Why are we poor?

Have you dreamed - as a young man - of a rich and successful life? About a family house, about a large property, about wealth and satisfaction? Don't you have it? Then hear why.

Poverty - where does it come from?
Poverty - where does it come from?

Edited July 12, 7

I grew up among the Roma, my father is a Roma, my sister too… and in fact a large part of those who raised me somehow. Therefore, I will analyze the issues of poverty from the perspective of the Roma and similar - from the perspective of socially excluded groups. Although in general the causes are the same for everyone.

Today's governments - especially in the Western world - are striving for a so-called "welfare state" to ensure a "dignified life" for all. Social spending forms a significant part of budgets, and social systems are constantly expanding over time, with some exceptions. So why are we all still poor? Why do we feel a shortage when we redistribute so much?

Long live poverty!

The problem is in the general concept of how to fight "poverty".

Imagine that the government wants to fight the car industry. And so to prevent its spread, it will start subsidizing car production. On auta will give a more favorable VAT rate, carmakers will start paying extra to their employees… and so on.

Of course, government action is pointless. They automotive subsidizeSo they do the exact opposite of what they want to do. By subsidizing the car industry, they are helping to expand it, they are not fighting against it.

We cannot fight the expansion of the car industry by subsidizing it, that is perhaps clear to everyone.

Now let's look at another government that will set itself the goal of "fighting poverty." What will today's modern government begin to do?

They usually extend the social system, the benefits that flow to those who are poor by some criteria. They give them more money to make they did not suffer from their poverty.

Money - like everything else - is somehow precious to man. This rarity is determined, among other things, by the effort behind obtaining them.

Otherwise rare is a thousand crowns for a miner, otherwise rare is a thousand crowns for consumers of social benefits, otherwise rare is a thousand crowns for multibillionaires. And yet it is still a thousand crowns!

What about such a miner? The miner works for several hours from Monday to Friday somewhere in the mine, the work is strenuous, demanding. His salary is 20 net per month. A thousand crowns is somehow rare for him.

What about such a recipient of social benefits? It can also be the miner, for example he is actually entitled to some social benefit. What is behind this money? Filling in any papers? Time spent in the office? Will a thousand crowns of social benefits for a miner be more or less rare than a thousand crowns of a salary for a miner's work? It can be expected that the rarity will be lower, because there is not so much effort to obtain it.

What if this thousand crowns are mixed with the thousand crowns obtained by mining work? Then will reduce the general rarity of thousands of crowns for a given miner. What will that mean?

Imagine that you can buy a pen for 5 CZK or 200 CZK. How will you treat the pens? It can be expected that you will pay much less attention to the ballpoint pen for CZK 5 than to the ballpoint pen for CZK 200. Why?

Because its purchase price is so low that it will probably not be worth you to look after it. It is very likely that you will lose it soon. And that you don't either it won't matter.

Imagine that the pen will be free. You will definitely not watch it as much as a pen for 1000 crowns.

Tedy the lower the rarity of the farm for us, the more vaguely we handle it. So the lower the rarity of a thousand crowns for us, the more vaguely we treat it, the lower the rarity of money for us, the more vaguely we handle it.

The less effort we need to make money, the less efficiently we spend it. The idea that social benefits that make up "money without effort" will help the socially weak to live better is thus completely wrong.

In other words, I know a lot of Roma families, who receive social benefits and are not doing better than before. On the other hand, I know several Roma families who do not receive (or only minimally) social benefits and are better off than before.

I know a lot of families (not just Roma!), who are poor, miserable, and who receive social benefits, but are families who have always had cigarettes, alcohol, computers, or the Internet, but seldom had rent, water, sewer, or electricity payments.

These are families where there are healthy and work-capable people who, instead of trying to increase their income or spending structure (and that they would be able to do so), constantly call on the state to give them additional social benefits - to educate children. , for the payment of medical care and more.

And yet they have three computers at home, a super-fast internet connection, a pile of cigarettes and alcohol is not a problem. How is it possible?

These people he cannot dispose of the money entrusted to them. Why? Because money is not scarce for them, because it is easily available. Through the social system.

The money they receive de facto "for free" does not invest (in the vast majority) in their development and increase their income, but in maintaining their current comfort. Today's social system eliminates motivation.

These people are so accustomed to their comfortable lives that as soon as they are in danger of losing their benefits, they riot. And in an incredible way. They would not only lose their comfort, but also the possibility of free money. They are like junkies who are constantly talking about how they will end their addiction, but as soon as possible, they run away, they don't want to.

But what is the worst? The fact that children, the next generation, grow up in this environment. You are used to this way and it is it is very difficult and expensive to get out of this spiral. It costs the state a lot of money - first it "pays them poverty" and then it spends a lot of money to get them out of it.

