Should we beat poverty?

'Live Free and Starve', 'The Singer Soulution to World Poverty'. These are two essays with the same problem; the problem of poverty. Both authors are trying to stop world poverty, but they both have significantly contrasting opinions on how to prevent it. In 'Live Free or Starve' the author, Chitra Divakaruni, believes that these poor children should work in sweatshops to earn minimal pay, she gives a fairly resonable argument as well basically stating that it's better than getting paid nothing. However, in the other essay, 'The Singer Solution to World Poverty' the author, Peter Singer, offers a much faster,strategy. He offers that Families only spend money on neccesities and donate the rest. Some readers will have a bias against Singer because his tone of voice can be judgmental at timers. The way he supports his strategy is by telling anecdotes about greedy men watching children get hit by trains, and ultimitely making you feel guily. For example, in paragraph 14 Singer writes "I trust that many readers will reach for the phone and donate that 200$. Perhaps you should do it before reading furthur." Right there Singer assumed that most of hit audience would call to donate, he then went on to guilt you into calling by pretty much stating 'If you didn't donate then you don't deserve to read the rest of this.' I agree mostly with the first article by Divakaruni. Although it is not a particularly desireable existance for a young child her arguments make sense, and she also offered suggestions for what the government can do. For example, in paragraph 8 Divakaruni writes that, "A bill like [passed by Clinton that unemployed around a million kids] is of no use unless it goes hand in hand with programs that will offer a new life to these newly released children." This by far is the best solution and would change many lives.