As I see it there are four  types of poverty:

1. By birthplace.

2. By circumstance.

3. By choice.

4. By mental inability to survive in a social setting.

Taking the first case, poverty by birthplace. There are children who are born into areas that have had their natural resources depleted by either overpopulation, warfare or weather changes. Usually weather alone is not the cause. Overpopulation results in depletion of wood both for building, cooking and heating.

Regarding wood, I experienced a startling example of this a few years ago when we had our motorhome at a campground in the New Hampshire woods. The sites were separated by about 200 feet and all around was fairly dense forest.

Because of the distance from our home we only went to the campground about 5 times a year during the summer months and stayed for 3 days at a time.

We used ‘windfall’ wood and we only used it for cooking.  There were 2 meals cooked the first day and only breakfast the last for a total of 9 meals each trip or a total of 45 meals a year.

For cooking alone I had used all available wood without cutting any trees or branches or going into the area of the other campsites that is, an area of  approximately 20,000 square feet.

Imagine the wood requirement for even a small village using wood for cooking, heating and building shelter.

In addition to windfall wood, trees would need to be cut down to support the requirements of the people. If the population was sufficiently dense in a very short time the area would be bare and subject to erosion by rain which would wash away the fertile topsoil and preclude any possible survival by agriculture. This scenario is well documented in Jared Diamond’s excellent book, “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed”.

Inter-tribal warfare for competition of any available resources would end the possibility of survival.

This has been going in many places since antiquity and particularly in Africa today.

Poverty by circumstance is the result of natural disasters—floods, fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis and mudslides. This can occur to anyone regardless of where they live. It can happen in jungles or in the most populated cities.

Those affected may range from those already living in poverty to the extremely wealthy. The wealthy usually have investments away from the area of disaster so they can survive. The poor lose everything. Even the middle class can lose everything unless they have excess money in banks or other investments. Today, the middleclass is so deeply in debt that it is unlikely that they can survive catastrophic events.

When an area suffers widespread devastation to the point where employment is not possible members of the middle class can be pushed into poverty from which they may never recover. (See Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference“)

The third type is poverty by choice. It occurs in First World countries which permit people to choose if they wish to work or not. Those choosing not to work are provided with assistance from the Government, churches and groups of people who feel guilty because of what they have.

The majority of those who ‘have’ have achieved it by hard work but are made to feel guilty about it. Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged”, deals with this subject and what can eventually occur if this attitude by the ‘takers’ becomes powerful enough.

 It is sad that in this country that there are so many ‘taking out of the pot’ when they are fully capable of adding to the pot to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

The final group is comprised of those who cannot fend for themselves either through sickness, old age or mental incapacities. There are some who have either never adjusted to living in a society or are incapable of doing so.

In the area where I live don’t know of any remaining state-funded institutions that care for those who are mentally incapable of interacting with society. The “State Hospitals” have closed and dumped the mentally ill onto the streets

When I lived in New Hampshire years ago there was a truly humane system in place. It was a cooperative called a “County Farm”. Indigent people were provided a place to live but they contributed by growing food and taking care of the buildings, grounds and each other.

I would like to see this system brought back on a national level where instead of compulsory military training every high school graduate or school drop-out would be required to spend a mandatory year in social service to their country. Besides making life a lot easier for the truly poor and infirm it would generate responsibility in our future generations.

I am in no way advocating socialism or communism just public service

Finally, we should not group those people in the world who are living as their ancestors did as living in poverty. Comparing them to a First World country one would assume that to be true. If those people have sufficient food, shelter and enough free time to enjoy life, they are not living in poverty.

It is only when you compare their annual income to that of those who live in First World countries would you consider that.

People who live in First world countries require houses with electricity, heat and sanitation by definition. Large populations cannot exist in close proximity without that. Large tightly-packed societies require a means of food distribution and waste removal. To satisfy those conditions an infrastructure of roads and administration is required which requires that the inhabitants must be gainfully employed to pay for those services.

Therefore a much higher level of income is required to survive.

Regions that are so completely devastated as has happened in Africa present  an incredible problem. Some groups have attempted to start “cottage industries” by supplying materials and instruction to small groups of those people but if there is no market for their products it becomes a futile effort.

This approach also creates resentment by those who have not received the same help and leads to theft of the materials.

