More handpicked essays just for you.
Wealth distribution with sociological point of view
Injustice of wealth distribution
Injustice of wealth distribution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The fight between the owners of capital and wage-labor has never been truly resolved. Different periods in American history have oscillated between supporting businesses and the average person. Movements such as progressivism took over to reduce the effect political machines started to have over public policy. Today, the discussion over inequality reminds many people of the period just before the Great Depression and the Gilded Age, where inequality was high and profits for large businesses soared. The difference between history and contemporary politics is that today, movements against inequality are less tinged with socialist undertones. People are angry at the concept of gross inequality, but are not able to properly articulate why. Matthew Yglesias and Ezra Klein both contend that classes beside the upper class have not seen economic growth as well …show more content…
His first example is that which he describes as utilitarian. To mean, taking a certain amount of money from a very rich person will not impact their life much, and that amount of money could have a profound effect for someone living in poverty. The result is an increase in net welfare for all. His second example channels the philosopher John Rawls. In Rawlsianism, as Yglesias describes it, everyone has individual rights, rights that would be infringed upon with the utilitarian way of thinking in regards to the redistribution of wealth. So instead, he created a philosophical justification in his book “Theory of Justice” for the welfare state that emerged in the United States post World War 2 and up through the 1960s. In the book, he explains how in an unequal society, a justification for inequality is necessary for those most hurt by it. He articulated this through what he called the difference principle. Essentially, inequality is okay if it can benefit those at the
Briefly state the main idea of this article: The main idea of this article is that economic inequality has steadily risen in the United States between the richest people and the poorest people. And this inequality affects the people in more ways than buying power; it also affects education, life expectancy, living conditions and possibly happiness. Another idea that he brought up was that the American government tends to give less help to the unemployed than other rich countries.
Some of the philosopher Rousseau’s ideas were mention in Cohen’s Political Philosophy: From Plato to Mao. Rousseau’s theories describe a human in his primitive state (before the formation of societies) as being happier. Society, according to Rousseau, began when humans began to claim property as theirs and settled down in a specific location. Rousseau also supposed that, since the primitive person was happier alone, it must have been some kind of disaster that caused him to live in groups. Cohen then goes on to describe Rousseau’s ideas on inequality, which Rousseau assumed is split to two types. The first is natural or physical inequality, and the second is moral or political inequality. The second one is imaginary even preventative. (Cohen
Social inequality is characterized by the existence of unequal opportunity for various social positions or statuses within a given group or society. It is a phenomenon that has a long history as social inequalities has a wide range of varieties. From economic, gender, racial, status, and prestige, social inequality is a topic often disputed by classical theorists. Sociologists Karl Marx, Max Weber, W.I. Thomas, and Frederic M. Thrasher have formed varying thoughts on this recurring phenomenon. Marx believed that social inequality synthesized through conflicts within classes and in modern society those two classes were the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In contrast, Weber disputes Marx’s simplistic view of the conflict and theorizes that social
Americans have financially and politically. Much of the financial gains made today go to the top one percent of earners in the United States. This increase in inequality has grown substantially in the last forty years. Wage inequality is different than the push for equal pay. According to Fortune.com, the salaries of CEO’s compared to the average worker are 300 times more (Addady 1). One of the reasons CEO’s are profiting more money is because technological advances are replacing human labor with robots or software. This investment in technology by firms increases the bottom line and is ever more important with the rising minimum wages set by local, state, and federal
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...
The question: What does it mean to be human, is a centuries-old debate that is still relevant today. In A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau argues that inequality has no connection with the true state of human nature because humans are essentially animals with the ability to act by freedom. Similarly, in The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, Darwin states that humans are biologically animals but with moral and social qualities, hence proving his claim that species are not created but rather they evolve gradually with the help of natural selection. In The Communist Manifesto and The Economics and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx believes that human nature is a function of labour and in an unstable capitalist society,
Echoing the structural strain theory is the differential opportunity theory, which states that learning environments and opportunities are not equally distributed in the social system and gender, class and ethnicity affects conformity and deviance (Deutschmann, 2007). Taking both theories into account, those susceptible to joining gangs would be people that are deprived of opportunities and resources to succeed, mainly people of the lower class and racial minorities as exemplified by the high volume of emergence of racially exclusive gangs in the past. In the 1970’s, the United States of America lifted its quota on immigration based on nationality and this saw the influx of immigrants from Asia and the West Indies coming into the USA in hopes of getting rich or simply to flee from their war torn native lands. Instead of assimilating into the American culture, these immigrants brought along their own cultural practices and religions, which were rejected by the Americans and resulted in resentment between both parties. Racial discrimination was rampant and these once hopeful immigrants soon found themselves being isolated in the outskirts, jobless and helpless. Members of racial minority groups like the majority aspire to possess material success in life but are void of the means to achieve those (McNulty & Bellair, 2003). The same can be said of the lower class, whose low socio-economic status limit their opportunities for tertiary education which could potentially be imperative in securing lucrative jobs (Curry & Spergel, 1988). Therefore, to satisfy their appetite for success, these people adapt to strain by treading the path of innovators- using illegitimate means to actualise their positively valued goals. Moreover, with global...
