You know that one in five people in the USA is food insecure no? Food insecurity will soon hit everyone, and inequality is doing no good to that. Not here (in the US) not anywhere.
Its ironic though. over 20% of food waste in the us is postharvest CONSUMER WASTE. Yes, people throw away the food in a manner that is simply appalling. Over 30% of food is wasted globally and in third world countries most of this is due to supply chain inefficiencies.
I think we can survive this one... But we all need to get our acts together, and rich countries must lead the way and moderate consumption (and waste) there is a lot of low hanging fruit to address this issue.
Humans too will always do whatever possible to keep their loved ones alive even for one more week, even if that leaves them broke. We are completely willing to do that, and that is a good thing, since it speaks well of hour values and our non-materialistic assessment of the world.
Yet, what alternative is there? How can we be moral and at peace with our decisions, and yet not cause collateral damage to us, our loved ones and society as a whole?
1) Mr Sachs has never in this article advocated for making drugs more available; therefore I don’t see how you come up with your second or third remark. In fact, Mr. Sachs is proposing a possible solution to actually break the cycle and get people out of poverty and drugs.
Suggesting that kids will "do drugs when their mom is out working" completely misses the point that’s being made. Mr. Sachs suggests investing in education and avoiding the situation in which we have single parent households. This solution addresses precisely this issue! The facts are stated: "poor households are likely to remain poor" and incarcerating one parent does not help the problem.
2) You speak of poor people remaining poor as if the proper incentives were not already in place. Do you think being hungry is not enough of an incentive? Do poor people not want a better life? Wouldn’t they rather keep away from drugs if they knew the alternatives and the consequences?
Incentives are in place; and people make choices given the INFORMATION they have at hand and the space they have to move. Yes, people "choose" to do drugs, but no man is an island and those "choices" are dictated by the actions (or inaction) of society at large. To say that they choose for themselves and therefore we should not care is condescending and out of touch with the reality of the problem
Why is it that people assume that because one person is at a higher position and makes a lot of money, then they cannot be replaced? Most likely, there is someone "within their 10 employees" (returning to G. A. Pakela's example) capable of taking over.
Truth is that we are at an age in which fools can be kings. I can easily find a thousand recently graduated MBA's who would be better presidential candidates than Santorum or Cain were. These two were by many standard easily replaceable, yet they are wealthy and influential.
And it applies to many more cases than just politics. What are the chances that no single person under a multinational company is better prepared and more intelligent than the CEO of the same company? On pure probability and objectively looking at the numbers (thousands of employees including PHD's), chances are slim.
So if these millionaires don't have the power of scarcity to justify their positions and wages, then what is it?