Many reformers are of the opinion that it is the responsibility of governments to provide public housing for members of the public that are too poor to afford their own homes. In my opinion, although there are some situations when this might be necessary, it is better to allow people the opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty.
Those who support government assistance in housing programs point out the institutional shackles that keep people in poverty. In the United States, there is a long, painful history concerning African Americans that began with slavery, discrimination and still shows its impact in various more muted forms of racism. These people have few chances to escape poverty and own their own homes because they have difficulty getting a good education and then a job. If governments provide them with housing, that frees up their money to go to the education of their children and can break the long chain of poverty that has blighted their path in America.
Although the above-mentioned argument has its merits, in my opinion people who help themselves are more likely to be able to maintain their success. Charity is a notoriously double edged sword because it fosters dependence. Someone who is in poverty who works hard and finds and escape and manages to own a home will develop reserves of willpower and determination that will serve them their entire life. Their self-respect will also help them in their work and encourage them to hold onto their house, regardless of obstacles. If the government simply gifts this person a house, they will be much less inclined to take care of it and will not develop any of the qualities that will spell out their success in life more generally.
In conclusion, people who are more self-reliant are more likely to be successful and hold onto their homes. The role of government ought to be more subtle and include educational reforms aimed at opening up opportunities that individuals can themselves seize.
Many
reformers are of the opinion that it is the responsibility of
governments
to provide public housing for members of the public that are too poor to afford their
own
homes
. In my opinion, although there are
some
situations when this might be necessary, it is better to
allow
people
the opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty.
Those
who
support
government
assistance in housing programs point out the institutional shackles that
keep
people
in
poverty
. In the United States, there is a long, painful history concerning African Americans that began with slavery, discrimination and
still
shows
its impact in various more muted forms of racism. These
people
have few chances to escape
poverty
and
own
their
own
homes
because
they have difficulty getting a
good
education and then a job. If
governments
provide them with housing, that frees up their money to go to the education of their children and can break the long chain of
poverty
that has blighted their path in America.
Although the above-mentioned argument has its merits, in my opinion
people
who
help
themselves are more likely to be able to maintain their success. Charity is a
notoriously
double edged
sword
because
it fosters dependence. Someone
who
is in
poverty
who
works
hard
and finds and escape and manages to
own
a home will develop reserves of willpower and determination that will serve them their entire life. Their self-respect will
also
help
them in their work and encourage them to hold onto their
house
, regardless of obstacles. If the
government
simply
gifts this person a
house
, they will be much less inclined to take care of it and will not develop any of the qualities that will spell out their success in life more
generally
.
In conclusion
,
people
who
are more self-reliant are more likely to be successful and hold onto their
homes
. The role of
government
ought to be more subtle and include educational reforms aimed at opening up opportunities that individuals can themselves seize.