And in the end, he will show them as an example of how the state "can care". The fact that he got them into that horrible situation no longer says.

Let's not subsidize poverty

Let us now return to the example with the government and the car industry. Although it is quite clear to us in the automotive industry how contradictory the government is (contrary to its words), we will not notice it at first glance in the social system.

A compulsory social system that is de facto state monopoly it is obscured by terms such as "solidarity", "goodwill", "care" and more.

But that's a gigantic nonsense! There is no solidarity, goodwill and care without voluntariness! From the law compulsory social system thus it is neither solidarity nor full of "good will" nor an expression of "care."

From the law a compulsory social system is just a government subsidy for poverty! By subsidizing something with the money of all of us, we cannot fight it! As written in the example with cars, we cannot fight the expansion of the car industry by subsidizing it, so we cannot fight the spread of poverty by subsidizing it, that is perhaps clear to everyone!

However, the governments of the vast majority of the world's countries are doing just that - subsidizing poverty, helping to spread the problem they are "fighting" themselves - as a result governments are fighting against themselves!

That's unbelievable absurd.

To really put an end to poverty, we must reduce social systems. Yes, for a while in the short term, it will make the situation worse - just like a detox junkie is sick for a while. But in the future, it would be an incredibly good deed.

Yes, there will always be those who have less than anyone else. But that does not mean that they are poor. The goal is perhaps not for everyone to have the same, but for as few people as possible to be poor. Let's try!

Please, let's not subsidize poverty.


  1. There is a theory that poor people are poor, because instead of investing money in something that creates new value for them, they stuff it into booze and cigarettes.

  2. Be healthy
    I am 44 years old, year 66. I experienced the last phase of socialism and I am experiencing the present. I am a workers' profession, I also got abroad and I know how it goes there.
    You say that money is of little value to people in support, that they do not value it. It is true, but only those who have never worked. I have not been out of work for a day since my apprenticeship !! When I disliked it and was released for "redundancy" “.
    That would not happen to me under socialism. But it would not happen to me even in eg Switzerland. There, who wants to work, works and the employer will consider whether he will be fired after 8 years. He has to train a replacement for it and it costs something. words.
    For a person who has to earn the "thousand crowns" by work, to work every morning and is glad that he has the job, money is of great value. For someone who milks a social worker, they are not so valuable. "If they do not, we will revolt "And you're right, Gypsy or white, all the same! So I would make the granting of support conditional on work for the community. When the socially weaker find out that they have to work at least somehow, that nothing is free, they start behaving differently towards money .
    Finally, I think I'm not very smart, but life has taught me something. Experience has not been given to me by school or teachers, but I listened to OLD people. They have the wisdom and not some same economist! Don't listen to stupid words, listen to people !!

  3. Good morning 😉

    Interesting article, but I have to agree with people's opinions:
    Jaroslav Jaroslav Holý ’, Hu Huge’ and then especially MAMrkéta Hrbková ’
    Jen It's just that I don't repeat myself.

    "To really put an end to poverty, we need to reduce social systems" - your voice…
    Unfortunately, I must say that you are young and, unfortunately, still stupid and inexperienced, in order to engage in such debates and have the ability to make a truly meaningful conclusion.

    During communism, apart from political crimes (eg the case of Horakov, in '68 and others), one did not have to worry about losing the roof over his head.
    Now, even if you work, someone can seduce you, whether it's about an apartment, various scams. machinations, or by some way to buy a prefabricated house and then trying to stand up to the tenant or worker will not stay even at the apartment and food…
    The situation deteriorated rapidly after '89.
    But - the socialism works, it's a little more than the one under communism, you start instead of the cows who teach you at high school, study how the socialism works and that - in SCANDINAVIA !!!!
    Ie Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland.

    Our economy, including the stupid Klaus, is worth it.

    Unfortunately, I already remember something.

    PS when the crisis and lack of money in all genera, numbers and falls is declining, how is it possible that there are more than 100 Ukrainians in Prague alone? !!!!! And the Ukrainians are not even from the Union, so the state provides them with a vision, then they take homework and employment offices full of people…
    Think about it instead!


  4. Damn, a simple question - it is your nature to hand over the money earned to a common pile. OK, so how much do you pay (as a percentage of your salary)? If I give you an account number, how much will you send me per month?

    Because sitting at home makes me very happy, because I can play with my daughter, I can compose and record music, I can go to the forest with a dog, I can cook and so on.

