What you say may be true of more capitalistic economies than that of the US, and most socialist countries. Socialism proved what can be possible with with more efficient uses of collective action, and statism (e.g. space race, Hoover Dam, arms race, drug and terror wars).
Sorry, this is wishfull thinking. France is socialist country and I guess the've had riots over there because their doing such a good job of taking care of the people?
Poverty is a simple socio-economic condition that can be easily be solved. In socialist states (i.e command economies), without our type of social contract, the state simply ensures that the populace is required to work, and provides the necessary jobs.
Wrong, its been proven time and time again. How can a guy win the lottery in sporst or literally the lottery in millions of dollars and end back up in poverty? Because, its a sickness that can't be cured by hand outs and government programs
In our form of statism, with our type of social contract (that provides for individual liberty and states' rights), we have developed a form of socialism called welfare, that provides a form of social safety net. Unfortunately, that form of social safety net has not solved the issue of official poverty, nor does it provide effective labor market based metrics. Excessive regulation of those types of programs also tend to increase the cost without ameliorating the underlying issue to be solved: poverty.
These welfare systems aren't working in Europe and they won't work here. Nothing can replace determination and hard work for getting ahead in life. The social democracies with huge welfare systems are over burdened and can't continue these programs. That's why France and Germany, two prime soical democracies have some of the highest unemployment rates among developed nations.
Consider a hypothetical state where official poverty is eliminated through market friendly public policy that provides for "at-will" unemployment income that is above the poverty rate. How can official poverty exist, if an individual adult can apply for that income and no longer be in poverty?
What do you mean by market friendly public policy? Poverty exists in the soul, so treat that then you can do something about poverty. Ever heard of welfare junkies? These are people who are dependant upon the government, and have no desire to better themselves. And why should they? when their basic needs are being met, without any contribution by them to a more productive society. You can't win because your a phylosophising when the reality is that people in poverty will remain in poverty if ever you take away their subsidies. In other words, welfare systems must have limits and demands upon individual recipients, otherwise there is no incentive to better one's self and in a welfare state the people are beholden ed the government, rather the the government being beholden ed to the people, as was intended by our framers.
A market friendly type of program would also have the effect of increasing productivity in the labor market because most people who have the condition of the soul, sometimes known as couch potato syndrome, will be more likely to apply for that type of income, rather than provide labor input to the market at market based wages. In other words, even couch potatoes would no longer be in official poverty, even if they were predisposed to such an inclination.
No, if they can get their needs met without working they will.
Market friendly public policy would also have the effect of lowering the cost of the public sector (government) due to reduction in administrative costs, and lower some costs to the private sector (e.g. civic service).
This is fine in theory, but the reality is as the bible states, the poor you will always have.
Welfare, as we know it, doesn't accomplish any of those goals and has been criticized as being a cause of generational forms of continued non-participation in the labor market for market based wages. Simple economics based principles are not easily recognized in that type of public policy scheme due to the excessive amount of bureaucracy involved.
Correct, the current welfare system doesn't work because it doesn't place demands of reform upon its recipients, even though there are re-education and training programs availible, few people take advantage of them.
At-will unemployment would not foster that type of condition of the soul, since anyone would be able to provide labor input to the market, at market based wages, if they have the skill sets to command those wages. This type of policy could be based on simple economics principles that are easy to understand by anyone who lives in a mixed market economy.