If you could be born poor in any country (you wouldn’t have to stay poor, just be born poor), which country would it be and why.
I guess i would choose france. They have state sponsored education, daycare, healthcare, a 35 hour workweek & roughly $8.40 for a minimum wage.
the biggest setbacks to escaping poverty (high medical costs, daycare costs, an unliveable minimum wage & educational costs) seem to have been removed by the french government.
Being born poor in a socialist-leaning state like France means that you get pulled up to the average. But that’s where you stay, since there’s not as many rewards or benefits to personal achievement, entrepreneuership, and individualism. If I were born poor and wished to have an easier ride through life, I’d choose a country like France since the government will pull you out of poverty.
BUT if I wanted to make something of myself and be successful, I’d choose a country that rewarded personal achievement, hard work, blood, sweat, and tears. I would choose the United States because of it’s low taxes (see one of Cecil’s columns on tax comparisons, the US was 2nd lowest only to Hong Kong I believe) and its dedication to upholding capitalism and the republic. Anyone willing to work hard can drag themself out of poverty (without government help) in the U.S., and with the right choices and sacrifices even the poorest person can be successful beyond their dreams.
I am not sure whether you live in the same dimension as me, because what you are saying simply isn’t true.
The so-called “equality in opportunity” is merely an illusion. Face it, you will not have the same kind of opportunities that Bill Gates had. Other than luck, the single most important factor in a person’s success is whom he knows, and you just don’t have the kind of Old Boys Network as, say, G.W. Bush has.
Have you tried getting a first job in a place with a $8.40 minimum wage? To put it another way, would you hire an unskilled inexperienced teenager for $8.40?
Compare the unemployment rate in France (around 9%) with that in the US or the UK (4% or so). Where are the better opportunities for advancement for the poor? What France does is keep the uneducated out of work by pricing them out of the labor market. Give me anglo-saxon economics any day!
Being half French and half-British, I have experience of both approaches to the problem. It is true that the British (or American) model favours entrepreneurship, and that gifted individuals can reap rich rewards more easily than in France. However, this also means that the vast majority of people who are just average are left trailing, and the gap between rich and poor in the UK is shameful. In many respects, the UK is the Third World of industrialised nations. In France it may be harder to reach these lofty heights, but as someone said before, most people are dragged to an average economic level. The thing, the average in France is really rather good, whereas it’s quite frankly f*****g shit in the UK.
It really depends on whether you prioritise quality of life for the many, or outstanding achievement for the few. I personally am not a great believer in economic Darwinism.
It must depend, mustn’t it, on why you are poor in the first place?
If you’re poor because, although willing and able to work, you can’t find any work, you want a country whose policies promote employment opportunities.
If you’re poor because you’re badly educated and can’t do work that pays an adequate wage, you want a country with excellent public education.
If you’re poor because of physical or intellectual disability and can’t work at all, you want a country with first-class services for those suffering from a disability.
And so forth.
I would say Hong Kong.
And within one post someone tries to turn it into an anti-socialism thread.
How predictable.
Yes and no:
Gates was born the son of a couple of regular professional parents. He wasn’t the decendent 5th generation Rockafellers and Arab oil sheiks. He just happened to be really smart.
Definitely Sweden.
Would you consider humanitarian aid poverty assistance? Many countries (U.S. especially) give billions to third-world countries to fight poverty. I think you are focusing more on the countries’ citizens.
what i mean is, pretend you are poor in any country & want to work your way out. Which country would make the transition easiest if you have setbacks like having too little time or money for college, kids you have to take care of, elderly relatives, etc. I ask because whenever i hear the theoretical question ‘if you were born poor in any country which country would it be’ it usually ends up being the home country of the respondent rather than a well thought out answer.
In america, we have a tax rate of 15% for low income people, student loans. But what if you have medical bills, can’t find someone to help with the kids then you might be stuck in poverty. What country’s welfare system helps ease the transition from poor to average/moderately well off the best.
I consider any social or government sponsored (but mainly government sponsored) form of assistance to be poverty assistance.
Amanset wrote:
Your post on the other hand was surprising. Brilliant. Inspired.
Calculus wrote:
Definitely Hong Kong.
As I understand it, being “poor” in the United Arab Emirates is the equivalent of being an American millionaire.
“Poor Achmed, he’s driving a two year-old Mercedes. Let’s hold a telethon.”
Porbably Sweden, Finland or Norway. However, once I have BEEN pulled up to the middle mark, I would definately scoot off to a more capatilistic country like Singapore, HK or The ole US of A.
What country? I think a country where You can create as much as possible by yourself.
How to achieve individualism and how can people be creative?
Mostly by education. To believe that a country that has free education is “leaning to socialism” just a propagandistic slogan that people without education and unable to think in an individualistic way, believes.
It is bullshit propaganda for the masses.
If public libraries charges 1 USD per book, (less taxes) would it be good?
If You can lend the books for free in a public library = Socialistic??? (Forcing the [lazy] masses to read the same books and also the hard working people to pay higher taxes).
The same goes for education.
Every country has a certain “brain-capacity”. The country can maximize it by giving everyone an [individual] opportunity to educate himself according to his/her limits.
Yes, with tax-money.
That means that we give everyone an [almost] equal position to strive upwards in the society. He/she will pay later his/her share of the taxes. The community just helps everyone to help themselves.
That everyone educates him/herself to the utmost capacity is a patriotic thing to do.
To oppose free public education for citizens regardless of colour, beliefs and wealth is a very unpatriotic thing to do.
To strive to that everyone’s education/knowledge is working for Your country, has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.
Please note: I hope it will never happen, but Your next child can be disabled in a way or another. In what kind of country do You want that Your child would grow up, when You are gone?
If You think that France, Finland, Sweden or Norway, would put her in an institution where she is brain-washed “for the System where nothing is free”, You are totally brain-washed.
If You think that educating children, plus the people with a work or without work, should only depend on his ability to “achieve everything by himself”, You are thinking like a cave-man.
Totally brain-washed!
I was born in Finland, unfortunately at a time, long ago, after W.W.II, when nothing was free. And my family was very poor.
Now the education is much better, people, even those without work, are supported to get more education.
Try to understand my views:
Yes, I have been successful, but I do not want to force my children to walk the same roads. There is too many ditches beside these, and in these ditches are too many people that can’t come up to the right road again.