Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
government intervention in free market economy
significance of state intervention in the economy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: government intervention in free market economy
The dominant economic paradigm in American thought has always placed a strong emphasis on efficiency, and concomitant concepts such as individualism and autonomy. A corollary to this thinking is that the individual is dynamic and efficient whereas the government is an ossifying bureaucracy, resistant to change and anathema to efficiency. The individual is the creator of wealth; the government is the parasitic redistributionary usurper that feeds upon this wealth. This aversion to government assistance and oversight of the economy has had dramatic and substantive effects on our nation’s social structure and welfare system. By maintaining a “laissez-faire” approach to the market, workers have been subject to the many vagaries an unregulated market unleashes; such as unemployment and slow wage growth. Inflation, slower wage growth, and deregulation have led to economic chasms separating the richest from the poorest, but instead of the federal government trying to vigorously assist the less fortunate, it has actually grown stingier and more averse to helping. The politicians routinely speak of the positive effects of finding a job; as if America’s poverty would dissipate if the poor would simply find an entry-level position. But the government’s failure in ameliorating the harm caused by slow wage growth prevents catechisms such as “find a job” from being the panacea politician’s promise.
Observing several indicators of the American labor market creates an unusual and frustrating picture of wage growth and its impact on American workers. Four seemingly disparate graphs and statistics, when viewed concurrently, paints a revealing picture. Firstly, according to a comparative study of welfare systems, “…when people of prime working age who had been depending primarily on public transfer income shift into paid labor, they get fully 43 percent more money on average in the US” (Goodin 139-140). One gets the initial impression that “work” is the necessary corrective for poverty. However, another finding in the same study claims that “…median equivalent income increased by between 15 and 16 per cent in Germany and the Netherlands, respectively, it increase only just 1 per cent in the U.S……the U.S…also does far worse at promoting economic well being for average citizens” (Goodin 130). These two statistics, when viewed together, are troubling. Real income growth was only one percent for the average family; less than the average growth of inflation. However, despite this abysmal growth, moving from welfare to work still leads to a 43 percent jump in earned income: these statistics show that our redistributed income is paltry, not that wages are getting stronger.
Why should we be the ones to pay for someone to sit around at home? The answer is one simple word, welfare. There are many reasons why people mooch on welfare, rather than going out and working. The only jobs these people are qualified for are minimum wage jobs. As Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Nickel and Dimed, worked at minimum wage paying jobs and reported the hardships that people had to go through on a day-to-day basis. A critic responded by saying, “This is simply the case of an academic who is forced to get a real job…” Ehrenriech’s reasoning for joining the working-class is to report why people who mite be on welfare, continue to stay on welfare. Her reports show there are many hardships that go along with minimum waged jobs, in the areas of drug abuse, fatigue, the idea of invisibility, education and the American Dream.
The United States is known for having a free-enterprise economy where a business can be conducted freely without government involved. In free-enterprise economies, goods and services are traded openly and are produced depending on the demand. People who support this type of economy believe it motivates businesses to make money and welcome new ideas. An important part of the economy is to have full employment and low inflation.
Welfare reform caused many families surviving with the help of the government to go out and look for jobs despite their need for childcare that they could not afford. Barbara Ehrenreich, a journalist with a PhD, decided to find out what life would be like living on minimum wage labor. During her journey, we see that labor has not changed majorly because laborers are not paid fairly and they are declining their rights. Although women are allowed in the workplace, an eight hour work day is established, and we have a minimum wage, many are still struggling to make it because the system simply does not work unless you are running the show. Her journey begins as she begins applying at many places in Key West, Florida, where she lives.
The morality of social welfare systems, or the morality of crafting laws to aid American citizens in poverty, is a subject that (like myriad ethical issues) is hotly debated to say the least. For example, some opponents of social welfare institutions maintain the view that such programs "increase the reward or reduce the penalties" of poverty; thereby ostensibly making an impoverished state appealing even to people who might initially have been motivated to earn a living by conventional means. In other words, welfare programs (according to opponents) encourage otherwise productive individuals to embrace laziness, for basic human needs would be met by such institutions, eliminating the need to work at all. Those opposed to social welfare plans have also been known to claim that an "unfair burden is placed upon workers who must pay for the system." When one considers the above opposing views, it would then stand to reason that proponents of social welfare programs might maintain that it is the moral responsibility of working citizens to provide assistance and funding for programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the Food Stamp program, or the like. This supposition is confirmed upon examination of the notion that, when basic human needs such as "food, housing, and medical care" are not met, one is consequently rendered unable to uphold any level of social freedom. Given the above information, one can safely deduce that modern supporters of social welfare organizations are under the impression that such programs provide the impoverished masses with the means by which to obtain the level of general well-being vital to acquiring work in the first place.
Wilhelm, Heather “The Great Income Inequality Sham” Real Clear Politics. May 2013. Web. 29 Apr 2014.
The most often cited cause of the decline of the middle class in the United States is stagnant wages. Between 1955 and 1970, real wages adjusted and inflation rose by an average of 2.5 percent per year. Between 1971 and 1994, the average growth of real wages was 0.3 percent a year. The stagnation of wages has been especially noticeable to middle-class people, who rely very much on the money they make at their jobs. Recessions seem to hit higher income households much harder, which sends them down to the middle class. Middle-income households may or may not be more likely than higher-income households to qualify for unemployment compensation when jobs are scarce. But those who do are more likely than high-income households to receive benefits that replace a greater share of their regular wages, which helps them maintai...
