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 …show more content…
Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-American steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest men of the nineteenth century, believes that social inequality results as an inexorable byproduct of progress. In his 1889 article entitled “Wealth,” Carnegie claims that it is “essential” for the advancement of the human race that social divisions between the rich and poor exist, which separate those “highest and best in literature and the arts” who embody the “refinements of civilization” from those who do not (105). According to Carnegie, this “great irregularity” is favored over the “universal squalor” that would ensue if class distinctions ceased to exist (105). Carnegie states that it is a “waste of time to criticize the inevitable,” believing that poverty is an inherent characteristic of society rather than the result of elitist oppression (105). Carnegie may conclude that the rich do not necessarily owe the poor anything, but he also believes that wealthy philanthropists such as he should donate their vast accumulations to charity while they are still alive. In Carnegie’s mind, contributions to supporting educational institutions and constructing landmarks serves to …show more content…
Led by Clara Lemlich, 20,000 immigrants, mostly young women, demanded a twenty percent pay raise, a fifty-two hour workweek, and a closed shop (59). Their cause gained a significant amount of attention and caught the eye of wealthy progressive reformers, such as Alva Belmont and Anne Morgan, who perceived the strike as an opportunity to also advocate their own objective: women’s suffrage. Wealthy elites like Carnegie and Sumner may have believed that efforts to change the natural order are futile, but Morgan claimed that after learning about the details of the strike, she and other women wouldn’t be able to live their lives “without doing something to help them” (72). These affluent women demonstrated their support from both sides of the spectrum, from modestly distributing ribbons and buttons, to Alva Belmont’s contribution of her several cars to a parade for the striking workers (682) and the pledge of her mansion as surety for the bail of four strikers (76). Without the aid of these women, it was doubtful the strikers “could have lasted much longer without progressive money” (70). However, frustration arose amongst picketers as these progressive reformers turned a strike based on class struggle into a “broader feminist revolt” (68). Morgan blamed the strikers’ treatment on the inability for women to vote, not their inability to unionize (67). Striker’s retorted, asking
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.
According to Gregory Mantsios many American people believed that the classes in the United States were irrelevant, that we equally reside(ed) in a middle class nation, that we were all getting richer, and that everyone has an opportunity to succeed in life. But what many believed, was far from the truth. In reality the middle class of the United States receives a very small amount of the nation's wealth, and sixty percent of America's population receives less than 6 percent of the nation's wealth, while the top 1 percent of the American population receives 34 percent of the total national wealth. In the article Class in America ( 2009), written by Gregory Mantsios informs us that there are some huge differences that exist between the classes of America, especially the wealthy and the poor. After
Sklar, Holly. “The Growing Gulf Between the Rich and the Rest of Us”. They Say I Say. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.
As Andrew Jackson once said, “many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by acts of Congress”. This fits the classism model, or the systematic oppression of subordinated class groups to advantage and strengthen the dominant class groups, the lower class’ injustices allowing the upper class to thrive and be bettered. The elite’s mindset that they are more important than the average citizen allows them to hold the idea that they deserve more rights or protection than the average citizen as well. Huston expands on this application while expounding on the political economy of aristocracy, advancing that “in lands characterized by political monopoly, rulers, monarchs, or aristocrats used governmental policies to enrich themselves and their retainers, thus producing a maldistribution of wealth” (Huston 1089). This political monopoly model holds true in America today with the upper class taking advantage of governmental processes to better themselves above regular tax-paying citizens with the idea that they are deserving of it. James Huston again validates this reasoning by stating “the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes” (Huston 1098).
Growing up in The United States, people are given this idea of an American Dream. Almost every child is raised to believe they can become and do anything they want to do, if one works hard enough. However, a majority of people believe that there is a separation of class in American society. Gregory Mantsios author of “Class in America-2009” believes that Americans do not exchange thoughts about class division, although most of people are placed in their own set cluster of wealth. Also political officials are trying to get followers by trying to try to appeal to the bulk of the population, or the middle class, in order to get more supporters. An interesting myth that Mantsios makes in his essay is how Americans don’t have equal opportunities.
Wealth is an article by Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish American, showed his views on their social class during the Gilded Age, the late 19th century, discussing the “rich and poor.” Carnegie in fact was one of the wealthiest men because of his major success in the steel industry.
...rceived to have more wealth received special treatment in the weekend event I chose to attend, which is a clear indication of the disparities existing in terms of wealth distribution nationally and globally. The level of interaction for those present was based on perception of individual social status. People were more inclined to freely interact with individuals from a similar social status rather than a person from a different social status. While some had ascribed status, other presented achieved stratification status. However, the difference emerging from this scenario is that a small number of individuals are given opportunities to amass wealth within a short time while the rest linger in their glory. In return, the cultural response to this difference is to elevate those who have amassed wealth at the expense of those in middle and low-class income bracket.
