This video I watched in my social
analysis class, demonstrates the income inequality/opportunity in America and
the major income disparity between the rich and the poor. In an equal society
the wealth in America would be divided equally between the 5 classes in
America- lower class, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, and
upper class. However, that is not at all what our wealth distribution looks
like. Instead the upper class has 52% of the wealth, the upper middle class has
20%, the middle class has 14%, the lower middle has 10%, and the lower class
has 5% of the wealth. This, although uneven, makes sense that the upper class
would have more wealth than the lower classes. What is not fair, however, is
how hard upward mobility is in our society. In a perfect world, it would not
matter which social class you were born into; you would have the same chance of
making it to the upper class as anyone else. This is not the society we live
in. instead, only 1 in 10 born into the lower class have a chance of making it
into the upper class. The video goes on to explain how certain factors make it even
more difficult to obtain social mobility. I really recommend watching this video so you
can see it all visually displayed.
This video remained me of our
discussion of Locke’s views on property. I immediately thought of the quote by
him that property is “for the industrious and rational, not the quarrelsome and
contentious.” If you work hard you will have a lot of property and possessions,
so if you are poor that just means you are lazy. I think this is the way a lot
of people think. Many come to America for the “American Dream” and believe if
you put in the hard work you will have a good, financially successful life.
While that once may have been the case, it is not in today’s society. As that
video demonstrated the upper class have a monopoly on the wealth in America.
Someone who works a 40-hour workweek, but is only making minimum wage still may
be living in poverty. Although they may spend most of their day working they
still may not even be able to afford a roof over their head. They also have
only a 1 in 10 chance of moving upward in class. How would John Lock feel about
today’s unfair wealth distribution and the fact that someone may work as hard
as they can, but still be living be below the poverty line and struggling to
survive?
Hyla,
ReplyDeleteDo you think that this is a point in favor of Rousseau's view of being 'tricked' with domination and of 'real' property vs. what many powerful people claim is property?
I do believe that this is a point in favor of Rousseau's view the rich men using their strength to their advantage by using it to trick everyone against them. Rousseau said The powerful convince themselves of, “…a sort of right to another’s goods – equivalent, according to them, to the right of property.” The rich believe because they have the money they should be entitled to anything they can get with it. Rousseau relates more closely to the ideas of socialism rather than capitalism. He would rather have a system in which people could not just use their wealth to buy private property. Instead that it was equal. Clearly today, however, we are in a capitalist society and as a result have such a high wealth inequality.
DeleteI think Locke would still see our society today as unfair because although he states that nature is abundant and that it was made for us to be industrious he also says that man is entitled to his labor. In other words, man should reap what they sow and in our society today that is simply not that case. Locke also thinks that man is entitled to what he needs but is not entitled to more so the fact that the wealth gap is so big and the upper class has 52% of the wealth is condemnable. According to Locke, property gives us the ability to enact our freedom, therefore, the lower class does not have the freedom/liberty it should have based on how our society functions today.
ReplyDeleteI think Rousseau would have seen this as apart of being tricked. I believe much of the wealth attained by the upper class is because of property. Rousseau was totally against property and the consequences of it. He believed that property created greed and competition. I think he was right in this analysis. Property has only further separated our society in America and allowed for more greed and corruption to occur within business in America.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the above comments, especially when it comes to the large gap between upper class and lower class. The fact that the upper class controls most of the money and property in the US has gotten to the point that social mobility is much harder to achieve than in the past. Locke would definitely see this as unfair, since he believes that property should give man what he needs, but man is not entitled to more property than he needs. However, in the United States, some men have property but are still not able to earn enough to live comfortably, while others have an abundance of property and wealth that they are not willing to share.
ReplyDeleteI think that at the time Locke was writing property equaled wealth while today wealth is so much more not to mention more complicated. We have become an increasingly materialistic and egotistical society and I think that these play a role in the wealth gap. In Locke's day if you had property you would at least try to help those who didn't. Now we see people on the street begging for money and we turn away. I agree with Briona that the sounds alarmingly like Rousseau's belief that the powerful trick the weak. As well as him realizing that property has created greed and high levels of competition among everyone. Again leading to a materialistic and egotistical society.
ReplyDelete