Which problem will you choose to solve?

[Strongkored]

If this question were asked to us as ordinary people, of course we would prefer to help the poor because without help the poor will find it difficult to escape poverty, while the rich will need help from their fellow rich.
But if this question were asked of state officials, I'm pretty sure they would answer the rich, because helping them will help the poor to have a better life.
We can see that when a country is experiencing economic problems, a larger portion is given to entrepreneurs, compared to direct assistance to the poor, because the calculation is that the poor only need help with food, while the rich or entrepreneurs have a more complex problem.
Assistance to the poor should not only be in the form of food but also employment and education because food is only temporary assistance while employment and education are to help them to be independent, and later can help others who need help.

[Ahli38]

We know that people varies in terms of their needs and how urgent they appear to them, we can also consider this that apparently everyone has one or two challenges that they needs solution to in what they do, we can also finds many other means of getting other people's needs solved when we see that ours can still be managed up over time without us being affected, we need to realize that life itself has many challenges and people's needs are never ending, the more we solve one the more others are coming after each other.

So true. That is a reality that we must be aware of. Every time we solve one problem, another problem will arise. But in problem solving there are indeed many factors that must be considered to decide which problem should be fixed first. And so it is in fixing the problems that the rich and the poor have. I personally would probably start with myself. And after the problem itself is fixed. Only then will I start to help fix the problems of the people closest to me. It doesn't matter if it's poor or rich.

[Chilwell]

Solving problems of poor BUT educated/capitalist/freedom loving people will always work. People underestimate how good poor people can achieve when they are not limited with their wealth. But obviously not lazy, uneducated labor. Education is a must. Financial knowledge is a must. I don't hate rich people but most of them are crony to be honest. They don't deserve more help in life, they always do good for themselves.

When we talk about problem of poor people and rich people in this case poor people problems is always a financial problem while the rich people problems is also financial problems because the poor need little to survive and the rich aiming for money, but there is a saying that "the higher the money, the higher the problem". Rich people problems are also beyond the financial alone, it also comprise of some many things.

I will not choose who to help among the poor and rich people, this will only depends on the kind of problems they had then choose the one I can survive. For someone to say I can't help rich people because the have money and they only love themselves is a bad idea. You are poor today and I think you will be praying to be rich tomorrow, so if you turn out be rich tomorrow will you be happy with your intentions.

[gunhell16]

Problem solving depends on the field and area you find yourself, you can a little problems by saving thousand of soul by either preventing a serious incident that could cause a building to burn down, at this point you have solved a problems that involves all kinds of people which is either left for the government of such country to choose between which area you should be employed to function as a problem solver in that department.
Solving a problems for the rich gives you an access to became known while solving for poor gives you the room to become of charitable, whereby depending on God for your rewards.

But however, working for the rich or solving a problem for the rich most times doesn't guaranteed your success because many individuals who are working with the government doesn't solely became rich, typical example are teachers in my country. They are teaching at this point solving problems not only problems but help to raise the country and then government aren't increasing their salaries. Yet they are still under financial stress which I think isn't worth working for such people either be it Rich or the government. Self employed is always better at least it reliefs you from financial hassle.

That's right, when you are self-employed, we know how many or to what extent we can help people. And if there is a rich person we can help, I'm sure it's not financial. That's rich and has a lot of money, because we often help other people who we don't know are rich. You know what that means.

There are rich people because sometimes their lives are saved by something that a poor person did not expect, the poor person had no idea that the rich person was saved from disaster. The rich person owed a debt to a poor person. So in order for him to somehow repay the poor person for saving him, he will reciprocate with financial help that the poor person did not expect, although the rich person knows that he cannot afford to have a poor person save his life. This is just an illustrative example.

[SmartGold01]

Snip

That's right, when you are self-employed, we know how many or to what extent we can help people. And if there is a rich person we can help, I'm sure it's not financial. That's rich and has a lot of money, because we often help other people who we don't know are rich. You know what that means.

There are rich people because sometimes their lives are saved by something that a poor person did not expect, the poor person had no idea that the rich person was saved from disaster. The rich person owed a debt to a poor person. So in order for him to somehow repay the poor person for saving him, he will reciprocate with financial help that the poor person did not expect, although the rich person knows that he cannot afford to have a poor person save his life. This is just an illustrative example.

