Case Analysis – Case 3.3 “Poverty in America”

Case Analysis – Case 3.3 “Poverty in America”

Does the existence of poverty imply that our socioeconomic system is unjust? Does the concentration of poverty in certain groups make it more unjust than it would be otherwise?

Most politicians, economists, and commentators from the left argue that poverty in the US is a product of the unjust social system, but the argument does not hold water. Proposals to redistribute wealth encourage class wars and are counterproductive (Shaw, 2016). If, for instance, the rich and corporations were to pay more taxes, there would be massive job losses that mainly affect the poor.

Poverty in the US is particularly hard on children because it mars their brain development. One may think that poor brain development among children from impoverished backgrounds is solely a result of poor nutrition, but that is not the case. Research shows that such cases result from low-income families going through hormonal stress that impairs their language acquisition and speech development (Shaw, 2016).  Also, the mortality rate among children from low-income families in the US is relatively high, such that life expectancy among infants in Beijing is slightly higher compared to New York. Life expectancy among the country’s young people is also relatively high. In terms of the life expectancy metric among 20-year-olds, the US ranks thirty-sixth and twenty-first worldwide among males and females, respectively (Shaw, 2016). These statistics paint a grim picture of poor demographics in the US.

Do you need help with your assignment ? Contact us at eminencepapers.com. Our work is second to none.

What are the causes of pov

Do you need help with your assignment ? Contact us at eminencepapers.com. Our work is second to noneerty? Are they structural or individual? How is one’s answer to this question likely to affect one’s view of the justice or injustice of poverty?

Most Americans believe that poverty in the US is beyond poor people’s control and, thus, not a personal choice. For instance, unemployment causes nationwide mass idleness as the system cannot absorb all qualified people into unemployment (Rank, Yoon & Hirschl, 2003). Unemployment statistics are so high to the extent that the government can no longer blame the ‘empty West’ for such problems as it has done in most previous depressions. Voluntarily unemployed people are so few that the government cannot blame high poverty levels on personal choices.  Therefore, expecting people to come out of poverty, a structurally embedded problem in the economy is a nightmare.

What moral obligation, if any, do we have individually and as a society to reduce poverty? What steps could be taken? What role should business play?

Individuals have a responsibility when the suffering is so close and intense. Poverty makes it hard to access basic life needs such as housing, education, and healthcare. Essentially, it reflects societal injustice that can be addressed through purposeful action (Van, 2008). For instance, privileged members of society can assist in educating children from poor backgrounds as a way of getting them out of poverty.

Businesses have a role in reducing poverty because it reduces people’s purchasing power, which negatively impacts firms. Companies can use corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies to tackle causes of poverty in their areas of operation (Van, 2008). For instance, lack of proper education is a key cause of poverty among the majority of poor and marginalized communities.  To eliminate such poverty, comprehensive scholarship programs sponsored by businesses and targeting poor children is a long-term remedy for eradicating poverty. Besides, companies play a passive CSR role in poverty eradication through job creation, boosting people’s purchasing power.

How would a utilitarian view the facts about poverty? What are the implications for our society of the concept of the declining utility of money?

The utilitarian theory favors the redistribution of wealth amongst all members of society to promote the common good. The approach focuses on happiness maximization regardless of one’s social class. Utilitarianism essentially stands for an equal society whereby people access their needs with little monetary limitations. Countries like Finland and Sweden tend to have a narrow gap between the poor and the rich, thus scoring highly on wellness indices (Shaw, 2016). These countries fare better than the US in terms of life expectancy, obesity prevalence, economic insecurity, personal anxiety, and other economic well-being measures. There is sufficient evidence that equality amongst people of all classes enhances economic growth.

Utilitarians use the concept of the declining marginal utility of money to justify income inequality. The theory avers that additions to an individual’s income produce less happiness than earlier additions (Shaw, 2016). For instance, people prioritize the essential products when they go shopping, leaving out less important ones. However, if such a person gets an increment, they can only buy the less critical products they missed when they had less income.

How would a libertarian like Nozick view poverty in the United States? How plausible are you in describing the libertarian preference for private charity over public assistance?

Private charities are effective, but the government cannot help for many reasons. Firstly, private charities can individualize their offers depending on the circumstances of the poor. Besides, private charities help those who need it most since they are free from government bureaucracy. The government also lacks sufficient individual information to intervene in personal behavior change.

According to Shaw (2016), the libertarian approach to poverty attributes the problem to structural disadvantages and not personal responsibility. For instance, overcriminalization of offenses by the US criminal justice system contributes to poverty. Any history of crime or incarceration limits one’s access to employment opportunities, thereby affecting one’s income in the long run. Consequences are not limited to money but also health, debt, food security, and financial stresses that disintegrate families.

How would our economy be assessed from the point of view of Rawls’s difference principle? Can it be plausibly maintained that, despite poverty, our system works to “the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged”? Is this an appropriate standard?

Rawls’s difference principle tends to justify economic inequality in society. The doctrine is premised on concentrating wealth among the rich, which will eventually trickle down and benefit the poor. The principle, for instance, favors a tax reduction on capital investments to enhance long-term investment in stocks. Lowering corporate tax will encourage these organizations to boost production and employ more people.

References

Rank, M. R., Yoon, H. S., & Hirschl, T. A. (2003). American poverty as a structural failing: Evidence and arguments. J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare, 30, 3.

Shaw, W. H. (2016). Business ethics: A textbook with cases. Cengage Learning.

Van Tulder, R. (2008). The role of business in poverty reduction: Towards a sustainable corporate story. Background paper for UNRISD Report on Combating Poverty and Inequality.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Case Analysis – Case 3.3 “Poverty in America”

As a result of the economic crisis and recession of 2008-2009, 4 million Americans have fallen into poverty. Around 50 million adults now live below the poverty line. Millions of Americans endure hunger. People in different walks of life and in different circumstances experience poverty. Many others live on the edge of poverty. Still, many people think that those described as “poor” in the United States are pretty well-off by world standards (Shaw, 2017, p. 114). Read Case 3.3, “Poverty in America,” in the textbook on pages 114-116 and address the following questions in a paper that will be submitted to Dropbox:

Does the existence of poverty imply that our socioeconomic system is unjust? Does the concentration of poverty in certain groups make it more unjust than it would be otherwise?
What are the causes of poverty? Are they structural or individual? How is one’s answer to this question likely to affect one’s view of the justice or injustice of poverty?
What moral obligation, if any, do we have individually and as a society to reduce poverty? What steps could be taken? What role should business play?
How would a utilitarian view the facts about poverty? What are the implications for our society of the concept of the declining utility of money?
How would a libertarian like Nozick view poverty in the United States? How plausible are you in describing the libertarian preference for private charity over public assistance?
How would our economy be assessed from the point of view of Rawls’s difference principle? Can it be plausibly maintained that, despite poverty, our system works to “the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged”? Is this an appropriate standard?