"Live Free and Starve" vs. "The Singer Solution to World Poverty"

The authors of the articles "Live Free and Starve" and "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" (Chitra Divakaruni and Peter Singer, respectively) have very different views regarding poverty and action that should or should not be taken. They reside on completely opposite ends of this opinion spectrum: Singer believes that any money that is not used on necessities should be given to help those less fortunate; Divakaruni, however, believes that to take action in situations regarding would be to take jobs away from those who were proud, in some cases, to make money.
While I agree that some action should be taken when it can help, Singer seems to be fond of making readers feel guilty; he first arranges a scenario that makes readers feel that a person should have been less selfish, but then he flips the situation to apply directly to them. On the other hand, Divakaruni is very blunt in saying that to try to help, despite the best intentions, simply would make matters worse. It seems that they both have very valid points-in this, it can perhaps be decided that action taken in the right circumstances would serve well. (For example, giving money for food in a Third World country would help more than hurt, while "lead[ing] to the unemployment of almost a million children" by attempting to reduce child labor would be harmful.)
Overall, Singer's article was meant to inspire others to give selflessly; he says quite plainly that "the money you will spend at the restaurant could also help save the lives of children overseas...what is one month's dining out compared to a child's life?" His purpose was to show that it is very easy to disregard the troubles of others to enjoy the comforts in one's life, and that giving can mean less comfort for one, but a life saved for another.
Taken as whole, Divakaruni meant to show that often situations are misunderstood, and that sometimes "help" doesn't help in the least. She explains that children, despite their horrible work conditions, work to earn money. If they no longer had jobs, they would not be free and happy as we like to envision them-instead, they would be "free and starv[ing]". While startling and very sad, this fact is certainly eye-opening; many probably would not have thought this way.
Overall, the authors seem to have different opinions regarding our (meaning the average citizens') role in helping other around the globe; although they clash with their methods, they both have in their interests to help those, be it by sending donations or by letting them live to make their own money.