What you must know about the rich or poor is that no can entirely depends on himself or herself for any assistance or to have all things done with their money, naturally we need both each others to excel in our nation but most of the rich people turns it against the poor maybe having this act of humour that the poor aren't supposed to be in their class, yes that is true for sure but whatever they are today or being producing without the poor or the average people I don't think that could work effectively. So sometimes the rich should always try to be hospitable and charitable, irrespective of their position or firm today.

[Ever-young]

Many people might want to choose to solve the problem of the rich, as their are possibilities of them very getting favor from the rich at the end of the day.

But me I will choose to solve the problem of many poor people, as that appears to be the right thing do, one thing that motive someone sometimes to do what ever they want to do is how many people can benefit from that thing that they are doing be it business or any form of organization, I know profit and gain will also be included, but what will be the use of spending all that you have added to those that already have it but are not just satisfied rather they need more.

Every little help that you give to the poor are much more appreciated and can easily be noticed and can also easily add value to the society than what we give to the rich. In solving societal problems one should always focus on those who are not going to be able to provide and cater for their needs them self, so that is what am going to do, I will rather add value to someone life than earn/gain favor from people.

[Asuspawer09]

I came across this tweet, so the reference is the username. I thought it was a topic worth bringing up for discussion to see the choice that will be made by forum members. This topic is about solving problems as a service you render to make a living. Which of the problems will you prefer to solve as a service you render? the problems of the poor? or the problems of the rich? (support your choice with a reason)

I posted this here because it relates to choices we make concerning how we want our finance to be, if this is a wrong place and the topic fits better in "politics and society", I will be happy to move it there.

For sure it's better to solve the problem of the poor, I mean what's going to be the problem of the rich is just how they are going to multiply their investments probably, meaning they already have their investments or money and they just need to multiply that or have multiple sources of income in order to become an even richer right? I mean just compare that to a poor problem, it is how they are going to start from scratch how they are going to start earning and have multiple incomes in order to become rich or at least financially stable.

Both of them probably is going to be difficult for the most part and it doesnt really matter because it is all a challenge for us, and what ever what the challenges in our life are there is always a way to solve them. I heard from a podcast about financial savings where they said that it doesnt matter how many times you fail, what matter is how many times you pick yourself up because we are all a product of failing, and being successful is not easy, so it's normal to fail we just need to keep on trying until we finally made it.

[mvdheuvel1983]

When you solve a problem it either benefits the rich or the poor. Job creation benefits the poor more than the rich. However when the government gives people like Elon Musk the permission to build a gigantic Tesla Battery manufacturing factory in Texas, it benefits the rich because they would buy more shares in the company, making it more profitable, also he doesn't get to pay taxes. It also benefits the poor because of massive job creation.

Lastly, the problem of the poor soon becomes that of the rich if it is not solved.

[topbitcoin]

We know that people varies in terms of their needs and how urgent they appear to them, we can also consider this that apparently everyone has one or two challenges that they needs solution to in what they do, we can also finds many other means of getting other people's needs solved when we see that ours can still be managed up over time without us being affected, we need to realize that life itself has many challenges and people's needs are never ending, the more we solve one the more others are coming after each other.

It's true and I can't deny that everyone has different needs and over time these needs will continue to increase. However, this returns to each individual in responding to this matter, where when the needs begin to increase, this also needs to be balanced with increased efforts as well. and I think that at this time we cannot only rely on income from one side so that our needs can be met. However, working overtime is also not the right choice because it can threaten our health. And with existing technological advancements, I think trading is the right choice to be able to increase our income, so that we can meet our needs and have savings to answer urgent needs in the future. However, this must also be accompanied by adequate skills and knowledge.

[Uruhara]

When you solve a problem it either benefits the rich or the poor. Job creation benefits the poor more than the rich. However when the government gives people like Elon Musk the permission to build a gigantic Tesla Battery manufacturing factory in Texas, it benefits the rich because they would buy more shares in the company, making it more profitable, also he doesn't get to pay taxes. It also benefits the poor because of massive job creation.

Lastly, the problem of the poor soon becomes that of the rich if it is not solved.

