amounts that would start them off on a livelihood, poverty was drastically reduced. The Grameen Bank has an exceptionally low default rate, as well. This idea is called microcredit, and is mostly given to women. Its creator was awarded the Nobel Prize this year.
In Mexico, a program called Oportunidades, formerly called Progresa, creates incentives for parents to keep their kids in school and healthy. If children of poor families stay enrolled in school and are regularly taken care of, then that family will receive a payment for each child up to a certain number. This accounts for as much as a fourth of a family's income for many families in Mexico. This helps poverty both directly by increasing income, and indirectly by increasing the well-being of the next generation. This program targets the reduction of future poverty and has been proven to be highly successful. New York is considering a similar program now.
I feel that the government should help those below the poverty line in a way that produces economic results. This can be done with incentives, and I dislike the idea of simply giving people money. I think the government should help those who will put forth the effort to pull themselves out of poverty, because the government has a responsibility to its citizens. However, citizens also have a responsibility to their society, and taking money without producing results is hurting those around them.

Answer 2

People live in poverty mainly because of ignorance, illteracy, immobility, lack of skills, exploitation by politicians and stagnation of local economic activities.People can be pulled out of poverty only if they are willing make hard efforts to change their attitudes, learn new skills and move to centres where economic activities are expanding. But they need help from others. This is best organised by NGOs working in the field of education, by private investments in economic activities, The people in poverty can also be helped by Micro credit organisations on the lines first started by the latest Nobel prize winner for peace, Mr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. The far the Govt. keeps away from poverty allievation the better it is. Govt.'s are the worst money/ resource guzzlers. They also stand in the way ofpoverty reduction by making foolish laws. Like in many cases, they do not allow large scale farming on commercial basis so that small landowners do not sell their lands. As a result, the future of such poor small labdowning families are made bleak. The land continues to be divided as the families grow over time. The Govt.s does not allow private education schools to be set up for poverty ridden localities without Govt. permission. Govt.s distribute unemployment doles. And, above all States which plan for economic development fail to deliver because of the inevitability of inefficiency, foolish plans, sloth implementation and rampant corruption in all Govt. intiatives. Economists or social developers have very little role. The major role in poverty allievation lies in substantial and free flow of private investment in economic activities. That flow of private investments are not adequate is because of Stae/ govt./ political interference in private investment and in private initiative for mass education.

Answer 3

This problem is so gigantic and widespread--it will be no small problem to solve. It doesn't help that there is no one to speak for the poor. There is no organization or lobbyist who speaks out in their behalf, so they have no voice in government and the decisions that the government makes. In our big business economy, the CEO's don't care, because the poor are not potential consumers of their products.

So the poor are on their own unless they find some way of banding together and to stand up for their rights as citizens. Maybe churches or neighboorhood groups could form and start by visiting the mayor's office in your city (call for an appointment first) if you are concerned about jobs, crime and the safety in your neighborhood. This will make the evening news and will get your voices heard. Be sure to state all of your concerns about your community and living conditions. You never know what might happen when you speak out.

One of the most important things that the poor can do now is register to vote, and vote in all elections. They should know their candidates beforehand. They can contact their congressmen when a vote concerning their welfare comes up in congress, whether it is for raising the minimum wage, healthcare, education or public welfare programs. Find out who your local representatives are now and find out how to get in touch with them on the phone and on the internet.

Those of us who are above the poverty level need to be mindful of the poor. We should consider them whenever we are voting, too. Recently I read in a "Many Children Left Behind" that many of the schools in poor neighborhoods don't even have decent textbooks. Some of them are so old, the history books only cover the US through 1987. That's 20 years old. So if there is an election in your city and an amendment for scools on the ballot, support it, even though you no longer have any children in school. Give back is what I am saying.

Over the long run, education can be the answer if you're wanting to know what will happen to the next generation. Take an active part in your child's school as a volunteer. Let your child see through your actions that you value education. Make sure they're at school every day and that they do their homework at night. If they tell you they don't have homework night after night, call their teacher. Teach your child that education is probably the biggest determinant of how they will do in life. If they drop out of school they may end up in prison, but if they dedicate and divert their effort and energy to their schoolwork, they will be somebody someday. Encourage extra-curricular activities that build character and awaken imagination in children. Schools should invite former students who have reached a degree of success to come back to the schools to speak and to inspires the current students.

Spend time with your children doing things together. Don't just watch TV together, take them to church so that they will develop a strong moral character. Take them on tours of the local museums--some of them are free. These things are much more important for the future of your children than the latest gadgets and newest clothes that they all want. Start a savings account for college, no matter how small, and find out what aid is available. Encourage your child to explore his interests so that he will know what he wants to do when he graduates high school and will hopefully want to go on to college. And put your foot down. Nobody's dropping out of school. Reward your children for good grades (eating out or some other special event for the entire family if possible--any thing but expensive cell phones and ipods unless they've done something really good) and ground them for the low ones. Be sure that your child about everything else learns to read, speak and write well. They're lost without it, and people can take advantage of them.

Give kids responsibility appropriate to age and monitor them--fuss if the don't make their beds or carry out the trash. Encourage them to take part time or summer jobs when they're old enough. Save some of the money they make towards their education.

In my city, we have a career center for undepriviledged young people. I don't know all the programs they provide, but I do know they have a progam that trains nurse's assistants, yet our city has a serious shortage of NA's. If a group of young women with small children got together and half of them went to school while the others provided childcare until they could find the next group that wants to grow, there would be enough NA's and less poverty. Yet few people are taking part in this program. If you don't have a GED, get one.

Before paying huge sums for entry level training classes at one of those private Business colleges, check with your career center or even your community college. You'll get a much better education from them at much less the price.

I'm not a sociologist or an economist, but I've lived long enough to see what is wrong with our society. We spend money on crime and punishment instead of on schools and education. It makes me sick.

Answer 4

The poorest people always have the most children. Does that make sense?