Rutger Bregman’s TED talk on poverty approaches the global problem to define core reasons why poverty does not limit the intellectual potential of the poor. The speaker focuses his speech on exploring how despite the popular opinion that poor people deliberately make poor choices, their choices are influenced by poor living conditions (Bregman). The author suggests that eliminating poor living conditions through a monthly basic income guarantee will be more effective than providing the poor with essential goods.
Even though the presented proposal could be effective in eliminating poverty, I do not think that such a program would be possible to implement on a wide scale. In my opinion, such activities would benefit developing countries and regions where most of the population lives below the poverty line. There, in conditions where the majority of the population struggles to live, the implementation of guaranteed income programs could result in a significant increase in quality of living conditions and level of education. Additional income for the population could also provide a foundation for entrepreneurship and the creation of workplaces.
On the other hand, such proposals could result in minimal or adverse outcomes in economically developed countries unless the government provides additional attention to problems connected to poverty. The problems include lack of affordable housing options, low job opportunities, limited access to healthcare, etc., resulting in homelessness, substance abuse, and mental illnesses for the poor population. The problems contribute to the segregation of the poor population, limiting their opportunities for social interactions and development, following the symbolic interactionism theory. Thus, if the proposal also implied additional support for the poor from the government, it would have positive outcomes. Otherwise, the poor population would be unable to turn the additional income into improving living conditions and resort to a functionalism mindset, continuing the struggle to maintain a budget and make poor financing decisions.
While poverty is not beneficial to the development and progress of the world’s economy, there is a group of people and organizations who benefit from such proposals currently not being in place. Banks offer credit cards to the population benefiting from fees and monthly payments and making a profit from selling houses at auctions. As mentioned in Bergman’s speech, fast food companies benefit from offering low-quality yet affordable food for the people who are more interested in filling their hunger now than tier health status. Finally, the speaker mentioned that there would be more talents, e.g., scientists, entrepreneurs, and writers if there were no poverty. However, additional competition is not favorable for the privileged part of society with more access to higher education and higher job opportunities. The competition aspect is also related to the sociological paradigm of the conflict of inequality. The conflict theory suggests that the upper class of society supports poverty and inequality to maintain its power and status. The conflict theory only takes place in economically developed countries, proving that the proposal is suited more for developing countries.
Therefore, I think that Bregman’s approach to poverty and the proposal of guaranteed regular income is more suitable for developing countries. In conditions where increasing the population’s income level would result in significant progress in the economic development of the region and country, the implementation of Bregman’s proposal would have positive consequences. However, in conditions where implementation of the proposal is obstructed by symbolic interactionism and inequality conflict, the proposal could have minimal effects.
Work Cited
Bregman, Rutger. “Poverty isn’t a Lack of Character; it’s a Lack of Cash.” TED, 2017, Web.