From your explanation I learned a lesson that solving a problem in one corner will also result in problems in other corners being resolved. Well this makes a lot of sense and I think that's how it's going to go. Both parties can benefit from each other on the one hand but on the one hand if one party is harmed then the other party can also be harmed. Although there are certain aspects that will benefit one party more. For example, if rich people open up a lot of jobs. But they give low wages to their workers. well in this angle only the rich benefit. Poor people will be a little disadvantaged because their work is not properly appreciated. But in general there are still benefits for both parties. Because the poor are also still helped even though the salary is not high which is not in accordance with their hard work.

[xSkylarx]

We know that people varies in terms of their needs and how urgent they appear to them, we can also consider this that apparently everyone has one or two challenges that they needs solution to in what they do, we can also finds many other means of getting other people's needs solved when we see that ours can still be managed up over time without us being affected, we need to realize that life itself has many challenges and people's needs are never ending, the more we solve one the more others are coming after each other.

So true. That is a reality that we must be aware of. Every time we solve one problem, another problem will arise. But in problem solving there are indeed many factors that must be considered to decide which problem should be fixed first. And so it is in fixing the problems that the rich and the poor have. I personally would probably start with myself. And after the problem itself is fixed. Only then will I start to help fix the problems of the people closest to me. It doesn't matter if it's poor or rich.

How would you be able to fix other problems if even yourself is already broke? You have a point, and again, most of those businessmen have done it before, like they've already tried it on themselves or on their relatives, like helping other people.
 
We should also make sure that solving other problems can also solve them for you, meaning if you are releasing some products or services to them, they should work on you or on your relatives so that you can be sure that they are working.

[bitLeap]

When you solve a problem it either benefits the rich or the poor. Job creation benefits the poor more than the rich. However when the government gives people like Elon Musk the permission to build a gigantic Tesla Battery manufacturing factory in Texas, it benefits the rich because they would buy more shares in the company, making it more profitable, also he doesn't get to pay taxes. It also benefits the poor because of massive job creation.

Lastly, the problem of the poor soon becomes that of the rich if it is not solved.

From your explanation I learned a lesson that solving a problem in one corner will also result in problems in other corners being resolved. Well this makes a lot of sense and I think that's how it's going to go. Both parties can benefit from each other on the one hand but on the one hand if one party is harmed then the other party can also be harmed. Although there are certain aspects that will benefit one party more. For example, if rich people open up a lot of jobs. But they give low wages to their workers. well in this angle only the rich benefit. Poor people will be a little disadvantaged because their work is not properly appreciated. But in general there are still benefits for both parties. Because the poor are also still helped even though the salary is not high which is not in accordance with their hard work.

Now in a situation like this is a situation that we must look at from various perspectives that will ultimately provide a solution that will embrace all parties to be involved in it and mutually benefit each other. We can't keep thinking about who we have to solve the problem, but we have to think about how one action we take will solve the problem or at least we will have an effect or help all parties a little.
And in this case I agree that maybe there will be people who benefit more, but overall it helps a lot, and I think it would also be difficult to make everyone benefit equally or even impossible.

[dothebeats]

When you solve a problem it either benefits the rich or the poor. Job creation benefits the poor more than the rich. However when the government gives people like Elon Musk the permission to build a gigantic Tesla Battery manufacturing factory in Texas, it benefits the rich because they would buy more shares in the company, making it more profitable, also he doesn't get to pay taxes. It also benefits the poor because of massive job creation.

Lastly, the problem of the poor soon becomes that of the rich if it is not solved.

From your explanation I learned a lesson that solving a problem in one corner will also result in problems in other corners being resolved. Well this makes a lot of sense and I think that's how it's going to go. Both parties can benefit from each other on the one hand but on the one hand if one party is harmed then the other party can also be harmed. Although there are certain aspects that will benefit one party more. For example, if rich people open up a lot of jobs. But they give low wages to their workers. well in this angle only the rich benefit. Poor people will be a little disadvantaged because their work is not properly appreciated. But in general there are still benefits for both parties. Because the poor are also still helped even though the salary is not high which is not in accordance with their hard work.

