In his article “The Position of Poverty,” John Kenneth Galbraith
segregates modern poverty into two unique situations. The first,
case poverty, refers to an individual or family that is
struggles while their neighbors enjoy relative affluence.
Conversely, insular poverty refers to a group in which “everyone
or nearly everyone is poor (407).” Galbraith makes this
separation in order that there could be systems in place to deal
with the poverty as it should be dealt, rather than using the
same methods in unique situations. However, he believes that a
guaranteed income would help to remedy both situations.
Throughout the article, Galbraith seems to ignore the
notion that when social systems act as a crutch for professional
inadequacy, it has an effect on the population as a whole. “The
corrupting effect on the human spirit of unearned revenue has
unquestionably been exaggerated (411),” he says. Even if that is
the case, there is no doubt that handouts can have an effect on
a person, specifically his work ethic. If two people are heavily
taxed in order to provide subsistence for a third, often capable
person, then the beneficiary will likely see no need to better
himself. This is further evidenced by the fact that he was in
dire straights to begin with. Of course, this help that he can
take advantage of at will does not remain unaffected. When the
existing poor is given mandatory help from the existing
affluent, there develops a parasite-host relationship in which
the host, through helping the parasite, is weakened. In the
economic case, the host will also examine the situation and
realize that he is earning income that is being given to others
who are earning nothing. Naturally, he will see no need to
continue as a productive citizen. This advent takes a system
which is supposed to create balance and causes it to regress
toward a mean that makes everyone less fortunate. If one person
earns fifty dollars and another earns five, but they are in a
system which the goal is economic equality, the high earner will
see no purpose in continuing his success. Thus, the pair will go
from sharing fifty-five dollars to sharing much less. The poorer
one may still see slight improvement over his old state, but the
affluence of the group will be virtually destroyed. Which is
better, two people with six dollars each, or one with five and
another with fifty and the freedom to donate as he wishes? It
seems that Galbraith would prefer the former. He sees the
elimination of the lower class as an ability of an affluent
nation. “And the means to escape from these constraints and to
break their hold on subsequent generations just mentioned … all,
with rare exceptions call for massively greater investment in
the public sector (412).” In other words, we should give money
to those who are afflicted by “constraints.” If these
constraints truly exist in all their described power, then how
is a person able to become the first in their family to attend
college? To buy a home? The answer is through hard work, an
American virtue that, left alone, will carry us to greater
success and greater opportunity for everyone.