Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Sociological view of poverty
Sociological view of poverty
Impact of social class
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Sociological view of poverty
There is an interesting phenomenon that could be found in almost every aspect of our society. The good get better and the bad get worse. It seems that people will attain more and more in their way once they choose their way. For an analogy, if a person gets on a train in certain direction, he will get farther and farther on his way and he can hardly change his direction or position.
The Pareto principle, also known as the eighty-twenty rule, states that in many of the phenomena 80% of the results come from 20% of causes. For instance, 80% of a company’s profit comes from its 20% of programs, and 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of criminals.
In economics, there also exists this imbalance phenomenon. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The top 20% of population owns the 80% of all wealth. The distribution of wealth is unequal.
There are many theories that could help to explain this phenomenon, philosophically, sociologically, or economically.
In Thomas Piketty’s book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the author thinks that the return on capital is higher than the rate of economic growth, except the World War II period (Piketty). Accumulated and inherited wealth takes larger part in overall economy. Over time, the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer. This is a part of the results of capitalism. This viewpoint is showed in the following picture (see fig. 1).
Fig. 1. After tax rate of return vs. growth rate at the world level, from Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belknap Press. 2014. Print.
However, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) refutes Piketty’s viewpoint. AEI thinks that though Piketty did his calculation with the post-tax income, he did not ca...
... middle of paper ...
...post-tax return of wealth of the different groups of rich people from 1990 to 2012 (see fig. 10). This figure shows that all of the rich groups tend to have the same return of wealth. The presupposition of Zipf’s law applies. By this time, the wealth distribution of the whole society would go back to power law distribution. The proportion of wealth held by the richest population goes up rapidly. Conversely, the proportion of wealth held by the rest of the population goes down gradually. The poor get poorer accordingly.
The consequences of wealth inequality are severe. It damages the harmony of the whole society. It could cause poorer health, lower educational attainment, high crime rates, and lower trust of government, According an article on the Huffington Post (Friedman). Government needs to find solutions to solve the inequality problem before it is too late.
3. What are the effects of this wealth inequality in the US and what causes it, as well as some possible solutions and their ramifications, will all be discussed and answered below. There has always been a wealth gap between the richest and poorest in society. However, in the past decade, the wealth gap between the richest and poorest citizens in the US has been growing rapidly. In the 70s and 80s, the wealth and income growth rate for both poor and rich people were similar, however, between the years 2009 and 2012 the top 1% income increased 31% while for the bottom 20%, their income actually dropped and for the vast majority of Americans, the average yearly income only increased by 0.4% [4].
Basically, these two ideas, the idea of naturally created equality and the idea of inevitable inequalities of wealth turned out to be very logical and harmonious. The inequalities of wealth are finally the result from the natural law and state in which men were first born in.
Andrew Carnegie stated that the problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth and his opinion precisely reflects the real situation. Because it can be observed throughout history of human beings that usually majority was in such poverty, which barely enables them to survive. Carnegie was one of the richest men in the world of his times and maybe he knew as a successful businessman what the actual problem in distribution of wealth is. He has proposed possible solution of beneficial wealth distribution for this problem and it actually might work in his times. However, economy has changed compared with Carnegie’s times and it has become more global as lots of technological innovations were implemented. Robert Reich described current global economy in his work titled “Why the rich are getting richer, and the poor, poorer” where Carnegie’s solution may not properly work. The Carnegie’s solution may not properly work taking into account the obstacles such as increase of competition, permanent work in business and ageing population. Nevertheless, this means that only possibility of success of solution decreases, therefore it is not sensible to infer that the solution will not work at all.
There are many speculations as to why this is so. Some blame poverty or lack of opportunity.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Wilhelm, Heather “The Great Income Inequality Sham” Real Clear Politics. May 2013. Web. 29 Apr 2014.
Between 2009 and 2012, income gains by the top one percent increased by over 30 pe...
“The world holds enough to satisfy everyone’s need but not everyone’s greed,” Mahatma Gandhi once astutely observed. In a few carefully chosen words, Gandhi pointed out the reason behind economic tension. For example, “Poverty, hunger, homelessness, illiteracy, preventable disease, polluted air and water, and most of the other ills that beset humanity have the same root cause: the inequitable distribution of the planet's wealth and resources” (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, All social and economic problems caused by an unfair distribution of wealth). Additionally, our economic system—unregulated capitalism—advocates and defends a wantonly unequal distribution of wealth. For instance in 2010, “The top 400 people (.0000013% of the population) held more wealth than the bottom 60% combined” (Brian Rogel, Unequal Distribution of Wealth). The top 1 percent has grown richer while inversely affecting the general population. “From 1983-2009 the bottom 60% have had a decrease in both their perce...
...ment, income inequality will exist due to the rise of some economically successful people and the further development of factors that push people into poverty. Although it may not seem fair that there are rich people blowing money on impractical and meaningless things while people live in poverty, it’s a reality that the United States has experienced for centuries.
Hart Research Associates, 2010. Reich, Robert. “Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor Poorer.” The Work of Nations.
“Why the Rich are getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer” written by Robert Reich, describes as the title says, why the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer. In Reich’s essay he delves into numerous reasons and gives examples of each. It makes one wonder if the world will continue on the path of complete economic separation between the rich and the poor.
There were many theories that promotes and explains how the capitalist system works; however, Karl Marx’s Capital is the first one that can explain the imminent relationship between poverty and wealth, inequality and growth under capitalism. ...
Wealth inequality is the uneven distribution of resources in a given state or population, which can also be called the wealth gap. The sum of one’s total assets excluding the liabilities equates the person’s wealth also known as the net worth. Investments, residents, cash, real estates and everything owned by an individual are their assets.In reality, the United States is among the richest countries in the world, though a few people creating a major gap between the richest, the middle class and the poor control most of its wealth. For more than a quarter of a century, only the rich American families have shown an increase to their net worth.Thisis a worrying fact for the less fortunate in the country and calls for assessment (Baranoff, 2015).
If income inequality continues to grow, the economy will break down. For example, if the housing price continues to rise because of the rich people, poor people will not have a place to live since they cannot afford to buy these expensive houses. When this happens, it will create another housing bubble because the houses are not worth buying, which means the market value of the house exceeds the house’s value; therefore, nobody will buy the house including the riches since they already have houses to live. Moreover, poor people do not believe they can get access to wealth because they cannot afford anything, and they cannot afford the tuition fees for a good education, which is the traditional route to success.
The theories of David Ricardo, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and later, Karl Marx, in the 18th and 19th century built on these views of wealth that we now call classical economics and Marxist economics. Michel Foucault commented that the concept of Man as an aggregate did not exist before the 18th century. The shift from the analysis of an individual's wealth to the concept of an aggregation of all men is implied in the concepts of political economy and then economics. This transition took place as a result of a cultural bias inherent in the Enlightenment. Wealth was seen as an objective fact of living as a human being in a society. Some people believe wealth is a zero-sum game, where there is a limited amount of wealth and some must lose in order for others to gain. As a result they are concerned primarily with issues of wealth distribution rather than wealth creation. Others believe that wealth can be readily created. They feel that wealth is not a fixed amount to be distributed. To most of these people, organizing a society so as to optimize the growth of wealth is more important than distribution issues. Many of these people believe in some version of the trickle-down theory in which newly created wealth "trickles down" to all strata of society, thereby making the question of distribution mute.
Poor people are filled with hope and the desire to help others that are in need of