  5. Can we all have jobs today? Can we all be in prosperity? You yourself write here that in order to value something, there must be a lack of it. Lack of money theory creates motivation. Therefore, this shortcoming must exist.
    In my opinion, it is far more sad than poor breadwinners to let ourselves be fooled by those who do not take a few thousand without work, which you are complaining about here, but are taking in several million.
    According to Maslow's pyramid of needs, those who do not have basic living needs cannot think of self-realization and integration into society. Moreover, this society does not try to include these breadwinners among themselves (by that I mean the constant swearing at the breadwinners and the Roma).
    If we get rid of this theory of monetary motivation and function as a society in which it is the (absolutely natural) desire of every individual to contribute as much as possible to society and not take too much of it himself (which does not bother a SATISFIED person), . for the sake of profit, etc., in short, all these capitalist perversions.
    Surely a lot of you say I'm a communist (and I probably wouldn't want a Bolshevik back here), and I'm sorry that sounds so extreme. But when we calculate how much time and resources we would save, it is worth thinking about. I think we could easily feed even the poor, (sitting at home and making a living does not make you happy, so over time you would get involved) and yet we WOULD BE FORCED to do for example only four hours a day and devote all time to meaningful activities, and not just maintaining this stupid system.
    I look forward to your answers 🙂

  6. Mrs. Hrbková, what you write about debt, etc. is not entirely true. Let us distinguish between investments (a loan for the expansion of a company in high demand) and a loan for nonsense (for a holiday, etc.).

    What you are writing about is not capitalism or the market economy. You are confusing it with central banking and controlled inflation, which of course I also disagree with.

    In the context of the article, one de facto supports the other.

    Furthermore - the article is based on the theory of consumer surplus. Let's say you want to buy bread. You are hungry, so you would be willing to spend maybe 50 CZK for it. But bread costs CZK 20 (today CZK 15 in Tesco), so you spent CZK 30 less than you wanted. CZK 30 is your surplus (consumer surplus).

    Furthermore, things that are rare have a high price. One generally cares about rare things - one tries not to damage them, invests them well, weighs how to deal with them. Why?

    Because the initial investment in getting a rare thing is high (as if you paid CZK 49 for bread) and your surplus is so low (only CZK 1 instead of CZK 30). This means that you had to make more effort (work, money from your salary) to get that thing. Therefore, the thing is rare - difficult to obtain and the surplus is low.

    Thus, a thing with a high consumer surplus means that the thing is cheap, that is, it is not rare and that it is easy to recover.

    Money from the social system is the thing with a high consumer surplus. They are easy to obtain (the yield is less time spent working, etc.) and the yields are high. Money is not scarce… and the rest is already in the article.

  7. Hello, Your effort is nice, but I think you've really fallen into a bit of widespread delusions. First of all, it must be borne in mind that capitalism (as a system) is far from costing the spread, growth and distribution of real needs, but growth and distribution of debt. The system is not so much (things are, of course, more complicated, but if we simplify it according to your example) about how many cars were produced as how many were sold on loan and how much the loan will bring ABOVE the original price. Money makes money. So the growth of debts and the fall into them is not an unwanted by-product, but the main axis of the system. This is also so evident in the "UN aid to developing countries", which takes place basically by bringing the country (under the recommendation of economists from rich countries and the IMF) into that "necessary decline", then offering them a loan on completely inhumane conditions - and we have slaves for decades and a head adorned with a halo. Haiti is a shining example of this.

  8. I generally agree with the article, but I have a few ideas to think about…
    How can we expect the Roma (generalizing) to start trying when we are obviously not accepting them into our society and behaving like individualists themselves, looking at how not to get too involved and get as much for themselves as possible (as capitalism assumes)? Isn't alcohol just an irrational escape from hopelessness? Looking at the Maslow curve, it is clear that one does not begin to think about self-realization until one has the basic necessities of life. So I would rather advocate to control and tighten the belts of the elites, to provide those confused poor with basic necessities of life and to start (by which I mean society) behaving in such a way that we do not think only of ourselves, but try to contribute something. Everything else is just a struggle with the consequences, but not with the cause of our problems.
    Otherwise, to comment on UN aid to developing countries, let them put such aid behind their hats. In one article by Jan Keller, I read that in the 100s, the UN lent 120 billion to a country (by shooting, I don't remember exactly), in the same period that the developing country returned XNUMX billion and still had half the debt left zb In addition, the money anyway they rake in our corporations, so that development aid is more like the exploitation hidden behind a skilled media campaign.

