k1ng

How different do you think the world would be if people didn't live in poverty? It would obviously be a huge disaster if it happened overnight, so for this discussion let's assume that the world has been poverty-free for hundreds of years. It might also be interesting to discuss what changes the world would have to go through during this lengthy process.

This should be an interesting discussion..

EDIT: I would like this discussion to focus on the scenario that I described and not on why a world without poverty isn't possible. Thanks =)

__________________
"Delight in excellence is easily confused with snobbery by the ignorant." -Joseph Epstein

Cereberus

We could fire most of our politicians, especially the ones who enjoy raising taxes "to help the poor."

But why would it be a disaster if it happened overnight?

k1ng

A BIG change such as this cannot be done overnight. It would take a lot of time for everyone to plan and adjust. You would have billion+ people who suddenly have money. These people are going to be looking for new places to live, new clothes, vehicles, food, etc. Prices for oil, food, labor, etc will definately change too.

__________________
"Delight in excellence is easily confused with snobbery by the ignorant." -Joseph Epstein

HeadyIncognito

We'd need a much smaller world population.

__________________
Even Hitler had a girlfriend...

ObieX

A world without poverty is impossible. People will always find ways to lose money or belongings and the clothes off their back. Someone will always want more, and that means someone will have less. There's alwaysbeen enough to go around, its just that its never in the places its needed the most. Most people don't care, and will never care.

As long as there is fear there will be poverty. As long as there is greed there will be poverty. As long as people are unable to overcome their human nature, there will be poverty.Since i don't see any of these things going away any time soon, i wouldn't hold my breath.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

flat5

Hypotheticly speaking? Pass the hypo.

Everyone could afford the drug of choice.

People would eat too much.

People would have many more children. Population explosion.

Everyone would buy a really big car.

I mean some other problem would take it's place.

chickentribs

We would have to be more clear on what influences you were looking for. Poverty is a relational term and if we were going to evenly distribute wealth the result would be Americans living on a small fraction of what we currently have. On the other hand, if you suggested a breakthrough in science that would give every country equal natural resources and equal education you would be creating wealth. If you were suggesting moving to a barter economy across the world to eliminate the monetary system that creates a whole other set of issues. Any ideas?

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

alansmithee

If the world has been poverty free for hundreds of years, I would think it would be fairly quiet since all the people died off hundreds of years ago.

maleficent

How is it that people are poverty free? Is everyone all of a sudden going to become hard working and responsible and work their butts off to support themselves or is the government going to take care of them?

__________________

Fremen

We'll need a bigger planet with better resources, or about half of the world population to spontaneously disappear.

__________________
Google

Cynthetiq

exactly.

personally, I don't think that even if it went over 100s of years to get poverty free, that the price of admission would be worth it.

personally it's always going to be the haves vs. the have nots, you may be talking about money, some may talk in spirit, others may talk in megabtyes.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Ustwo

Poverty is relative.

'Poverty' in much of the US would be well off in the third world.

You could give people everything they want and still some people would feel they were left out or didn't get a fair share.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

lurkette

I can't deny that at least some poverty is caused by individuals making poor choices and refusing to work. But this attitude overlooks a lot of the institutionalized inequalities in industrialized nations that make it difficult for people in poverty to get out of poverty. It also overlooks intergenerational transmission of poverty by which the choices of parents negatively influence the likelihood of their children (who have done NOTHING to "deserve" poverty) ever breaking the cycle. And it's patronizing.

And it doesn't take into account the billion or so people living around the world who lack basic resources such as clean drinking water, sufficient food, education, etc., all of which are necessary before they could even think about "working their butts off." Absolutely, those nations that are worst off need to take some kind of responsibility (one thinks about corrupt African dictatorships) for their own destiny, but it's hard to overthrow a government when you're trying to feed your children. And the industrialized world has to take some responsibility for the fact that our prosperity is due in no small part to our past (and some would say ongoing) exploitation of developing countries. One good example is farm subsidies that keep home-grown crops at such a low price that developing nations can't compete with what could be their only viable export. In fact, perversely, it may be cheaper for them to IMPORT crops from subsidizing nations than to grow their own. All this so you can have cheap tomatoes in February. If we're ever going to achieve any kind of global eradication of poverty (by which I mean meeting the basic needs - nutrition, security, education - of all people) the industrialized world is going to have to make some changes in our lifestyle and policies.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

chickentribs

Leaders like Castro and Mao had good intentions in trying to evenly distribute wealth across their people when taking control and implementing communist governments. In theory, the idea is to eliminate the extreme poverty by putting everyone on a similar paycheck distributed by the government and remove class systems. All for one and one for all, as they say.

Unfortunately, when you remove profit motive, you remove incentive from the economy and breed corruption where the money is - the government. Wealth and poverty are necessary to drive competition and innovation. But - it is within our reach to dramatically eliminate poverty in terms of food around the world, which would cost countries like ours a lot of money, but is the surest way to bring nations filled with disease and famine up to a reasonable standard of living. That would be something...

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

maleficent

My response was sarcastic.. it wasn't intended to be patronizing...

However... For poverty to be eradicated, how do you define poverty? A person living in poverty in NYC, might be able to live pretty well with the same money in the less expensive areas. Cost of living varies greatly from one area of the US to another.

Then to take into consideration third world countries... the amount to live would even be lower.

Who determines what poverty actually is. Is the person who has enough to eat, a roof over their heads, their children being educated, and clothes on their back impoverished? In some places yes... some people might consider themselves living in poverty because their car is 15 years old or they can't take a family vacation.

----------

But to answer the original question.. how would the world be if there was no poverty? One might believe that the world would be a better place... but the cynic in me says if all people in the world had what they needed to survive, there would still be people who think they needed more, and couldn't get it so they were being held back by some force preventing them from getting this. Even without poverty - that sense of entitlement won't go away, crime wouldn't goaway.. though the reasons for it might change (It would no longer be, I robbed the jewelry store to feed my family, it would become I robbed the jewelry store because I wanted to)

__________________