Lessons for the Classroom
134 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by MHS Social Studies from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

A Look into the Causes of Poverty in the U.S.

A Look into the Causes of Poverty in the U.S. | Lessons for the Classroom | Scoop.it

"Are more and more people in the western world dropping off the radar and becoming the invisible poor or is the opposite happening?  We recently heard that an astounding 46 million Americans are officially below the poverty line (That's $23,050/year for a family of four according to the official sources).  That number really caught our eye and as such we decided to do a little more digging to help put some more facts and figures around it.  Above is a nice visualization of the results we came up with."


Via Seth Dixon
more...
Ivan Koh's curator insight, February 3, 2013 7:37 AM

This is my insight using See-Think-Wonder.
From this statistic, i can see alot of statistic about the number of people who are poor and the people's opinion related to poverty and welfare. In the article, i can see that 46million american are considered to be poor, and form the authors opinion, to prevent porverty, we should manage our wealth and make sure that we earn more than we spend.

I think that from the statistics, most people are poor mostly due to the fact that  they were uneducated in alot of ways. From the statistics, 1.2 million students drop out from high school every year. Thus, these people were mostly uneducated and cannot find a proper job, leading to drugs and borrowing of money. i also think that most people are poor because they are lazy and do not want to help themselves, as agreed by half of the americans that the poor are not doing enough to help themselves, and by 43% of americans that people who are poor can find a job if they are willing to work.

This article and statistics makes me wonder why american governments are not doing enough to educate students the importance of jobs and studies. Because people who are poor can actually work, but are too lazy to do it, this also makes me wonder why the government are giving money to the poor when they are able to help themselves 

Brandon Lee's curator insight, February 4, 2013 10:36 AM

The insight of this article merely showed that more and more people does not really have  a good financial health, which also has translated into people wer e "invisible poor" especially those living in the western world. Comparison had been made on its poverty line between USA and UK statistics.

In my opinion, managing a country's budget its not an easy task, this is because a country need competitive global presence and to boost the economy. People need to produce more and more services outside its own country.

I have often thought that a country's population does have an impact on a country's economic growth.

Tim Stark's curator insight, October 24, 2015 9:54 PM

Great visual for economics and sociology courses

Rescooped by MHS Social Studies from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

Saudia Arabia To Build Women-Only City

Saudia Arabia To Build Women-Only City | Lessons for the Classroom | Scoop.it
In a bid to reconcile strict gender-segregation laws with a desire to increase employment opportunities for women, Saudi Arabia is planning to construct a new industrial "city" exclusively for female workers, Russian news agency RT reports.

 

The idea is mind-blowing to say the least.  More women would be able to be a part of the workforce and move freely about women-only cities in Saudi Arabia than they could in 'regular' cities. 

Question to ponder: would the implementation of this idea represent a cultural step forward for Saudi Arabia towards gender equality or would it be a step that further isolated women and is repressive?  What do you think of the idea given the ingrained gender norms of Saudi Arabia? 


Via Seth Dixon
more...
Kendra King's curator insight, February 27, 2015 1:09 AM

I can see how this might sound appealing, but this isn't the right solution. On the one hand, the women would be able to enter the work force more so as to close the disparity between women who are unemployed. That gap is actually huge since the article mentioned the number of Saudi women who work is somewhere in the low teens despite the fact that "60%" of college graduates are women. At the same time, this environment might prove to be more freeing for women in regards to their movement as well. As the article mentioned women always have to be "accompanied by a male," which is just ridiculously restricting.

 

Yet all of these benefits come at the price of isolation. That whole "separate, but equal" thing played out in the US and it wasn't actually equality. Nor did it actually make for a harmonious environment. In order to actually change people's minds, the government can't just push the women workers out of site in a corner.Without men being around women workers, they will continue to treat them poorly as second class citizens. Furthermore,separating them almost makes it seem like they are second class thereby exacerbating the gender norms within the country even more. 

Mark Hathaway's curator insight, October 23, 2015 6:49 AM

This women only city policy, has a lot in common with the racial segregation polices in the United States. In 1896, in Plessy v Ferguson the Supreme Court ruled that as long as the facilities for whites and blacks were equal, segregation was constitutionally permissible. The idea that facilities can be separate and equal is a fallacy. The dominate group will always be provided with the better facilities , because they have the economic and the social means to build a better facility. The less group will suffer do to a lack of political and economic means. This women only city will likely pale in comparison to the other cities of Saudi Arabia. True equality comes through integration, not separation.

Martin Kemp's curator insight, December 17, 2015 2:20 PM

this would 100% be a step back, that is the worst kind of segregation and "equality" did we not have this in the united states and it was scrapped shortly after because "separate is inherently not equal"