However, I disagree that this English poverty is worse than the Third World poverty because the poor in England have a chance to live well, but in India the poor have no chance to live well, and there are many people in Third World countries who are also spiritually poor like England, so that means this English poverty is not the worst. First, the poverty in England is not economic, but moral and cultural because the English poor do not have good family relations and strong family ties. One of the important elements to be moral is to have good family relations. If a person has strong family ties, he or she will take care of much more things about life because this person will build his or her life on family members, their benefits and their goodness, so that will lead to a person to
But the undeserving poor had earned their poverty not only by refusing to work, or to work hard enough, but also by rejecting the middle-class model. If they were poor, it was because they hadn’t tried hard
The system of land distribution was unfair and most peasants received 4% less land than they had rented before, many received much less. In reality they had less land than when they were serfs. This was seen as unfair as they believed that, because they had worked the land for generations, it should now belong to them. The Mir still restricted peasants’ movements and as consolidation and enlargement of property was difficult, there was little incentive to improve the land and adopt modern methods, resulting in a decline in productivity The huge redemption taxes also meant that the peasants had to sell many of the crops they needed to eat and the Mir kept the peasants tied to their commune and still controlled by rules. Peasants felt disappointed and disillusioned and many rioted.
Employers could either pay their labourers of instead the poor rate. “The poor Laws of England tend to depress the general condition of the poor” . The short term effect of these systems meant that for once the poor’s voices could be heard, however to an extent there would be a disadvantage because the ratio of the poor to the unions made distance difficult to give the poor the relief that was needed. Edwin
In the old poor law going into a work house was for the able bodied poor and outdoor relief was for the incompetent poor, the amount of money being given out was tried to be minimised. It was also seen as being inefficient as people such as Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo noticed that many people became too reliant upon the poor law and handouts, they started to lose independence and didn't see the point in working hard when they could just receive money from the poor rate system. If people didn't receive enough money in their wages to cover the costs for basic needs such as food, their wages would be 'topped' up, allowing them to be able to afford the necessities. However in some ways the way in
It was believed that poverty was the individuals own fault, due to their own personal defects and moral failures. The poor were treated like inferior criminals. There crime being poverty. Norman Pearson who was voice on the topic at this time believed poor people living in poverty were “seldom capable of reform”, they tended to be “made of inferior materials… and cannot be improved” and the poor should be prevented from breading as the poor were poor “in their blood and their bones”. People became concerned about the percentage of the poor living in poverty and the extent of poverty in which they were living.
This ties in with what he mentions about the pay of farmers and how it is less than that of major corporation employees. He suggests that the poor work harder for their money that they barely survive on, and an increasing population would make them endure the misery even more. Malthus was blindsided by the fact that because humans naturally reproduce, they will naturally adjust to the changes around them. All in all, Robert Thomas Malthus’ theory was somewhat untrue, and did not support the facts of
He frames this separation of the classes as a struggle and a constantly losing battle for one group or the other (mostly for the poor). He explicitly states, “society as a whole is more and more splitting in to two great hostile camps, [….] Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (Marx 338). Right away, Marx hopes to use this to build an argument that the current relations between the two classes is an illusion and that the proletariat are playing the zero-sum game, with the Bourgeoisie, that is capitalism. In direct contrasts to this, Carnegie believes that, in the capitalist system, the relations between the two classes is more symbiotic in nature.
This means that, as you get older or get ill, you will have to stop working therefore not earn any money and slip into poverty. He also found that poverty is not a result of being lazy. Some people do work very hard but earn little money and it is not their fault. Rowntree also discovered that the main percentage of people living in poverty was because of a large family. This means that people are not getting enough money to help buy food and decent homes for their families.
Conclusion: Poverty Does Not Fosters Crime Many people believe that poverty is the main cause of crimes in a city or country. They believe that the only thing poor people do is steal, mug, or even assassin to get things instead of working like a normal people do. For example, I have seen very rich people claiming that poor people are a problem to society because they do not give anything good to it; how poor people are thrown away from certain places only because they “scare normal people”, now society excludes them because of fear. We have become so judgmental that when we see a black guy or some other man with not so good clothes or with a not so good appearance (or in any way that poor people look) walking down the street coming right at us, we immediately though that he is going to assault us and maybe kill us; but if we see a man in a business suit, well shaved, with a clean hair cut, and a nice smile we might think it is even a friends of ours that is coming to say hi. There is something society should know, the rate of crimes is increasing in wealthy countries; the man in the suit could have done a scam or he might me a hit man.