Outsmarting Poverty

Outsmarting Poverty

Poverty is a common world-wide issue in which people lack the finances to provide basic necessities for themselves as well as their family members. This includes factors such as food, clothing, clean water, and shelter. This is a problem which happens to exist and occur in other countries as well as the United States, hence making it a world-wide issue. Some people have the belief in which those stuck in poverty should and must be given everything; whereas, others who disagree with that statement may believe that those who are stuck in poverty should learn to have a hard work ethic and be able to pull themselves out of poverty without the help of others. However, the answer lies somewhere in between those two beliefs. Peter

This also encourages prosperous people to see the good and participating in donating their own time into teaching the work ethic they are knowledgeable about, not for them to donate the money they have earned by their own hard work. As the Chinese proverb goes, “If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; however, If you teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime” (Chinese Proverb). Ultimately, it is clear that education is a beneficial solution to help decrease poverty, especially within our community of Hood County. Furthermore, wealthy families should not necessarily reduce their consumption of luxury goods and services in order to donate their money to poverty. If prosperous people reduced their spending on luxury goods and services, then those companies that produce those items or services would lose money because the items would not be purchased. Therefore, this would lead to people losing their jobs because not as many people would be needed to make or provide whatever good or service their company provided. For the people who are still able to keep their jobs, they potentially could make less money, because their employers would have to pay them less in order to

Basically, the story provides the reader with a visual of two options. A train is speeding down a track and you only have time to save one of the two options given. One of the options being an innocent child; the other option being an expensive Bugatti car that happens to hold your entire life-savings and retirement funds. The moral dilemma in this case is quite easy. You would save the kid. However, this story seems to be unrealistic. For instance, there are only two options given, whereas real life is much more complicated than this. First of all, no one should ever have their entire retirement savings in a car sitting near a train track. Secondly, this dilemma only has two simplistic solutions. In the real world, decisions and consequences of actions are far more complicated. For instance, if this gentleman had paid a lot of money for that car, how many kids of the factory workers were fed during the making of that car. This example proves to show that although you may have saved one innocent child’s life while allowing a Bugatti with retirement funds to get demolished in the kid’s place, we must remember that to make that one Bugatti, there must have been workers. You could imagine the workers must have each had their own families to take care of and support by making money from their job