Andrew Carnegie’s article published, December 1889 in the New York American Review called “The Gospel of Wealth”, gave much to be contemplated. The central idea of his article was that a man was wealthy for one of two reasons. He was either selected by Gods will to be so rich (an idea similar to “the divine rights of kings”) or because of ones “natural talents”, stemming from the “survival-of-the-fittest…theories of English philosopher Herbert Spencer and Yale professor William Graham Sumner.” (The American Pageant, 15th edition, Vol.2) He believed that with this wealth came a moral obligation to spend such money on “public purposes, from which the masses reap benefit.” (The Gospel of Wealth, New York Carnegie Corporation, New York)
In the article, The Gospel of Wealth, written by Andrew Carnegie, he discusses the importance of the new self-made millionaires to practice the philanthropy of improvement. The philanthropy of improvement encompasses advancing an aspect of society by providing opportunities to climb the ladder of opportunity. Carnegie noted the gap between the worker and employer had grown exponentially due to the industrial revolution and believed that it was up to the wealthy to develop methods of improvement. The gap between the worker and employer resulted in no sympathy for each other between the master and apprentice as well as people beginning to lose hope in the ladder of opportunity. Carnegie realized that there was inequality in America and he did not want to fundamentally change it; Carnegie valued the gap of the rich and poor. But, it was the prosperous’ responsibility through the philanthropy of improvement to help the impoverished maximize their human potential because of “the ties of brotherhood” (Carnegie 198) that bound the poor and rich. Carnegie felt the affluent should dedicate time and their surplus wealth while alive to invest in the community. He was against fortune “left to
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
Carnegie’s essay contains explanations of three common methods by which wealth is distributed and his own opinions on the effects of each. After reading the entire essay, readers can see his overall appeals to logos; having wealth does not make anyone rich, but using that wealth for the greater good does. He does not force his opinions onto the reader, but is effectively convincing of why his beliefs make sense. Andrew Carnegie’s simple explanations intertwined with small, but powerful appeals to ethos and pathos become incorporated into his overall appeal to logos in his definition of what it means for one to truly be rich.
Within the United States operates a class system based on economic standing, though it is rarely spoken of or thought of as an issue. The classes divide the American population into three sections. The elite and wealthy upper class that controls most of the economy and government, the middle class who is made of finically stable and well-educated people, and the staggering lower class who live under poverty line. The United States are not the only or the first to struggle with class division, the separation creates a discrimination between classes and allows the higher and more “qualified” class to exploit and rule. There has been attempts to make the playing field so to say more equal, these come from the views of people like Marx and Lenin. Class division and privilege creates injustice and inequality through the ruling of a higher class, this systems has been in power under
A third of Americans and as many as 44% of Millennials would prefer to live under a socialist system than a capitalist one. (Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation). Capitalism is a free market system which people can privately own and operate a business. Capitalism breaks individuals into two economic groups consumers and producers, it is also the core economic structure that the United States runs the country by. When I reference money, I am referring to the currency capitalism has created to hold trade value. This economic system revolves around making income which leads to making a profit. Capitalism has created wealth for a lot of successful entrepreneurs and businessmen who uses a variety of sale tactics. Money is something that you
“An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.” This quote from Plutarch, a Greek philosopher, explores how a divide of wealth between the rich and the poor can destroy the fabric of a society. Wealth, in the United States, has been divided unequally by granting more to the rich and not leaving enough for the poor Americans, thereby creating a wealth gap. Income inequality occurs when wealth is distributed unequally in a population because of the influence richer Americans have, leading to a multitude of problems including the declining buying power of the middle class as well as a country where the rich can buy power through donations in elections.
In American society, middle-class values are identified as the institutionalized means that should be used to achieve wealth (Bernard et. al., 2010). Middle-class values emphasize honesty, education and deferred gratification (p. 155). Central to strain theory is the idea that society puts great pressure on individuals to achieve wealth, but fails to equally provide legitimate opportunities of obtaining wealth or success. As noted by the authors, legitimate opportunities were relatively concentrated in the higher classes and relatively absent in the lower classes (Bernard et. al., 2010). When a person fails to achieve wealth or success, or if he or she is poor, that person may be regarded as lazy. Thus meritocracy functions as safeguard, shielding society from assuming responsibility for social problems and blocked opportunities facing the lower