By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In stark contrast to China’s remarkable success in eradicating extreme poverty, the United States has seen a rise in the number of Americans living on less than $3 a day. Despite having a significantly higher economic output per capita, the US has failed to distribute its wealth equitably, with income inequality worsening over time. Market forces, globalization, and technological advancements have played a role in shaping this distribution, but government policies, such as those promoted during the Trump administration, often exacerbate the problem rather than address it, highlighting a systemic issue within American capitalism. Consequently, the US’s approach to wealth distribution stands in stark contrast to China’s, prompting a reflection on the differing approaches to poverty alleviation, even while acknowledging China’s problematic governance.
Read the original article here
China has brought millions out of poverty, a truly remarkable feat that warrants acknowledgment. The sheer scale of the accomplishment, lifting so many people out of dire circumstances, is undeniable and should be celebrated. The transformation in China over the past few decades, much like the US in the first half of the 20th century, is nothing short of astounding. Witnessing this kind of progress, particularly from a historical perspective where so many faced oppression and hardship, is a testament to the power of societal change. The fact is, the communist party in China has demonstrably improved the lives of millions, providing better living standards, education, and healthcare. It’s a significant achievement.
The US, however, presents a different picture. While the US has achieved notable advancements in poverty reduction at various times in history, particularly under administrations like those of FDR, Truman, and LBJ, the narrative has shifted. Since the Reagan era, there’s a strong argument to be made that the focus has moved away from prioritizing the well-being of the middle class, which, in turn, has perpetuated poverty for others. This seems to be a conscious choice made within the US system. It appears that the US system functions, in some respects, by creating a class of people who are on the brink of falling, a state of being that keeps the middle class in line by constantly worrying about their own precarious situation.
This approach is in stark contrast to China’s efforts. The United States could be on a path similar to that of Norway but has chosen not to, seemingly without the same degree of trade-offs. The issue isn’t a lack of resources or capability; it’s a matter of priorities. The US has the capacity to implement policies that could significantly reduce poverty. It could invest in infrastructure, expand access to education and healthcare, and create an environment where individuals feel valued and supported. Yet, this is not the prevailing direction.
The conversation naturally shifts to the complexities and ethical considerations. The US, with its emphasis on individual liberties and democratic values, often faces different constraints and challenges compared to China’s centralized system. There are valid criticisms of China’s methods, including its surveillance state, human rights concerns, and labor practices. The forced labor and “reeducation” camps are abhorrent and unacceptable. However, that should not prevent the US from learning some of the good aspects of other countries’ policies.
However, the fact remains that millions have been lifted out of poverty in China. The US could potentially learn from the targeted actions the Chinese government took to eradicate homelessness. We could learn from the things they’ve gotten right. In a world where homelessness persists, the richest country on Earth should be striving to do better. There’s a moral imperative to address poverty. The fact that the US has not made comparable progress seems to be more a reflection of political and economic choices, rather than an inherent inability to do so. Some even argue that the US system benefits from the existence of poverty, either directly or indirectly. The US should focus on encouraging human-led industries, regulating the soul-sucking technologies that encourage human depravity, and stop treating people as resources. America should become a force for good.
The comparison inevitably raises questions about the definition and measurement of poverty. The metrics used in China and the US may differ, which makes a direct comparison somewhat challenging. What’s considered “poverty” in China, where people may have only made a few dollars a day, is vastly different from the American context. The root causes of poverty also deserve attention. In the US, there are deeper issues such as systemic discrimination, lack of access to opportunity, and the erosion of the middle class due to policies like off-shoring.
Finally, the discussion of the US’s approach has to be balanced. It’s not as simple as saying that the US has done nothing. The US has provided aid to other countries and has contributed significantly to global poverty reduction efforts, even if domestic results haven’t been ideal. But it is very fair to state that the US has made a conscious choice to not solve its internal poverty issues to the degree of its potential. In a country with such abundance, the fact that millions still struggle is a matter of profound concern and should be a call to action. It seems the US has stagnated in tackling poverty since the 1980s, while China has become an economic powerhouse. The USA is headed backward, and a cultural shift is needed to reverse that trend.