Progress and Poverty

There is a “radical and simple” solution to the increasing poverty in the industrial age (297). George examines it from the standpoint of cutting government spending, improving worker education and industrial habits, increasing wages, improving cooperation between labor and capital, increasing government regulation, and broadly distributing land.

I. From Greater Economy in Government

It is common to attribute social distress to government spending, for instance, on its military. However, cutting government spending, and thus taxation, would not be “so great an addition as steam and machinery have made” (299). Since industrial progress was unable to alleviate poverty, but increased rent, so would this measure. Thus, government saving is desirable but will not eliminate poverty, as “[N]o reduction in the expenses of government can of itself cure or mitigate the evils that arise from a constant tendency to the unequal distribution of wealth” (301).

II. From the Diffusion of Education and Improved Habits of Industry and Thrift

The socially privileged believe that poverty is the result of a “lack of industry, frugality, and intelligence” (301). This perception is exacerbated in a newer society like the United States, in which some politically equal individuals can misidentify their own work ethic and intellect as being responsible for their social mobility and conclude that those less fortunate lack it.