As previously mentioned, it is evident in the film that the elite takes advantage of the poor, because they believe they have the right to do so. They believe that the poor must obey them, because they feed and clothe them and provide them with shelter. Thus, the wealthy believe they are doing the poor a favor and the poor should be thankful and be obedient in return. However, Chris and his gang of followers rebel against the wealthy and demanded the justice they never had and never were able to experience. In “Emergent inequality and self-organized social classes in a network of power and frustration” by Benoit Mahault, Avadh Saxena, and Cristiano Nisoli, the authors argue that the allocation of limited wealth is due to power, frustration, …show more content…
The poor, thus would always fail, previously to Chris’s success, because they did not have the man power and wealth to take over. However, even though Chris did not have the financial wealth, he did have frustration, rage, and the man power to rebel against Wilford. In addition, the authors found that constraints can limit how accessible wealth or resources of transactions can be reached. Thus, “the equilibrium of networks, based on power and frustration, can lead to network coevolution” (Mahault 1). The ratio of power and frustration controls different regimes “separated by kinetic transitions and characterized by … different values of equality” (Mahault 1). The ratio of power and frustration as well leads to the emergence of social classes: lower, middle, and upper class. Depending on how much power one has access to and how frustrated one is, depends on the type of equality one will experience. Thus, the dynamics developed from the social classes can cause dramatic social change between all three (Mahault 1). Deregulation on wealth brings inequality, which dispositions around fifty percent of the population, thus causing limitation on wealth …show more content…
Thus, the film tells us that the rich will always have an advantage over the poor, because of the power and wealthy they have. The upper class, therefore can take advantage of any other social class if they are not socially and economically well structured. However, equality can emerge from frustration; when there are enough individuals involved. (Mahault 3). Thus the poor can break away if they have the motivation and man power to do so, just as Chris and his followers did. Therefore, Mahault supports Snowpiercer’s argument that the wealthy will always take advantage and will always have the lower class to take advantage from. They will always have the upper hand, because of the way society functions and is formed; society gives them an advantage over the poor. The wealthy will, therefore always have the means to take advantage of those that are not blessed with the same economic, social, and political standing. However, if the poor wants to break away from the daily injustices they experience, frustration is great motivation to call for equality. Therefore, Chris was successful in making it to the engine, because he had the motivation and frustration to do
Paul Krugman, in his article “The Death of Horatio Alger” suggests that social mobility among classes in the United States is becoming more difficult by the day. Krugman explains that the idea of the American Dream and moving from class to class was once semi easily attainable; but is now seemingly impossible. Although America is thought of as a classless society, the country has a whole is moving into a caste society run by the rich.
All individuals have different paths and life goals. It is true that individuals may start out with more advantages than others, but it should not be used as a limitation to others. Mantsios lists several realities discussing the different levels of opportunity for Americans. In these realities, he describes that wealth and our economic status is important in order to reach success. In one of his realities, Mantsios discussed the privileges within inheritance laws stating: “…Americans do not have an equal opportunity to succeed, […]. Inheritance laws provide built-in privileges to the offspring of the wealthy and add to the likelihood of their economic success while handicapping the chances for everyone else” (392). It appears as if he only believes success comes out of extreme wealth, and if someone is not, they’re disadvantaged and will ultimately be less successful than others. Mantsios talks only in extremes; he discusses the very rich, the very poor and how each affects each other, while simultaneously arguing that there is little to no chance for those in the middle or lower class to grow and become successful. In contrast, Jay-Z discusses how he did not let the obstacles he faced, or his economic status limit him. He is quoted saying, “don’t let [society] diminish your accomplishment or dim your shine” (Packer 361). Here, he is taking a much more positive approach, stating that individuals should not limit their success based on their social class. Class should not be a tool used to limit individuals and their success. To say that an individual born into the upper class will just coast through life without hardship is untrue. In the same respect, to say that an individual born into lower or middle class will have no chance at success, is just as untrue. We all face different levels of hardship in life, therefore condemning an individual because they have a leg up or down in
According to Selzer, Cooter thinks that Miss Bailey’s inheritance of her master’s wealth has been “misappropriated”, because “she didn’t earn it” (260). This indicates that exploitation is ultimately the reign over minds, in which the victims inherently agree with the capitalism theory so that they experience inequality without awareness. Nevertheless, while echoing Marx’s theory, Berlant concludes that the possession of large wealth creates a dilemma between choosing one’s “habituated life” and the unknown future that is “yet to be invented” (37). The lack of cultural capital minimizes people’s capacity of ownership, thus the possession of wealth alone will not change the state of living for poor people, because it is “too alive”
(p1) Broadly speaking, class is about economic and social inequality… (p6) We have a tendency for groups of advanced people to congregate together, and groups of disadvantaged people to congregate so that inequalities persist from generation to generation.