  9. # Tomáš Růžička - you aptly caught the whole thing at the end "Until politicians will abuse social benefits as a form of bribe" it is important to look at what social benefits are. Then we find that in most "Social" countries it is a political lever for election results.
    #Jaroslav Holý - it wants peace and feet warm, why do the "young" write it is the right question? Don't get your ax caught in intergenerational relationships, this article wasn't meant to be! However, a certain truth is that what today's young people have to deal with is the debt of previous generations. As a result, it is a constant new experience for everyone, which everyone deals with in their own way.
    Social solidarity as it was set up, for example, in the Czech Republic, in its consequence, limits those who need the most help! See the system of "benefits" for graduates and people of pre-retirement age in the labor market has the effect of reducing the competitiveness of these groups in the labor market! If I have to choose from an "ordinary" employee or an "advantageous" employee (to whom I cannot give the contract the conditions I will agree on, but which I am forced to do by 3page = state) who do you think I will choose as an employer ?! Another term itself is counterproductive to a person. What is "positive discrimination" ?! When I know that as a member of a minority ethnic group I do not have to worry about my personal improvement, that I am thrown into the box positively discriminated against and I will receive benefits that others have to pay hard will I try to improve ?!
    Wouldn't it be better to support the creation of job clubs and start teaching economic behavior in society in the family ?! Simply activities that would certainly be more beneficial and socially solidarity than a certain group of people degrade to benefit recipients and a herd of dumb voters. Maybe it would be for us = to become cheaper, but for certain politicians it would mean extinction…

  10. Jaroslav's calm, Tomáš did not express himself very clearly, but there is no need to criticize him so sharply.

    My opinion on the article: I agree that the situation you have described corresponds to reality, but I argue that the proposed cuts or significant reductions in benefits for those who are able to work can have unintended consequences. For example, individuals accustomed to not working and sometimes hanging around the housing estate will be much more likely to look for a solution to a situation that would arise in the sale of drugs, pimping, or other unwanted activities, because this way of life will be closer to them, they will not have to change.
    Otherwise, I don't like the analogy you used. The car industry and poverty are quite different things, especially in that industry is an activity, while poverty is usually caused by idleness.

  11. Mr. Bare,

    I am 19 years old. World-breaking? Nothing yet, but trust me, I'm trying 🙂

    I don't have to answer your two questions, because the article doesn't cover them at all. I absolutely avoid evaluating the impact of soc. benefits to the budget.

    Did I say something about the aging generation? No.

    Gypsies non-gypsies, as slimy and horrible as they are Czechs. There is no difference. I can judge it quite objectively, I move in both. I also look more like a Czech :)

    And what do you think is objective information? The ones that suit you? And then what are they objective in?

    And a dunihlav without a brain and own thinking… quite unoriginal. So I've heard much better reactions to myself. Try more next time 🙂

  12. For God's sake, what nonsense are you talking about ?! How old are you ?! What have you done so "world-class" for this company? You're just parroting lies.
    Try to answer at least these basic questions, which are deliberately and criminally pushed into the background:
    and / where the money collected for pension insurance ended and ends
    b / who is responsible for this 20 years, and deteriorating condition
    So don't be fooled by the nonsense about the "aging generation", if you mean retirees who have paid for their miserable and beggarly pension all their lives, a beggar, / from which they surrender more than 50-80% for housing and energy /, they receive, at least you who lived to see it! If you mean social benefits in general, this is definitely something else! Yes, Gypsies, of whom the vast majority are already in about 20-20 years, certainly "rightfully in disability pension", and who have never worked in their lives, often receive / due to their slimy nature they can always advise, do not get, roar that they are discriminated against / monthly higher financial amounts that they immediately throw into "forbes" than those who have worked all their lives!
    But your opinion does not surprise me! Such "dunihlavas without a brain and their own thinking", massaged by false media, are, in this country, as the Slovaks say, "a no-brainer"! This is what this "demographic country" looks like with its rulers and their "democracy"! Study more, learn and be interested in information, but objective !!!

  13. I completely agree, but this is partly due to the fact that politicians do not very often dare to make unpopular decisions such as reducing or even abolishing social benefits. Unfortunately, a large part of our aging population has been raised in the belief that certain things are free and a matter of course, and that the money just comes from somewhere, or that it doesn't really cost anything because they are de facto free. It's hard to explain to these people that the things they have for free are not free, and that someone has to pay for it somewhere. In addition, there is the factor that this whole discussion is all about, ie "what is free does not actually have value".
    Thank you for the end of the last post with advice and more functional legislation. As long as politicians abuse social benefits as a form of bribe to a certain section of the population, this problem will not improve.

  14. Good article. I also see a certain parallel with the help of the so-called Third World countries. The UN has been sending money, food and other things there for many years, but the zero-zero effect is nothing.

  15. Draculous, of course, to reduce the social system does not mean abolishing the social system.

    If someone is really helpless, sick, I see no reason not to give them the money.

    However, people who have fallen into debt or fallen victim to fraud would certainly welcome the help and advice of financial experts and a more functional legal system.

  16. Very interesting opinion. I can't say I wouldn't agree with that but if it's a little unimaginable to me. Due to the fact that there is another group of people who got into debt, due to fraud, they need to make consultations but they only live out of debt. It would probably not be ideal for this group of people and more of these groups could be found. people who cannot work due to illness, etc.

Comments are off.