Is capitalism good for the poor?

Answer 1

An OpinionNo. Capitalism creates wealth. There are poor people who live in a capitalist economy. These are the people who do not engage in capitalism. Another OpinionCapitalism creates wealth for a tiny minority. For the majority it creates poverty. Capitalism by definition exploits a large amout of people, in America this group is the low income working class. The people who own major corporations pay workers low wages in order to make more money for themselves. Corporations such as Gap and Nike have sweatshops in Third World countries and pay the workers less than two dollars a day, however the workers make these corporations hundreds of dollars in product sales. By not paying the workers enough money the system continues. And AnotherPoverty is the absence of wealth. An absence cannot be created. That's like saying "create hunger". Hunger is the lack of food. It just exists, period. And it will continue to exist until food is provided. Just like poverty will continue to exist until wealth is provided.

Now, one might believe that capitalism removes wealth from certain people, thereby resulting in poverty. But this is simply not the case. Capitalism creates wealth. You might disapprove of how that wealth is distributed, but you cannot say that anyone has any wealth taken away from them by capitalism. (Communism, on the other hand, most certainly takes wealth away from the people whom it rightfully belongs to, those who earned it.)

As for Gap and Nike, yes, I'm sure they do have so-called "sweatshops" in third-world countries. What you don't realize is how many people in those third-world countries would LOVE to work in those so-called sweatshops. Sure, the wages they're paying aren't nearly as high as what Gap and Nike would have to pay workers here in the US. But those wages are a heck of a lot better than anyone else in those third-world countries are paying. Believe me, the people that have those jobs are grateful to Gap and Nike for them. And the people in the third-world countries that DON'T have those jobs, very much wish they DID have those jobs. Oh sure, Gap and Nike, out of the goodness of their hearts, could just pay those poor third-world workers the same wages they would pay American workers. But then, they wouldn't be able to hire nearly as many, and that would mean more poverty. (For that matter, if they had to pay them the same as they would pay Americans, they'd probably just close down the "sweatshops" and hire Americans, "creating" even more poverty in the third world.) Fact is, whatever benefit Gap and Nike are deriving from this practice, they are clearly doing a favor for the third world workers, by creating wealth there. If you don't believe it, just ask anyone working in one of these "sweatshops". Better yet, ask someone who doesn't work in one of these sweatshops how much he would LIKE to.

One Opinion

Capitalism run rampant will result in a rich-poor divide, with poverty rates being unacceptably high. This can be understood simply through basic logic. In a laissez faire society, the children of the rich will have all the benefits of being part of a rich family whereas the children of the poor will have all the hurdles. Ultimately this will result in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. This is perfectly natural as one would obviously expect rich parents to do their best to make sure their children succeed in life.

So it seems government intervention is necessary. A welfare system is in order - to give everyone a fighting chance. Of course there's the danger of going to the other end of the spectrum - Socialism, resulting in there being no clear incentive to succeed and a lack of creation of wealth. And so, for any society to succeed, a balance between Capitalist and Socialist ideas must be maintained.

An Economic FACTCapitalism, rampant or not, is the ONLY chance for poor people to get out of poverty. And it happens. EVERY DAY. Under capitalism. It does not happen under communism or socialism. Welfare systems DON'T WORK. This is a known fact. That's why we have 3rd and 4th-generation welfare mothers now. Welfare teaches children to be dependent on the government. Welfare IS socialism, the "other end of the spectrum" that you insist we must avoid. What you are advocating is not a "balance" between capitalism and socialism - it's PURE socialism for anyone and everyone who "needs" it, at the expense of those who can afford it. In other words, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That is the bedrock principle of communism. And you are advocating it.

There is no "rich-poor divide" in this country (the US), at least not to the extent that you think. Yes, at any given time, there are some people who are rich and some people who are poor. The thing is, people move from one group to the other all the time. In other words, the poor get richer and the rich get poorer. You can't just look at the numbers. You have to pick a large sample of households and follow them over the years. One study did exactly that, and guess what it found. Of the households in the lowest wealth quintile (the poorest 1/5 of the sample), OVER HALF had raised themselves up into higher quintiles in JUST TEN YEARS.

To the extent that there is a "rich-poor divide" in the US, it is BECAUSE OF, not in spite of, welfare programs like you advocate. No one ever got rich from welfare. Yet many, many people find it preferable to working for a living. So anyone who gets on welfare will STAY poor, usually forever, and their CHILDREN will be one welfare, and will stay poor, forever. Meanwhile, on the other end of the income spectrum, the rich people not only have to provide their families with the lifestyle they're accustomed to, but they also have to pay more taxes to the government to pay for the welfare system. So, they have to make more GROSS income to have the same NET income. So, at least when measured in terms of GROSS income, the rich DO get richer, but only because they HAVE to get richer (in gross income) to have the same net income.

Answer 2

It isn't necessarily "bad" for the poor. However, generally speaking the lower classes prefer socialism over capitalism. Socialism, in essence, creates equality for all. Government programs ensure the poor have the same opportunities as the wealthy. In a capitalistic society, the wealthy generally become wealthier. Individuals work for what they earn, rather than letting the federal government give handouts.