One would expect that social equality would just be the norm in society today. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Three similar stories of how inequality and the hard reality of how America’s society and workforce is ran shows a bigger picture of the problems American’s have trying to make an honest living in today’s world. When someone thinks about the American dream, is this the way they pictured it? Is this what was envisioned for American’s when thinking about what the future held? The three authors in these articles don’t believe so, and they are pretty sure American’s didn’t either. Bob Herbert in his article “Hiding from Reality” probably makes the most honest and correct statement, “We’re in denial about the extent of the rot in the system, and the effort that would be required to turn things around” (564).
While many believe that social welfare in the United States began with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal plan, the first American movement towards welfare came from a different Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt. He stated in his New Nationalism address that “every wise struggle for human betterment” objectives are “to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity... destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and the commonwealth” (Roosevelt). Behind such a speech with charged language about democracy and fundamental equality, Roosevelt was instituting welfare programs such as limiting word days, setting a minimum wage for women, social insurance for the elderly and disabled, unemployed social insurance, and a National Health Service. After his proposal came Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom initiative, FDR’s aforementioned New Deal, John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society (Historical Development). While social welfare is steeped in America’s history, there is a very contemporary debate on its effectiveness and ethicality. People argue that the reason welfare has such a long history in America is because it helps people get out of poverty, equalizes opportunities, reduces crime, and helps children; in essence, that welfare works. Many in opposition to welfare disagree, citing that the system creates a culture of dependence, is easily abused, hurts the middle class and costs the government too much on a system that isn’t wholistically addressing the needs of the American people.
The main ideal that keeps public policy in America extremely limited compared to other democracies is the desire for less government, a more limited government. The strong American beliefs in individualism and equality result in this desire for limited government, and thus limited public policy. American government programs are much less ambitious than those of other industrialized democratic nations. Programs in health, welfare, housing, transportaion, and many other areas are much smaller and less ambitious (Kingdon: 44). This is a direct result of the American desire for limited government. Americans don't want large programs in these areas because they more or less fear big government and believe it is inefficient and wasteful. Americans lean towards a desire for equal oppurtunity as opposed to equal results, and thus believe government should stay clear and let people either succeed or fail on their own. They believe that successful individuals are simply the ones who achieved more with the opportunities they were given, and that it's the job of the government to keep these opportunities equal for all, and not its job to see that everyone ends up successful. By taking the focus away from equality of results, America has become the victim of large income disparities as compared to other countries. In 1990, American households in the top decile of the income distribution had disposable incomes that were nearly six times greater than households in the bottom decile. Most other large industrialized countries showed upper incomes o...
...th what little they have, however; why is it left to the poor to have to suffer the consequences of these political choices. The persistence of extreme poverty and social ills speak to a situation that bears for a different approach. It is clear that capitalism and free market solutions cannot spread wealth as advocated. American governments have shown their reluctance to admit this discrepancy through the strategic creations of welfare policies and welfare reform coupled with placing blame upon the citizens who possess little power to change market decisions that govern and effect their lives.
Recently Roosevelt’s Social Welfare Program has become a topic of heated debate. Welfare has come a long way since Roosevelt, it was once a system that help those in need until they could get back on their feet, now welfare has turned into a system that feeds money to a group of people that have become to lazy to find work. Talk of replacing the old system with a welfare program that will emphasize putting welfare recipients to work has become very frequent. More and more stated are now beginning to adopt a “welfare-to-work” program, leaving other states to simply ponder about the idea of “taking people off the system.” Those in favor of welfare reform argue that a welfare-to-work program will cut the amount of people on welfare causing a surplus of funds. These people base their idea on the overwhelming success of those states who have already adopted such a program. Nationwide, welfare caseloads have declined significantly since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. In the few months since the bill went into effect the amount of welfare caseloads are down by approximately 2 million. Figures also show that Alabama reduced its welfare enrollment by 48%, and Indiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee reduced theirs by 49%. In Wisconsin welfare was reduced by 58% and Wyoming’s cases dropped an amazing 73% (Source: Dept.
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...
“In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to the Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:14). Jesus reiterates that the people of God should strive to bring glory through their actions to God so that their light shines and all the nations can be blessed. We see in Matthew that Jesus preforms many miracles, and is able to bless many people through them. “And in his name the Gentiles will hope” (Matthew 12:21). This verse, along with the ones before it, from the prophet Isaiah, explain why Jesus healed the crippled man; Jesus’s miracle will bring hope to the Gentiles. This hope to the Gentiles brings God to all nations, as part of the global restoration
Gandhi entered into the movement against Britain in the early 1900s and immediately became nationally recognized for his non-violent way of civil resistance. Gandhi’s life and movement became an inspiration to millions and his mission was one that became ideal to follow. Gandhi was able to unite a divided country using the key characteristic of a charismatic leader, the ability to communicate and become identifiable. The country was divided through religion (Hindu and Muslim), and were united through Gandhi’s peaceful seeking of the relinquishment of the Britain occupation of India. Gandhi won approval for his principle of non-violent civil protests which led him to achieve political and social progress. He completely transformed the Indian National Congress with peaceful boycotts of British goods and institutions ("Charisma of mahatma," 2012).
Unfortunately, there are many Americans out of work in today’s current declining economy. Unemployment can be defined as a person who is out of work involuntary, not by choice. These people are looking jobs and available to start work. Being unemployed can be disheartening and deciding what the next step is can be challenging. Underemployed can be described as being inadequately employed, such as a low-paying job that requires fewer skills than one possess. (Daly, Hobijn, and Kwok 2015) Making ends meet can be difficult for one who has been affected by this economy over the past few years. America still has a high unemployment rate since the decline of the current job market. And many Americans are struggling to establish the skills needed for employment, or the underemployed are force to lower they skill to make a profit. America’s economic status has force the underemployed and unemployed to make ends meet with the current jobs available. And last but not least some have also utilized these difficult times to venture into new discoveries to make life hassle free. So, we wonder is Americans giving up in today’s economy or do they settle for lower end job to establish a steady income to make ends.