As shown in Source E, the people with more income are for getting rid of the penny, while the more poor people are against the abolishment. This is probably because the more upper class people do not have to pay for simple things with the pennies they find on the streets. Poorer people who make less than $25,000 a year obviously don’t have good jobs, probably not full coverage health insurance, and a lot of the time, have more children to take care of. Due to the insurance they have, their prescriptions and doctor co pays are very expensive. Penny pinching may be these deprived people’s only option in paying bills.
The law brought positive changes to the country encouraging more people to seek employment, “working people developed their own self-help movement”. Walsh M, et al, 2000. But also created some negative changes, working conditions were extremely harsh and families were split up. The amendment act was disliked by the poor population of the country because of the leissez-faire system the government had in place, the government’s approach on leissez-faire was to intervene as little as possible with the direction of economic affairs. This had an impact on the poor, it caused stigma and the poor had a mark of disgrace on their reputation.
Women were another vulnerable group because they were always paid at a lower rate than men. There was no safety net for people who fell into poverty other than resorting to the ‘workhouse’ which had been established to deal with cases of extreme poverty in Trade unions had little power as the Taff Vale Incident of 1901 showed and Friendly Societies could only provide a limited amount of help. Attitudes to poverty in the early 20th century were quite unsympathetic many politicians from both the Liberal and Conservative party felt that poverty came from personal laziness. Both parties had an attitude of “laissez-faire” i.e. non interference from the government.
They also live for the moment (present gratification). Some sociologists say that these attitudes and values prevent people from escaping poverty. For example, the attitudes and values of the poor mean that many don't stay in education, so they can't use qualifications to escape from their poverty. Some sociologists criticise this explanation of poverty because although it shows how people in poverty might adapt to their situation, it doesn't explain why people are in poverty in the first place. Another explanation of poverty is the poverty cycle.
Poverty and Living Conditions in the 1890s In the nineteenth century, attitudes to poverty tended to be: • Poverty was often blamed on the individual. • The cause of poverty was often blamed on idleness. • Many politicians believed that each individual was responsible for his/her own welfare so people should work hard and save for their old age. • The only way to get help if you were poor was to enter the workhouse. Conditions in the workhouse were deliberately harsh in order to discourage people from seeking help.
At stage 2, the DTM starts to change, with the total population increasing, due to a fall in the death rate and a still high birth rate. This can be seen in many developing countries now, such as Ethiopia, and many others from Africa. The death rate falls due to an increase in the availability and effectiveness of healthcare, and also due to an increase in the mechanisation of work, causing less people to die while working from accidents. The birth rate however remains high, as it takes time for the population to fully realise that less children are dying, and therefore they do not need to have as many children in order to support themselves. Another reason due to the high birth rate in countries such as Ethiopia is the lack of use of contraceptives.
.The first problem with welfare reform is the vast socioeconomic disparity between the Congressional policy makers and those within the welfare program. By not being able to fully understand the plight of these single mother’s living in poverty, those making the welfare policies are not as efficient as they could be. Another problem which stems from this disparity is mental damage that welfare’s strict rules and regulations cause to its recipients. The eventual goal of government welfare is to assist economically challenged families in the hopes that they will one day become self-sufficient. Ironically, the rules involved in receiving government welfare seem
The reasons for agrarian discontent in the late 19th century were derived from trusts and monopolies, railroad freight costs for transportation of produce, and the circulation of money. Arguably, some of their complaints were not valid. The agricultural depression at the time in question could not solely be blamed on the government. Come to think about it, it was simple economics that mostly brought the farmers down. They grew too much too fast during a time where it wasn’t as required.
While receiving welfare, one must meet, or not meet, a certain income criteria. If the income earned is more than what has been outlined by the state, the recipient of the benefits no longer is eligible to receive the benefits. This forces a person to not take the extra hours at work so they can stay below the poverty level to continue to reap the benefits of the system. Some people abuse the system, not all though, and this makes things like stipulations on the rationing of benefits unfair and difficult to implement. Providing a set amount of benefits regardless of family size, doesn’t seem like a fair idea to this
Saying that, “failure to address these issues not only hurts these workers’ families, it erodes the functioning of America’s communities, its economy and our very notions of what democracy can achieve (Fairness Initiative).” Also, although food stamps are supposed to be there to help working poor families, it still in the end leads to further erode in their economic well-being. So in dealing with all these issues, many working poor families are left stressed. The fact of these families living in poverty is enough, but also the fact that children have to endure these conditions in poverty is unbearable. “. .