Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The poor law
Great depression and social welfare policy
The role of government in poverty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The poor law
Changing Attitudes Toward the Poor in Britain
Paternalism underpinned the Old Poor Law, the perception that those in
power should take responsibility for their workers. The Old Poor Law
provided 'out-relief' for those in poverty as an addition to their
weekly wage. By 1832, however, the industrial revolution had begun and
capitalism was the leading system. A new approach of 'self-help'
marked the demise of paternalism. This new attitude was the belief
that poverty was the fault of the poor. The government's role was to
uphold sovereignty and win foreign wars, with very little intervention
in domestic social issues.
The 1834 Poor Law Report was an investigation into the failings of the
Old Poor Law. It began with the ratepayers growing discomfort at
paying the rising poor rates during the Napoleonic wars. The Poor Law
Commission was provoked by the upward trend of relief and rural
unrest; the 'Swing' riots of 1830.
Its investigation was premeditated with beliefs, however, they did
come to realise that the Old Poor Law was a system which was outdated
for a country in the middle of an Industrial revolution. The new
legislation wanted to put an end to out-relief and established
'workhouses' throughout Great Britain.
The attitude following this was that the position of pauper could be
an 'eligible' one especially when honest work was so difficult and
parish hand-outs were ample. Source 1 is a prime example of this, a
quote from Samuel Smiles Self-Help 1859. Samuel Smiles believed that
growth as a nation had to start from within and that any external help
(friendly-societies, charity organisation) was 'enfeebling in its
effe...
... middle of paper ...
...government did to try
and deal with the issues of poverty. The government carried out a
policy, after much debate from leading economists, of retrenchment
rather than spending their way out of depression. This was a time of
national government, when the workhouse was extinct and the New Poor
Law was defunct with it. During the great depression the motives of
the government were influenced by fear of disorder and revolution in
the classes. The state was now responsible and their stance was not
just about accepting knowledge, it was about working class men getting
the vote; their most important asset. They were limited by their
unwillingness to expend the nation's money. They were looking for a
viable solution at an affordable cost, and in the end this meant the
cutting of the dole and the introduction of the means test.
Class is a key idea related to inequality, prejudice and discrimination in Australian society. It has been considered out of fashion, because some Australian people think that there is no class difference between people in Australia, everyone enjoys equality in society. In fact, the recent de-regulation of the workplace, and the widening gap in access to hospitals, schools and employment opportunities between the rich and poor, have made class more visible in Australian than ever before. Class is "a category of people who have generally similar educational histories, job opportunities, and social standing and who are conscious of their membership in a social group that is ranked in relation to others and is replicated over generations" (Kent, 1998:87). This essay argues that class cause continues to inequality in Australian society. Firstly, class structures labor market inequality. Secondly, class shapes the quality of a person's life. Thirdly, class inequality produces continuing class differences into the next generation. Finally, class has becoming a debate in Australian society, because class inequality encourages the `right' people to work more efficiently in the workforce and helps people to identify themselves in society, but continuing relevance of the concept of class is a matter in contemporary Australia.
Some say that the great depression was caused partially by social democracy and planned economies. And although this could be true, it originally started from debts from World War I, and of course the stock market crashing in 1929.
In fact, many believed the poor were just worthless idlers who were not even trying to better there own situations, but instead were taking the high roads away from taxes and worries (Document 11). There were many observed instances in which those in poverty, when given the opputinity to better their lives, chose to stay poor and recieve handouts. One such cause comes from William Turner, and English Physican for Lord Earl of Somerset when he recounts how poor folks often begged on the Earl's door but when Turner offered to help health wise, they chose to stay sick and beg (Document 6). Similar to modern day abusers of the American Wellfare system, officals became very angry with idlers who did nothing but feed off the wealth of the working class in the form of alms. They even believed that idlers should be expelled from their communites as they only bring economics down (Document 5). Many also thought that in order received any aid at all a person must be working. Reforms such as the Workhouse Test Act in 1723, though this occured later than the period of discussion, were a result of these opinions. This act, among others, required that people work a set amount of hours before they could receive any aid. Even the famous Cardinal Richelieu of France believed that the idlers were “good-for-nothings” who were restricting those who actually needed help from getting it while they were being lazy and greedy (Document 8). This opinion of certain poor indivudals being lazy and abusing resources remains amoung those in power even today in
“After the passing of the Great Reform Bill, the liberal Whig leadership struck a snag. Several years of depression put the conservative Tories back in power in 1841. Wages and living conditions grew steadily worse as the industrial revolution permitted the rise of great fortunes for owners and employers along with starvation and poverty for great numbers of the working classes.” (Earl Davis, The Flint and the Flame, Page 115)
A Modest Proposal, to save the country’s image: Examining the oppression toward the Irish poor
In addition, the poor are overburdened they always have been, especially in 2014. This is owing to the fact that the middle class is close to disappearing, which is forming a large gap between the poor and the rich. Furthermore, banking can be more expensive for nearly all poor people, whom are usually put in extreme circumstances where they are required to pay more taxes. And the poor are usually shut out from society and are left on the street as if they were a piece of garbage, which is why it is particularly difficult to attain a job as a poor person. Not many people in the world care for the poor. It is surprising to think that the poor had not been oppressed in 1791. Someone would think the poor have always had a heavy burden. The majority of America’s population is poor and they are ignored and portrayed as aliens whom we should have no contact with.
