Poverty is not an original state

Most wealthy people believe that poor people today have it 'easy' because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return. This is an infuriatingly obtuse view of those who have not known or have long forgotten what poverty truly means. 'Easy' is a word not easily spoken among the poor. Things are hard, the times are hard, the work is hard, the way is hard. 'Easy' is for the willfully callous and the haughtily blind.

Poverty is not an original state, nor are the poor the victims of their own faults and weaknesses. Poverty is self-sustaining. Poverty creates a picture of aimlessness, uncertainty and hopelessness. Once a person is caught in its trap, it is hard to escape the cycle of poverty. It destroys self-confidence and the capacity to organize collective action and response. 

Poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon. Advising poor people to working harder is an useless advice because people are rarely compensated for hard work. They are compensated for skills and smart working. A poor person can't think or plan his old age years. Poverty restricts forward thinking and planning. The daily struggles of the poor constantly humiliate them. There is no possibility of poor people enjoying rights. In poverty there can be no control over one’s life chances or even everyday life.

Development fail to address poverty or to narrow the gap between rich and poor, but widens and deepens this division and ultimately creates poverty, as natural resources and human beings alike are increasingly harnessed to the pursuit of consumption and profit. The rich are great beneficiaries of poverty. It is very cheap to be rich in India. In a poor nation, the social elite can pass through life without facing any competition. The less democratic a nation, the safer it is for the rich.

The attitude we have is running away from the needy and not drawing near to them. Corruption directly brings underdevelopment and spawns poverty. In India poor people vote, and the elected become rich. It’s a government of the rich, for the poor to sustain the poverty. This sounds cynical, but hard facts vindicate the statement.

The global economy on a wildly unequal trajectory is absurd and unsustainable. For getting everyone above poverty line (> $5 per day) would take 100 years, require $1m GDP per person and per capita income about $100,000. As a result, ending poverty under the current model is slow, inefficient and runs into planetary problems. Already the present global economy is in ecological overshoot. A radical shift in distribution to favor the poorest is the only way to reconcile the twin challenges of halting catastrophic climatic change and ending poverty.

The wealth of the super rich in the world can eradicate global poverty TEN times!

In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. 

In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of - Confucius

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, 

it cannot save the few who are rich - J F Kennedy

Meritocracy is a myth invented by the rich

If US universities truly implement "merit order admissions" in letter & spirit - more than half of Indian students (estimated at 100,000 every year) wouldn't get admissions and about 25 universities will go bankrupt. Indian and Chinese students support about 100 universities in USA. All the exams TOEFL, GRE, GMAT etc are just humbug. I haven't come across a single Indian student who failed to get into US university during the past 25 years. More important - every rich man's child, even with average credentials, invariably gets admission into one of the top 20 universities. Of course the left out seats will be filled strictly on merit.

Wealthy people are less ethical

• Pity the rich. They drive their expensive cars with little respect for the law. Most of them (not all of them) break the rules thinking they won’t have to face the consequences, and they even take candy from children. Being wealthy is what drives the unethical behavior.
• Their unethical behavior is driven by the fact that they see nothing wrong with greed. Their wealth makes them less dependent on others, less concerned with how they're viewed and it gives them more resources for handling trouble (like traffic fines) should it come along.
• Drivers of expensive cars were four times more likely to cut off another vehicle and ignore the right-of-way than drivers of cheaper cars. The most flagrant offenders: Mercedes drivers.
• Police officers often face lecturing from the drivers of fancy cars when they pull them over for a ticket.
• Lower-class individuals are more physiologically attuned to the suffering of others than their middle- and upper-class counterparts. The difference in ethical behavior might be about opportunity rather than moral fiber.
• The pursuit of self-interest is a more fundamental motive among society's elite and the increased want associated with greater wealth and status can promote wrong-doing.
• According to a string of new studies, it's not clear if being rich increases unethical behavior or if such behavior is what allows people to become rich in the first place.
• Those given an unfair advantage believes they deserved to win. They attributed their successes to their own individual skills and talents, rather than their highly favorable circumstances.
• If rich are made to feel psychologically a little less well-off, they become way more generous, way more charitable, way more likely to offer help to another person.
• A few at the top are indeed generous, as evidenced by Bill Gates and others.

Read the source article