How can we really help the poor?

People usually hesitate in giving out money to homeless people on the street. It isn't because we don't want to help, we just don't think giving a couple dollars will accomplish much. We justify this notion by telling ourselves the money would have probably been wasted on alcohol. People usually also dislike paying taxes in general, and the money going to social welfare isn't exactly an exception. Some of us may feel that this is nothing more than government-mandated redistribution of wealth, that money is being taken out of hardworking pockets to take care of the nation's poor. Some may feel while it is necessary to have a system of aid for people who are temporarily struggling, it should be just that: temporary. While we may feel a tinge of guilt, we ultimately wonder why it is even our responsibility.

Poverty is definitely an issue in any nation. Poverty can be defined in numerous ways, but it is generally accepted that poverty is relative to the median income in an area. Prices of items and services will be set according to this median, and those who make considerably less money than this median will be unable to purchase these goods, and therefore be considered poor. Because of technology has somewhat globalized the market for goods and services, the poverty in our sphere of influence not only includes those within a 50-mile radius, but also those in foreign countries. How do we address this problem?

We can view poverty in both the economical and humanitarian aspect. First, it cannot be argued that having a large below-the-poverty-line population is good for the economy. While in desperation, they will work the needed but unfavorable jobs, this tends to put them in a permanent rut. Demand for goods and services falls. As more and more of the population joins this group, the economy suffers because while the needs of these people may remain the same, their means to meet these needs are now limited. The humanitarian angle for eliminating poverty is simple, we should help alleviate the suffering of our fellow humans.

Now that we've established that it is both advantageous and ethical to solve the problem of poverty, now we address the question of whether or not direct service is necessary. One could argue that ministering to an individual's needs could help bring them out of the rut permanently, while just giving them goods (through charity, for example) might not go very far in helping them get back on their feet. In contrast, helping an individual may only help that individual, while supporting an organization could have much greater reach. The answer, I believe, is in the middle ground - it depends on the situation. A multi-millionare may do some good spending time with an individual, teaching them business skills to thrive in the business world, but perhaps donating part of his fortune to a well-established charity organization could make a greater impact. A person will good leadership skills might best aid in the solution by heading this organization rather than spending all his or her time on a single individual. On the other hand, the remaining 300 million people in America may make a huge contribution by personally helping their struggling neighbor's family. I believe ultimate requirement to actually help the poor is the desire to help the poor. It is with this conscious motive, that one's efforts, whether direct or indirect, will actually achieve this aim.