This much is right, solving a problem for someone can indirectly affect another. However, it should be remembered that not all benefits and effects are equally distributed, much like your example. The reason for this is that you are not actively solving the problem of the other party it just so happens that both parties are correlated in some aspect that one is indirectly being touched on as you exclusively work on the others. Another example of this is solving the problem of the poor, specifically in terms of household problems, this may lead to a greater motivation and drive for them to work that pushes a good work performance, indirectly affected by this is the rich or the company the poor is working to have more customers, have better products, or good business data outcome. It may not cause such big change and effect for the rich but it still did something, it's just that the bigger benefit is centered on the poor whose problem was the one mainly being solved and the company was just related or connected to the effect for the poor.

[Sebas.tian]

The Rich doesn't need more help like the poor who is looking for way to get his or her daily bread to feed, I think I will prefer to solve the problem of the poor than the rich because it hard for you to help the poor to rise financially and he or she will forget about the help in the future. The Rich has all his want and even though he doesn't have all he wants, I think he can use money to get all he wants to live a good life because he has the resources to solve his problem at anytime.when you solve the problem of the poor in an environment, it make you popular in that particular environment because the poor people you solve their problems will keep spreading the information in a way it will be giving you joy.

[khiholangkang]

When you solve a problem it either benefits the rich or the poor. Job creation benefits the poor more than the rich. However when the government gives people like Elon Musk the permission to build a gigantic Tesla Battery manufacturing factory in Texas, it benefits the rich because they would buy more shares in the company, making it more profitable, also he doesn't get to pay taxes. It also benefits the poor because of massive job creation.

Lastly, the problem of the poor soon becomes that of the rich if it is not solved.

From your explanation I learned a lesson that solving a problem in one corner will also result in problems in other corners being resolved. Well this makes a lot of sense and I think that's how it's going to go. Both parties can benefit from each other on the one hand but on the one hand if one party is harmed then the other party can also be harmed. Although there are certain aspects that will benefit one party more. For example, if rich people open up a lot of jobs. But they give low wages to their workers. well in this angle only the rich benefit. Poor people will be a little disadvantaged because their work is not properly appreciated. But in general there are still benefits for both parties. Because the poor are also still helped even though the salary is not high which is not in accordance with their hard work.

This much is right, solving a problem for someone can indirectly affect another. However, it should be remembered that not all benefits and effects are equally distributed, much like your example. The reason for this is that you are not actively solving the problem of the other party it just so happens that both parties are correlated in some aspect that one is indirectly being touched on as you exclusively work on the others. Another example of this is solving the problem of the poor, specifically in terms of household problems, this may lead to a greater motivation and drive for them to work that pushes a good work performance, indirectly affected by this is the rich or the company the poor is working to have more customers, have better products, or good business data outcome. It may not cause such big change and effect for the rich but it still did something, it's just that the bigger benefit is centered on the poor whose problem was the one mainly being solved and the company was just related or connected to the effect for the poor.

According to natural law, when you get benefits, there must be something to lose in every atmosphere of life or in living ecosystems, even though we can see aspects of mutual benefit or in biology we call it symbiosis mutualism, and in fact, when viewed from the other side, there are things that are detrimental to one one party as well as between one human being and another human being.
We know that every business development for people who are rich or have capital aims to make a profit, and he needs other people's energy to achieve this because basically he cannot do it himself, and this creates several related interests between the rich and the poor for mutual benefit. In terms of salary, in my opinion, it is usually prepared according to regional standards which are adjusted to the job, if the poor do not get payment according to existing regulations then that is where the company does not respect its employees.

The Rich doesn't need more help like the poor who is looking for way to get his or her daily bread to feed, I think I will prefer to solve the problem of the poor than the rich because it hard for you to help the poor to rise financially and he or she will forget about the help in the future. The Rich has all his want and even though he doesn't have all he wants, I think he can use money to get all he wants to live a good life because he has the resources to solve his problem at anytime.when you solve the problem of the poor in an environment, it make you popular in that particular environment because the poor people you solve their problems will keep spreading the information in a way it will be giving you joy.

But you can't do that directly. You give money to them to improve the lives of the poor, right? it may be valid for a few days after they receive the money.LOL
This requires a management system on how to help them in the long term, provide them with skills and make their jobs much more effective, and keep in mind that it needs to have a lot of people to be well coordinated and conceptualized.

Unless you really just want to be remembered for giving them money.

