Though money may not be the root of all evil, it certainly contributes to inequalities between those on opposite ends of the wealth distribution map. Upward mobility becomes difficult for those whose income does not match that of the wealthy because of the lack of opportunities provided to the people who are in the working class (Marx). Unfortunately, this repetitive cycle of wealth inequality draws parallels with the racial inequalities that are seen today. Statistically, people of color and women collect less revenue than white men, who are less restricted in their mobility, in America (Rowe). According to Karl Marx, money can buy anything from education to beauty, due to the fact that money is valued more than the lives of those who do …show more content…
In the advancing world that Steve Jobs is set in, the audience can clearly see the capitalist themes that run throughout the film. Steve Jobs is a wealthy, corporate owner who takes advantage of his social status as a white male to maintain control over his subordinates and family. Modern capitalism caters to the white male in the way that those who do not possess that social status are looked down upon and are seen to be the least hardworking and threatening the ideal of the “American Dream” (Rowe). Hollywood aligns itself with the capitalist ideals by portraying Steve Jobs as the man who came from nothing and achieved the so called “American Dream” while other characters, who do not have the same social status as Jobs, are unable to achieve upward mobility. The multiple scenes in Steve Jobs where Jobs’ ex-girlfriend Chrisann Brennan repeatedly pesters him for money manifests this idea. Brennan, who is clearly of a lower class and struggling to get by, is presented as the “mooch” who uses their daughter, Lisa, to benefit from Job’s accumulated wealth while she is cyclically
The film “Inequality for all” directed by Jacob Kornbluth, begins with Robert Reich asking students three questions to consider in a lecture when talking about the uneven distribution of wealth. First, what is happening regarding the distribution of wealth? He then inquires to why this is happening. Last of all, he asks the students if the distribution of wealth is a problem in America. He addresses these questions as well as many others in his lecture on the growing divide between America’s rich and poor. Robert Reich is an economist, author, and educator as well as public policy professor who served in the Ford, Carter and Clinton administration. He has dealt with this particular topic for over three decades and continues to spread his political views as a professor at the University of Berkley. Furthermore, he talks about the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor/middle class. He goes beyond the obvious facts to show us why this is happening and uses statistical data to display this growing problem. He gives concerning evidence that wages are declining, and that America’s weakening economy is based on consumerism.
In the documentary of Jamie Johnson, “Born Rich,” Jamie has interview some rich teenagers who inherited their wealth like him. Johnson ask himself what he ever did to have the life he has having millions of dollar. He says that all he did was inherit it. Johnson says that it is not polite to talk about money. Social inequality for Johnson in this is about the wealth of people.Johnson and the other teenagers were born rich. They had inherited their money from their ancestors. All of them and their families have private properties and millions of money. Rousseau says that “social inequality is a result of privileges and uneven access to resources and will eventually lead to social ills.”(238)
During his education, Sanders met young men “who had assumed from birth that they would lead the lives of comfort and power,” the exact opposite of the boys whom he grew up with. Those boys expected to “work as their fathers had worked,” enduring the adversity that is lower class life. Lower class citizens did not expect to accomplish greatness in life as it seemed “remote and unreal”, they have learned to accept their place in society and chose to not pursue careers and goals that seemed unrealistic. Higher class citizens, however, were born into said greatness. They expected just as much or more from themselves as affluence is what was normal to them. This belief is what motivated them to follow in their fathers’ footsteps to obtain stature and wealth. Furthermore, while both higher and lower class men are expected to provide for his family, that burden is experienced in different degrees. Lower class men shouldered all burdens of the family; they had to bear with exhausting work to make sure that money kept flowing in with lay-offs and unemployment looming over their heads. And when the money troubles do appear, the fathers are “the ones who had failed”, they were the ones to blame. Whereas higher class families never had to worry about money, for the fathers were “never laid off, [and] never short of cash at month’s end.” Fate did not intend for rich men to worry about becoming a bad father or husband, but due to the socioeconomic situation of poorer men, that is all that they can worry about. While both classes of men are fathers and providers of the family, richer men had it easier. In short, this disparity of men’s expected role demonstrate that class decides
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
Wealth inequality did not always exist in human life. In fact, “Human life have not only been changed, but revolutionized, within the past hundred years” (Carnegie 1). There used to be
Society is often broken up into different social groups by their economic status. Those of lower classes believe that their problems will go away if they can gain enough wealth to reach the upper class. Many people believe that the American Dream is this joining of the upper class, and once reaching that point, not having to be concerned about money at all. The logic behind this is that being poor keeps people from being happy, a...