With each class comes a certain level in financial standing, the lower class having the lowest income and the upper class having the highest income. According to Mantsios’ “Class in America” the wealthiest one percent of the American population hold thirty-four percent of the total national wealth and while this is going on nearly thirty-seven million Americans across the nation live in unrelenting poverty (Mantsios 284-6). There is a clear difference in the way that these two groups of people live, one is extreme poverty and the other extremely
On the other hand, Carnegie understands that there exists inequality, but he believes that the superior can cooperate with the inferior to gain equality. In fact, it the document he clarifies, “There remains…only one mode of using great fortunes…in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor−a reign of harmony” (Carnegie, 54). Carnegie does not particularly consider inequality a problem. He understands that in order for wealthy to facilitate the lives of the poor, there must be inequality to establish status, but he also discerns that by helping the poor they are given a chance to reach equality. In fact, Carnegie says, “Individualism will
In the United States there are four social classes : the upper class, the middle class, the working class, and the lower class. Of these four classes the most inequality exists between the upper class and the lower class. This inequality can be seen in the incomes that the two classes earn. During the period 1979 through the present , the growth in income has disproportionately grown.The bottom sixty percent of the US population actually saw their real income decrease in 1990 dollars. The next 20% saw medium gains. The top twenty percent saw their income increase 18%. The wealthiest one percent saw their incomes rise drastically over 80%. As reported in the 1997 Center on Budget's analysis , the wealthiest one percent of Americans ( 2.6 million people) received as much after-tax income in 1994 as the bottom 35 percent of the population combined (88 million people). But in 1977 the bottom 35 percent had about twice as much after tax income as the top one percent. These statistics further show the disproportional income growth among the social classes. The gr...
Society today is split in many different ways: the smart and the dumb, the pretty and the ugly, the popular and the awkward, and of course the rich and the poor. This key difference has led to many areas of conflict among the population. The rich and the poor often have different views on issues, and have different problems within their lives. Moral decay and materialism are two issues prevalent among the wealthy, while things such as socio-economic class conflict and the American dream may be more important to those without money. Ethics and responsibilities are an area of thought for both classes, with noblesse oblige leaning more towards the wealthy.
Divisions within the social stratum is a characteristic of societies in various cultures and has been present throughout history. During the middle ages, the medieval feudal system prevailed, characterized by kings and queens reigning over the peasantry. Similarly, in today’s society, corporate feudalism, otherwise known as Capitalism, consists of wealthy elites dominating over the working poor. Class divisions became most evident during America’s Gilded Age and Progressive era, a period in time in which the rich became richer via exploitation of the fruits of labor that the poor persistently toiled to earn. As a result, many Americans grew compelled to ask the question on everyone’s mind: what do the rich owe the poor? According to wealthy
People from lower classes try to achieve success but tend to struggle depending upon their foundation. The problem that people don’t want see is that we all want to become successful, and have the capability to do so but are just restricted by the lack of income.
The author juxtaposes the rich and poor with those in between in order to convince the audience, the middle class, that they should follow in the footsteps of both those richer and poorer than them in order to cease their materialistic attitudes. Near the end of the essay, Eighner states, “I think this is an attitude I share with the very wealthy—we both know there is plenty more where what we have came from. Between us are the rat-race millions who have confounded their selves with the objects they grasp and who nightly scavenge the cable channels looking for they know not what.” The author is stating that the wealthy and the homeless are both aware that there are things more important in life than tangible objects. Everyone else, however, has not made this connection yet and still searches, meaninglessly, for something of value. The middle class is often known to aspire to...
Inequality exist and is high in America because the amount of income and wealth that is distributed through power. In America the income distribution is very inequality and the value of a person wealth is based on their income with their debts subtracted. “As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)” (Domhoff, 2011). In contrary the poor do not get ahead and the rich get more. Americans are judged and placed in class categories through their home ownership which translates to wealth. Americans social class is often associated with their assets and wealth. “People seek to own property, to have high incomes, to have interesting and safe jobs, to enjoy the finest in travel and leisure, and to live long and healthy lives” (Domhoff, 2011). Power indicates how these “values” are not distributed equally in American society. Huge gains for the rich include cuts in capital gains and dividends and when tax rates decrease for the tiny percent of Americans income is redistributed. Taxes directly affect the wealth and income of Americans every year.
Money is an essential part of life where every people can satisfy whatever they need and every person in America has a chance to find a job. However, some of the people in the country wanted to go on with their life freely by being a part of a welfare. Furthermore, distribution of wealth is a huge demand of every citizen. Everyone today is trying to look down for every people in the lower class, as they did not give any benefit to the country, waiting for the benefits that they will receive from the government. For instance, when most lower class people have gone through a financial crisis due to overspending, insufficient fund or pay for their work to support themselves and/or their family. The example shows that lower class people made the economy of the country unstable, however, the middle class and the higher class is at fault as well. Furthermore, even though the benefit of that the lower class received is from the middle class, the middle class as well benefits from the higher class. To sum up, every class is at fault towards giving the country’s economy a positive
Kerbo, H. R. (2012). Social stratification and inequality: class conflict in historical, comparative, and global perspective (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
In spite of the privileged getting anything money can buy, an underprivileged person gets the important things money cant buy. Many people have heard the expression “if you give a man a fish you can feed them a day, if you teach a man to fish you can feed them a lifetime.” Well I believe privileged people are given fish and the underprivileged taught to fish.