In Confronting Inequality, Paul Krugman discusses the cost of inequality and possible solutions. Krugman argues to say that it is a fantasy to believe the rich live just like the middle class. Then, he goes into detail about how middle class families struggle to try to give their children a better life and how education plays a factor in children’s future lives. For example, children’s ability to move into higher education could be affected by their parents economic status. Also, He discusses how politicians play a role in the inequality, because most of politicians are in the upper economic class. Finally, Krugman says how we could possibly have solutions to these various inequalities, but how America won’t get
In Rousseau’s book “A Discourse On Inequality”, he looks into the question of where the general inequality amongst men came from. Inequality exists economically, structurally, amongst different generations, genders, races, and in almost all other areas of society. However, Rousseau considers that there are really two categories of inequality. The first is called Natural/Physical, it occurs as an affect of nature. It includes inequalities of age,, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind and soul. The second may be called Moral/Political inequality, this basically occurs through the consent of men. This consists of the privileges one group may have over another, such as the rich over the poor.
According to David Leonhardt, “Inequality Has Been Going on Forever…but That Doesn’t Mean It’s Inevitable” tries to explain that Americans have been living with rising income inequality for so long-in good and bad, under Republican presidents and Democratic ones-that it has come to seem inevitable” Gerald, Cathy, and Russel (542). The system needs to be reformed by policies that provide opportunities for ordinary Americans, justice for all Americans. Everyone should be able to be treated equal.
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.
In “To Fix Income Inequality, The Have Nots Must Become The Do Somethings”, Pennington interprets that socialism challenges America’s free market to thrive, due to of the lack of creative power one needs to economically conquer. Income economic inequality is the gap between the rich and poor. Conflict over this topic commonly arises from the capitalist and socialists. Both groups have absolute different opinions on how the economy should be run. The beauty of a capitalist market is anyone can construct gains at any time; so there is no excuse to be jealous of the wealthy. A capitalist view is to look at the “glass half full or half empty”, as a few might say. When people look at their own wealth, it is not all based on your income, but the
Income inequality has affected American citizens ever since the American Dream came to existence. The American Dream is centered around the concept of working hard and earning enough money to support a family, own a home, send children to college, and invest for retirement. Economic gains in income are one of the only possible ways to achieve enough wealth to fulfill the dream. Unfortunately, many people cannot achieve this dream due to low income. Income inequality refers to the uneven distribution of income and wealth between the social classes of American citizens. The United States has often experienced a rise in inequality as the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, increasing the unstable gap between the two classes. The income gap in America has been increasing steadily since the late 1970’s, and has now reached historic highs not seen since the 1920’s (Desilver). UC Berkeley economics professor, Emmanuel Saez conducted extensive research on past and present income inequality statistics and published them in his report “Striking it Richer.” Saez claims that changes in technology, tax policies, labor unions, corporate benefits, and social norms have caused income inequality. He stands to advocate a change in American economic policies that will help close this inequality gap and considers institutional and tax reforms that should be developed to counter it. Although Saez’s provides legitimate causes of income inequality, I highly disagree with the thought of making changes to end income inequality. In any diverse economic environment, income inequality will exist due to the rise of some economically successful people and the further development of factors that push people into poverty. I believe income inequality e...
The riddle of inequality, as Tillich explains, "...Cannot be solved." This inequality is the divider of people, of the have's and have-nots. It seems that this riddle has confused people since the beginning of time and was even discussed in the bible. People always wonder why some have more than others do; they wonder why this happens and how it can change. I believe that this riddle is natural and cannot be changed despite he best efforts of people.
Income inequality continues to increase in today’s world, especially in the United States. Income inequality means the unequal distribution between individuals’ assets, wealth, or income. In the Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes, a liberal journalist, states the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are increasing widening, and there need to have things done - tax the rich, provide better education - in order to shortening the inequality gap. America is a meritocratic country, which means that everybody has equal opportunity to be successful regardless of their class privileges or wealth. However, equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes. People are having more opportunities to find a better job, but their incomes are a lot less compared to the top ten percent rich people. In this way, the poor people will never climb up the ladder to high status and become millionaires. Therefore, the government needs to increase all the tax rates on rich people in order to reduce income inequality.