Topic: Poverty
"The Poor Will Always Be With Us". Examining the validity of that common perrenial phrase.by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Phrases easily become part of our world. If they are repeated often enough, we begin to assume their infallibility. They can be helpful, if based in fact and useful. To be sure, their common usage signifies that they are always helpful, at least to someone or some group. But false aphorisms are blatant propaganda. They are an attempt to imbed an untruth into the minds of many, and in that manner to foster its acceptance as truth.
We should be especially suspicious of common phrases that "predict" future events or conditions. Claiming that there will "always be" something or some condition is of course, impossible. No mortal human has any capacity to predict what the future will bring. Predicting the fortunes of an entire class of people should be taken with even greater skepticism. Truth can only be based on observation of the past and present, never the future.
Poor, as we have come to understand it is a relative term. It originated alongside the term poverty, and refers to those who experience poverty. It generally means a state of not having enough. People existing in a state in which they don't have enough to sustain themselves over the long haul.
We can come to understand the poor and poverty better if we remove the term from its "relative" sense. If we consider the "poor" as only those who do not have enough to sustain their existence, then we can eliminate the complicated and lengthy debate over social equality and disparity of wealth. It is not that this isn't important and worthy of discussion, simply that it isn't fundamentally relevant to the common phrase we are dissecting.
Extreme inability to sustain will end life. But, this does not define living in, or as the State is inclined to define it, below the poverty line. Poverty is the inability to afford the "necessities" of life. Lack of clean water, insufficient food, clothing or shelter, all are the result of poverty.
The phrase itself may have originated from Jesus. Shortly before his death, he mentioned something to the effect that the poor will remain with you, but that he would be gone. While we may draw quick conclusions from this, there are numerous examples throughout the Bible that state the case that poverty is not a "natural" condition of life here on earth.
It is certainly possible that a small percentage of people with be unable to provide for themselves in a suitable fashion. Whether the cause is physical, mental or just plain lack of initiative, the chances are good that this may always be the case. And, some of them will not have the fortune of being cared for by others. But in perspective, this should be a very small percentage. It is the natural inclination of all humans to survive. An even smaller number will experience a negative event of such extreme magnitude, that they are "thrown" into poverty. The vast majority of humans will not fit either description, at any time.
That leaves us with two predicaments of poverty. Those who wish to provide for themselves but cannot find the employment necessary and those who even though they have employment or occupation, still cannot remove themselves from grip of poverty.
The natural state of humans is full employment. Again, we mention those who for whatever reason cannot employ in the process of survival, but for the vast majority of people, earning their daily bread is part of nature.
Each "employed" person is busy producing the product that will sustain his existence. In our exchange economy, it is this product that is exchanged for other products. It is production that creates demand. In simple terms, the act of employment by any person creates its own demand. The producer is the consumer. What would then make unemployment possible for all those willing and able to work?
It is said that overproduction causes unemployment. The economy has produced too many products and there isn't enough consumption. Factories have to compensate and people have difficulty finding work. The solution is obvious to a second grader: price. There are never too many products at the right price.
If this is the case, price monopoly is the cause of unemployment. If the argument is made that prices "can't" come down, then the answer is capital or labor monopoly. But, remember here we are talking about labor that is out of work. There is no place in a free economy for a price that can't be adjusted.
The land, the resource, is the other side of the equation. If the labor of people is available, but the land isn't, there will be a surplus of labor. If it is possible through force to remove those who came from the land, then it is possible to have people willing to work with nothing to work on or with. They are now dependent on those who have control of the resource for their employment. If the control of the resource is not exercised in a way that provides all with employment, there will be those who will be impoverished from lack of work.
To lure people off land under their consent, you must offer compensation that is greater than what they have already from the land. You must offer more than their basic level of sustenance, which the land has been providing for themselves for millenniums. If this isn't possible, force and fraud is.
They might also leave their land if they are stupid. But, is it possible that they could be that stupid and still have provided for themselves, not to mention all those in society who lived off of their produce, and survived since the dawn of human time? And would they all be stupid at the same time? This is unlikely.
The other condition of poverty is that of the "working" poor. This makes even less sense than the first. How is it economically possible to work through the day and end up with not enough of what one needs? Wouldn't a days labor bring at least a days sustenance? What sort of economy requires people to work, companies to continue to operate and profit and the workers not have enough to consume? What firm or industry can survive and grow when its workers work the day and find it hard to do the same?
What society, which has produced wealth beyond comprehension even in comparison to any in history, requires socialized organization of its citizen's health concerns, retirement plans, unemployment, disability, even food and shelter in order to enable them to pay for these items? Should a nation this wealthy need the vast pooling of a significant portion of the produce of all to eliminate potential poverty among many of its own? Wouldn't individual compensation in a free economy be enough to circumvent poverty among its working producers? Why do we need socialism to sustain a wealthy economy?
If you believe a "free" economy would allow those who produce to avoid the pitfalls of poverty by their own production, then it is entirely possible that the poor will not always be with us.
On the other hand, there are so many in our economy today who profit greatly without producing, what would they do in a truly free economy? Perhaps, the poor will always be with us!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Gene DeNardo only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gene DeNardo is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