The idea that people of poor communities conform to a living standard and behavior is a concept described by Oscar Lewis as the culture of poverty. It is the belief that poor people consists of their own beliefs and values and behaviors. And more than 45 years later after the term, the culture of poverty paradigm remains the same: there is a consistent and observable culture that is shared by people in poverty. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as the culture of poverty. differences in behaviors and values among those that are poor are just as significant as those between wealthy and poor. The culture of poverty is a construct of smaller stereotypes which seem to have implanted themselves into the collective conscience of mainstream thought as undeniable fact. However, as we will see, nothing could be further from the truth. Based on 6 most common myths of what defines poor from wealthy, I will provide evidence to the contrary.
The poor laws and ordinances of 1522 and 1541 express the christian mindset on poverty relief. These new laws instilled new rulings and regulations on the poor to provide the support to citizens in need as well as to the surrounding community. The implementation of the Office of Alms Lords was designed to closer regulate those in need of welfare assistance to ensure wise spending and a lack of corruption. Inspections and strict guidelines were enforced to limit the ability of people to beg in public so to not disturb the city. However, guidelines on the poor continued to get stricter as the 16th century progressed, due to the authorities’ concerns about increased fraud through both false marriages and gambling/drinking. These regulations progressed
The Elizabeth Poor Law advocated and placed responsibility of the poor to the churches and government. If parishes could not meet the responsibilities, counties were required to assume relief-giving functions. The government became the chief enforcer of poor relief. However, the local parishes fulfilled their welfare responsibilities in several ways. They provided outdoor relief to persons in the homes; provided indoor relief to person in special institutions that came to be variously known as almshouse, poorhouses or workhouses; or required person to become indenture servants or apprentices. It also required relatives to care for their impoverished relatives. The poor were provided with unemployment relief, initiated works; regulated local prices to help poor persons; gave in-kind assistance such a as food, clothing, and wood, provided health care; and removed children from abusive households’ and gave legal protection . Many local jurisdictions possessed “laws of settlement” that entitled people to receive local poor law relief after a year’s residence.
The Relationship Between Poor People and Poor Places Poverty is seen as a group of different kinds of deprivation. These forms of deprivation are patterned by a series of urban processes, which lead to greater concentration of problems in particular places. The area affects poor people, because the experience of living in a poor area can make people more vulnerable to poverty. People living in poor areas are disadvantaged in their experiences and command over resources. The concept of poverty is a contested one, and many different constructions have been placed on it (Spicker, 1999).
According to Schwartz-Nobel, America will lose as much as 130 billion in future productive capacity for every year that 14.5 American children continue to live in poverty (Koppelman and Goodhart, 2007). Sadly the seriousness of poverty is still often clouded by myths and misunderstandings by society at large. This essay studies the issue of poverty and classism in today's society.
Race and prejudice toward the culture of poverty was manifest during the civil rights movement and even in the American society today.. This paper will rely on examples, borrowing from past examples in trying to explain the culture of poverty, and how it can create prejudice among citizens in society due to their level of income or low-caste groups, which are considered poor within our societies. This paper will highlight a couple of examples to support its arguments.
Cohen’s mention of the deserving and undeserving is a powerful and noteworthy notion. It is a concept that is worthy of exploring and one that would most likely bring about a very integrating political debate. The concept, deserving vs undeserving can also be recognized as worthy vs. unworthy during a political debate. Cohen made reference to the working poor vs the undeserving welfare poor. The working poor is known as an individual who goes to work and contributes to Federal, State, and local taxes; however, their salaries fall below a certain income bracket classifying them as the working poor. The undeserving welfare poor are people that conservatives may consider as lazy, uneducated, and those who drain the system. Cohen also mentioned
Allowing them to have government welfare, which in 1650 was £188,000, which helped some escape from poverty. Public opinion of them was much better once they were given distinct rights. Conversely the lives of the vagrant poor, stayed the same and in many ways worsened. It became illegal to be a vagrant, and under the PRA you risked being sent to a workhouse or going to an English colony for seven years. Empty houses were demolished which simply added to the number of homeless vagrants. However the number of settled poor vastly outstripped the vagrant poor so on the whole the majority of the poor benefitted from the PRA and their lives improved. However even though there lives increased it was not that big a difference to what preceded it so the extent to which the poor’s lives improved was not very
Unfortunately the lower class could not afford such great adventures that came from new forms of transportation or big elegant homes, but for the lower class, not much changed at all. They were able to witness, read, and hear about all the amazing life changing inventions, but most of them could not experience such events, due to the need of saving money for food and clothing. Sadly this was not the only part that did not change for the lower class, hygiene and personal wellness was exceedingly poor as well. Cleanliness, or the lack thereof, made poor people more susceptible to diseases and infections that quite often went untreated to avoid paying bill that came along with a physician. Jack Larkin wrote, “The most vulnerable of all to consumption