[|MINER|]

Problems exist in the lives of both the rich and the poor.  Just as the rich have many problems, the poor also have many problems. But there are people from many sectors to solve the problems of the rich.  And the biggest thing is that the rich have money to solve their problems.  And to solve the problems of the poor, there is no money, no people. Even they do not understand how to solve their problems.  The poor have economic problems, problems of meeting basic needs, problems of food, education, medical problems.  According to my opinion we all should come forward to solve the problems of the poor.

[Ahli38]

We know that people varies in terms of their needs and how urgent they appear to them, we can also consider this that apparently everyone has one or two challenges that they needs solution to in what they do, we can also finds many other means of getting other people's needs solved when we see that ours can still be managed up over time without us being affected, we need to realize that life itself has many challenges and people's needs are never ending, the more we solve one the more others are coming after each other.

So true. That is a reality that we must be aware of. Every time we solve one problem, another problem will arise. But in problem solving there are indeed many factors that must be considered to decide which problem should be fixed first. And so it is in fixing the problems that the rich and the poor have. I personally would probably start with myself. And after the problem itself is fixed. Only then will I start to help fix the problems of the people closest to me. It doesn't matter if it's poor or rich.

How would you be able to fix other problems if even yourself is already broke? You have a point, and again, most of those businessmen have done it before, like they've already tried it on themselves or on their relatives, like helping other people.
 
We should also make sure that solving other problems can also solve them for you, meaning if you are releasing some products or services to them, they should work on you or on your relatives so that you can be sure that they are working.

Yes, that's right, friend. In solving problems, we are also required to look at the future impacts. Is that a good impact or otherwise? We really have to make sure that solving these problems can also benefit us too. In essence, we must try to create balance in the problem solving process. Don't let other people's problems be solved but have a bad impact on ourselves. This should be avoided. We must solve every problem by bringing benefits to all parties. Well, this is not easy and basically there are no easy problems to solve. Everything requires hard work. Rich people sometimes create solutions for their own businesses but this also has an impact on solving the problems of poor people. Like rich people who open new factory branches and absorb more workers from people who need work. Yes, there are steps to create a solution that solves the problem of both parties at once.

[GbitG]

Which of the problems will you prefer to solve as a service you render? the problems of the poor? or the problems of the rich? (support your choice with a reason)

Definitely, I will pick up both the poor and the rich to assist in problem solving. From the perspective of human dignity, helping or solving problems is an obligation for every human. But if this problem solving or help means economic stability, then, according to my opinion, the poor have more rights than the rich to get in. Because rich guys could handle all the problems by themselves, they don't have too many problems. I think problems are only caused by health and family. Poor people have to face one crucial thing: money, which they don't have. I believe that money could possibly solve their problems. which problems are food, cloth, and house. But if we look at it from another perspective, which is government authority, there is no doubt about it. Everyone knows that all the problems are legitimate with one guy, which is the rich guy, because helping the rich guy is helping all the poor people.

[Sexylizzy2813]

When you solve a problem it either benefits the rich or the poor. Job creation benefits the poor more than the rich. However when the government gives people like Elon Musk the permission to build a gigantic Tesla Battery manufacturing factory in Texas, it benefits the rich because they would buy more shares in the company, making it more profitable, also he doesn't get to pay taxes. It also benefits the poor because of massive job creation.

Lastly, the problem of the poor soon becomes that of the rich if it is not solved.

Is just that without the poor the rich can't completely achieve their goal, because if you look at it this way like you said there would be massive job creation. With that you don't expect the rich after buying shares they should still be the ones to engage in both the laboring department, no. That's why I said without the poor the rich finds it hard to get to their goal.

[Tamaperdana]

I came across this tweet, so the reference is the username. I thought it was a topic worth bringing up for discussion to see the choice that will be made by forum members.

Solving problems between poor people and rich people is actually a problem that can be solved all at once, or simultaneously. A simple example, a rich person who creates a large company or factory and the factory really has good potential. That way, the company or factory will definitely need employees to be able to run the factory. So that way, rich people and poor people can solve their problems. In plant science, this is called mutualistic symbiosis, which means mutual benefit to each other.

So solving the problems of rich people can indeed solve the problems of poor people. Because life always goes hand in hand, just as there are rich people, there are certainly poor people around them.
So solving the problems of poor people and rich people, in my opinion, can be done simultaneously.