Michael Moore used comical tactics as a way to appeal to his audience in this piece of literature. Michael Moore’s argument is that capitalism is destroying the nation’s economy rather than helping to develop it. The poor are suffering, while the richer are getting richer. The arguments that Moore used may not be considered tangible by all, but he definitely did have the evidence to support his argument. Michael Moore purpose was to expose this ground breaking issue of the dominance of corporate America through video. He used the web source as a source to get his message across because he knew the internet would be accessible to many people. Moore in this film used the different elements of reasoning to identify the message he was sending to his audience.
Another argument that Marx brings out that is relevant in today's society is the distinct class differences. He mentions how 10% of the people have virtually all the property. This is extremely relevant. However, in today's society, wealth is not so much measured by property but by total addition of all one's assets. In the United States today, 20% of the population has 85% of the wealth. This is evidence of the enormous class differences that we experience in today's society, which are comparable to the stratification that Marx emphasizes.
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
Throughout much of history, our world has been divided by financial status in what is more commonly recognized as “classes.” Such classes consist of three, the high, the middle, and the low. Just as humanity is divided into socioeconomic status, so are the views for them. For instance, the high class will always view this division greatly favorable whereas the low will see it as iniquitous. As Orwell says, “ the aim of the high is to remain where they are, the aim of the middle is to change places with the high, and the aim of the low is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.” (pg.201) As a result, such divisions create both positive and negative externalities. For one, they create a variable distinction amongst society due to a standard of comparison being present. Nevertheless, they also construct a culture of equal opportunity in most cases. On the other hand, social classes have also been immensely conducive in creating penury, suffering, and inequitable disadvantages for those of the lower classes. An example of the advantages the high have is simply the freedom of limitations and ramifications, of failure and risk, and freedom to exercise power. In Orwell’s illustration of a society which attempts perfection, the negative externalities for the low class are intelligible. However, just as
Inequality in the United States is an apparent struggle for millions of citizens, regarding the distribution of wealth. Economists debate over this issue every year. What is the solution to inequality and what are its fundamental roots? Thinkers such as Milton Friedman, Coates, and Dr. Kevin Murphy have various prescriptions for inequality. Coates opposes the idea that a free market economy, if left alone, can balance or reduce inequality. Coates sees the current state of the market to be pro white, and sees institutional racism as a platform to promote inequality between minorities and whites. Therefore, a free market without some control would only help marginalize races rather than include minorities as beneficiaries of the economy. On the other hand, Friedman and Dr. Murphy strongly advise government to leave the market to run itself, and in return the market will reach equilibrium in the long run. They give a couple different prescriptions for solving some inherent inequalities in abilities, inherited wealth, and the lottery system.
Henry David Thoreau stated, “Wealth is the ability to truly experience life”. Money opens up new experiences, yet also gives the ability of purchasing wants and needs. Happiness and greed, two opposites, will be affected by social status. Some people say money is the root to all evil, but is that really the case? Although greed is the downfall of possessing riches, money has the ability to create happiness through assessing basic needs, attending all wants, and upholding satisfaction among everyone. By obtaining money, avarice can be avoided through how money is earned and distributed.
The question of “Do you feel that you need a high level of education to attain wealth?” will show how those of different classes, and those with different educations perceive wealth accumulation in this country. By using a representation of all classes, and linking this to their educations, we can garner a quantitative representation of these effects and perceptions about wealth accumulation. We will then have a clearer picture of what this relationship truly
Often, when we consider equal opportunity we tend to focus on the economic aspect of the problem. We gravitate towards the argument that an equal playing field simply means giving everyone a fair chance at the same things. Lost in this conversation, though, is the fact that most of these back and forths involve some type of allocation of money between the oppressed and the privilege that would seem to lessen the gap between socioeconomic groups. In many cases, an influx of capital can solve as a quick fix to the problem at hand, but many times this fails to account for the real roots of the issues with which we find ourselves face to face with. Pierre Bourdieu proposes that there are actually 3 types of capital that all people are endowed with: economic, cultural, and social. Although they are not as easily recognizable, (or maybe don’t receive the attention that they deserve) cultural and social capitals play major roles in
The film I have chosen is “Steve Jobs” a 2015 biography film directed by Danny Boyle and was written by Aaron Sorkin. The entire film spans from 1984 to 1998 of Steve Jobs’ early career into Apple, turning it around from rock bottom to one of the leading technological industries of today. Majority of the film seems to show off the early build of the Macintosh and how it would compete against other computers on the market. While at the same time, it shows the lowest point in Apple’s financial career and one of their highest points as well. In the early moments of the film, Steve Jobs hustling with his crew to get his first Macintosh demo up and working in front of the press, while at the same time dealing with family issues with his ex-girlfriend