Giving seeds to people who are starving so that they can plant next year’s crop is ludicrous because they will eat the seeds immediately.

When I was a kid in junior high school I stocked shelves in a small neighborhood grocery store. The owner, Harry Levine, was a quiet, honest and wise man. I remember him telling me about his coming to America.

WWII had ended that summer and the Russians were occupying Eastern Europe as a reward for their participation in the war.

He said, “This will be very interesting.” He continued, “When I was a young man in Russia many of my friends were excited about the coming revolution. They said, “Comes the Revolution we will be dancing in the streets.”

Harry said that he then said, “Comes the Revolution we will be sleeping in the streets!”

That’s when he decided to come to the United States.

His assessment was not that far off according to Ayn Rand in her book, “We the Living”. Revolution can only occur when there is a large enough group of people who have been squeezed almost to the point of starvation, the point at which they feel that they have nothing to lose.

We are all aware that societies stratify into a small wealthy class, a large middle class of workers who produce the bulk of the goods and services and the poor.

A small group of very poor people can do little to influence historic events. As long as there is a large middle class who are reasonably satisfied with the conditions of their lives, everything runs smoothly.

However, things are not going smoothly at the moment. The bottom tier of the middle class in the US has been sliding into the ranks of the poor.

Unlike most countries in past history, the United States is unique in that there is a system in place that supports the poorest of the poor through social programs. As long as these people are fed, housed and have their medical problems taken care of they will never revolt because they have too much to lose.

It is the middle class, those who have worked hard to raise their living standards and accumulate assets to guarantee their future comfort, who are the most discontented today. They are seeing their home values drop, their savings go into their heating oil tanks and automobile gas tanks and food prices climb.

It is their security that is most deeply affected.

As the middle class is pushed into the poverty strata, they will require social benefits themselves which will add to the demand on available money.

This leads to one of two choices: reduce benefits or increase taxes. Either choice leads to further discontent but raising taxes drives more people into the ranks of the poor which compounds the problem.

There were 36.5 million people in the US below the poverty level in 2006. With rising fuel costs, which also raises the cost of raising and transporting food, the poorest people will suffer the most whether you consider those below the poverty level or those in the lower middle class. Food, heating and utilities take a greater percentage of income for those who can least afford it.

Those under 18 also fare the worst because if they are considered to be in the work force at that age they are probably high school drop-outs with little hope to rise above the poverty level. They have the least working experience so receive the lowest wages.

Discontented younger people are rioting in France as I write this. France experienced serious riots by young people in 2005 also.

Revolution can bring on far greater hardship than exists under present conditions of discontent in most countries. Again I make reference to Ayn Rand’s book, “We the Living”. There are always opportunists willing to step in for personal gain when there is upheaval. Consider the looting that took place during the Watts riots of 1965, Detroit in 1967 and after Hurricane Katrina. These are relatively small localized areas.  Extend that chaos to an entire country and one can see it is far better to avoid the conditions that lead to riots and revolution than try to live with them after they occur.

We have heard over and over that there is no such thing as a ‘free lunch’. We, as a people, are losing our ability to survive on our own. We are all expecting the governments-local, state and federal to supply us with everything to make our lives comfortable. We are becoming dependent on someone else to provide us with all the perceived necessities to make our lives comfortable. The point here is should we expect life to be ‘comfortable’ or should we be satisfied with life being ‘tolerable’? There is a wide range between the two and there is a price to be paid for being too comfortable.

The story below was sent to me over the Internet. I have no idea who the author is and have no way of knowing whether the story is true or not so consider it a parable.

“There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had a few exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the Professor noticed one exchange student who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist government. In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?” The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up the second side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves and so they accept their captivity. The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/socialism and keeps spreading the free corn in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms- just a little at a time. If you see that all of this wonderful government “help” is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!”

That story illustrates what can happen to not just pigs but to any society that becomes too dependent on someone other than themselves. We must eventually pay for the ‘free lunch’. We eventually lose our freedom of choice. If we expect our lives to become too comfortable and too safe the price that we will have to pay is a loss of freedom. Guard rails, fences, paved paths and smooth roads all make us safer but also diminish the excitement of living. We must make rational decisions about how much we are willing to give up for comfort and security. The “Law of Diminishing Returns” must always be considered whenever we undertake any project. How much time, and therefore money, is involved in making the shelf board smoother or leveling our lawns?