It’s been well documented and argued by all in the spheres of history, politics, urban life, and more that one of the keys to ending the cycle of poverty, the bane of most nation’s existences, is education. This has been a major issue in America, where we have large disparities between the typical cushy suburbs and dilapidated inner cities, like Detroit or Chicago, whose residents have no money to pay higher taxes that would improve their cities conditions and schools, and whose citizens are often so impoverished the sole focuses of their lives are surviving either poverty or violence, rather than thinking about anything past high school (much less education), which could give them the skills to be highly productive members of society (like goal setting, managing tasks, things that would help them and their families leave whatever situations they’re in).
This is not specific to America, however; Latin America too has a plethora of issues surrounding poverty being fueled by a lack of education. One of the main issues is that there is a lack of skilled laborers in the market: because people don’t go to school, they don’t end up seeking the types of education that would give them skills that their countries need right now, as both the second and fourth article purport. So-called “human capital” is another attributing factor to the economy that Latin America misses out on when they don’t educate their population; because there’s no skilled labor, so many people cannot contribute to an economy that needs it. Not to mention education is one of the most essential tools for mobility; being educated allows for the skills useful to get out of poverty to be grown, and a higher educated population means a population lower in poverty. Both of these are espoused by each of the articles, in different sections and contexts, but I agree with them all; it’s the same in the United States, just with a slightly different climate. A more educated population in any country means a more prosperous society worldwide, which I think is important; when one country does anything, its effects are rarely confined to the borders of that country, because of the level of globalization that’s normal today. The question of whether the U.S. should be involved in giving aid is tricky; is it overstepping our boundaries? Should we try at all? Personally, I think it’s up to whatever country we even want to send aid to to decide, but I think we should be careful before deciding to help another country’s issues.
annie 