WHY DOES POVERTY PERSIST IN CONTEMPORARY UK SOCIETY There are two different ways of defining poverty. The two different approaches have been favoured by many sociologists and researchers. The two different ones are; Absolute poverty and Relative Poverty (Giddens 2006). Absolute poverty is where people are lacking things for example; sufficient food shelter and clothing. These people are known to live in poverty.
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.
Michael Parenti claims that Imperialism has been occurring since long ago—since the time of the Roman, Persian, Macedonian, and Mongol empires. More powerful countries controlled less powerful ones by dominating other cultures physically by force, and later by using capitalist ideals to dominate them economically. Sometimes, both can occur at the same time as in the event of rainforest destruction in Borneo. There, the previous inhabitants of the forest eventually became wage workers, without their previous homes. One of the reasons companies outsource workers, and thus help imperialize foreign countries, is for cheap labor.
Another explanation of poverty is the poverty cycle. The poverty cycle means that poverty is passed on through generations. In the poverty cycle, children who are born into poverty have a deprived childhood - they experience material and cultural deprivation, and as a result of this they are less likely to do well at school, gain qualifications and stay in education beyond the minimum school leaving age. This means that their future opportunities are limited because their lack of qualifications means that the jobs available to them are mostly unskilled and low-paid. Consequently, they are likely to live in poverty as adults.
Congress must agree on a plan, which could take years, and then the market must be weaned slowly from dependence on the companies and the financial backing they provide. The reasons by now are well understood. Fannie and Freddie, created to increase the availability of mortgage loans, misused the government's support to enrich shareholders and executives by backing millions of shoddy loans. Taxpayers so far have spent more than $135 billion on the cleanup. The much more divisive question is whether the government should preserve the benefits that the companies provide to middle-class borrowers, including lower interest rates, lenient terms and the ability to get a mortgage even when banks are not making other kinds of loans.
The method in which welfare is being reformed, including, but not limited to forcing people to survive off unlivable minimum wages and instituting harmful qualifications in order to receive welfare aid, is not an effective means of helping the impoverished. This has been true for about the past decade. Working for minimum wage does not provide a sufficient amount of income to survive. In addition, welfare now has qualifications that are harmful for those in need of support. Welfare reform is not on the right track to improve lives and is only going to exacerbate the terrible living situations of the penniless.
Extreme poverty, according to Sachs, is defined as the inability to acquire the essentials for survival. This includes food, shelter and potable drinking water. Those who endure moderate poverty are just meeting the requirements for physical survival. Poverty in America assumes the character of “relative” poverty, in which those who earn below the national average income struggle to acquire quality housing, quality food and quality education (Sachs, 20). Though the immediate consequences of poverty in America may not be as severe as in other parts of the world, poverty in America still has a negative effect on millions and poses an extremely serious issue for legislators, administrators and other concerned Americans.
To be a slum a settlement must have: “Poor structural quality and durability of housing, insufficient living areas (more than three people sharing a room), lack of secure tenure, poor access to water, and lack of sanitation facilities” (“About Slums”). These are shocking statistics. It is sad how people ignore this today. Compared to the world, people that are poor in the US would be considered upper class in some of these countries. Poor people in the US still have cell phones
Why are some groups more likely to experience Poverty? There are two types of poverty: absolute and relative. Absolute poverty is the state or condition of having little or no money, goods and means of support. Generally it is a serious lack of means for a proper existence. This is mainly seen in third word countries and rare in the UK.
I have leaned that if your population is to high your people will feel crowded and there will be a food shortage but more people equals more taxes. So I had to figure out a way to balance the rising population but also Battle over population. The answer was (this is the shocker…) industrialization of farmlands. ( Again does this sound familiar?). Its no surprise that China is one of the most Industrialistic country with over 1, 330, 044, 544 people ( as of July 2008 Source: www.google.com ) which in my scientific analysis says nearly 700, 000, 000 are in the work force and within nearly 100, 000, 000 or less (much, much less) are in agriculture or livestock.