Victoria T. 1. The problem being addressed in this article is the widening wealth gap between the top one percent and the rest of the country. This is a social problem because as income inequality in this country increases, the amount of opportunities for those who don’t make up the one percent shrinks. People have less of a chance to move up the social ladder. As the wealthy become richer, the poor get left behind and the gap they have to cover in order to improve their economic status becomes larger. As the wealthy get richer, the middle class begins to shrink as less and less people are finding it possible to achieve the American Dream. In order to better gain a better understanding of this problem, you can apply Blumer’s Model. Many of us have noticed that income inequality is being talked about more often. By using Blumer’s Model you can see how this social problem is being brought to the forefront. The first stage is social recognition or the change from a personal trouble into a public issue. With the widening wealth gap the poor are the first ones to be affected as they are already at the bottom and the rest of society believes that the damages are applicable only to them because they already didn’t have the necessary resources to begin with. However, as the middle class has begun to see how much more difficult it’s been for them to achieve new levels of wealth, all of a sudden society begins to notice the severity of the problem as even people who have the resources and education to improve their lives are finding it difficult to achieve that new level of wealth. The second stage is social legitimation as income inequality is finally being viewed as a serious issue. In the article, President Obama talks about the issue and is mentioned as having addressed the problem during some of his speeches. Advocacy groups have been created that research the inequality trend and advocate reducing these inequalities. The Third Stage, mobilization for action, includes groups concerned with the issue to take action. Unions have been calling on an increase in minimum wage in order to help those in the lower classes. The fourth stage is what needs to be worked on. Today there is no effective law that helps lessen the wealth margin.
2. A functionalist would address income inequality as a social stratification. They believe that not everyone in society should be equal, as inequality is necessary for social order. Those who have high levels of wealth would be justified by a functionalist as being more important to society, therefore a higher income is expected. Someone like Bill Gates is more important to society than a fast food worker because of what they offer society. Individuals who make up the one percent are seen as deserving of their income because they have characteristics like educational attainment and intelligence that has allowed them to build what they have. A functionalist would also say that the increasing lower class is necessary for society. Poverty creates jobs for the middle class in areas like health and social work. The fact that poverty rates are increasing is due to society getting better as a whole, making advancements in technology which makes the lower class obsolete.
3. I think that more steps need to be taken in order to try and lessen the wealth gap between the one percent and the rest of the nation. I commented on this specific topic because it’s an issue that affects a lot of us as college students. You go to college expecting that when you graduate you will be able to obtain a job that will help you live comfortably while working in something you like. However, more and more people are finding upward mobility difficult and can’t realize dreams of building a better future for themselves than their parents were able to offer. I think one solution to this problem would be raising taxes on the wealthy. The gap won't decrease when you have the rich paying a smaller percentage in taxes than the general public. They should be subject to pay the same percentage that everyone else pays.
Sarah K. 1. The issue that is being discussed in this article is the increase in the wealth gap and how it is difficult to properly define what that gap actually is because of how we fail to define wealth and income. With this widening gap, it makes it so that the wealthier 10 percent of the nation has at least half of the country's income. This is a huge issue because it means that the economy has become too unbalanced to properly care for the bottom 90 percent. It's as if you have ten kids eating two pizzas and one of those pizzas goes to only one of those kids while the other pizza is shared unevenly among the remaining nine kids. Some of those kids are going to starve while the others have too much to eat because the distribution is so uneven. That's essentially what's happening to our economy. With application of Spector and Kitsuse's Four Stages of Identifying Social Problems, we see that the issue of the wealth gap has moved into stage 2, the legitimization stage, which is when the social problem starts being handled in a formalized manner. We can see that from the fact that President Obama addressed the issue in a speech. Not much has been done to say we've moved into stage 3, conflict stage, because no major formal response has been made to change the system.
2. From a conflict theorist's perspective, this probably wasn't seen as an actual problem up until recently. For a social problem to exist in the eyes of a conflict theorist, a group of people must feel that their interests are not being met. Within this issue, that interest is the ability to survive and the ability to have basic needs as well as the ability to better your situation. As Obama was quoted in this article, the wealth gap "has jeopardized middle class America's basic bargain that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead". Since another conflict theorist view is that everyone must understand their place in society before they can change it, this really leads to the fact that a large chunk of the middle class, most of the poor, and the entirety of the impoverished do not have the power to change their situation and they know that. So change is in the hands of those with more money who are the same people causing this issue. Conflict theorists love a good struggle, so determining a solution to this issue from this perspective is a challenge. However, power is defined differently by conflict theorists. Power to them is the ability to do whatever you want want because no amount of oppression can stop you from achieving your goals. So is a revolution the solution since society's definition of power is determined by wealth and prestige and not by the amount of avidity of a group of people? Well, the view of what power is even conflicts amongst conflict theorists (which, if you ask me, is ironic and hilarious). I believe that they'd want a revolution led by someone in financial and political power. Someone who has a better shot at influencing lawful change.
3. Honestly, I chose this topic because I always hear my dad complaining about this exact issue so I more or less have an idea of how it is emotionally affecting middle class. I think one of the better solutions for this issue is to pass laws on limiting the income of political figures and military heads as well as some occupations. It would allow companies and the government to raise income for lesser employees and more evenly distribute the wealth.
Eric K. 1. The social problem being discussed in this article is the increasing gap of income and wealth between the richest in the country and everyone below that. Some people may believe that the rich are entitled to their money because they earned it. However, with the rich only getting richer, what opportunities do the people below them have to change their socio economic status? It seems to me that if this social problem continues the middle class will slowly start to disappear and the country will eventually be divided into two; rich or poor. As the article states, wealth and income is not distributed fairly at all. The top 1% of American families have had an increase in percentage of all U.S. income while the remaining 90% has less than half of America’s income. Also, the richest 20% own about 89% of America’s wealth. What does that leave for the other 80%? This problem can be applied to Blumer’s four stage model of recognizing social problems. Social recognition is the first stage, which we have definitely passed. Society is aware of the uneven distribution of wealth. The second stage is social legitimization. This is the stage in which the social problem is recognized by the larger community. We’ve also reached this stage. President Obama himself mentions how this is a threat to the middle class in one of his speeches. The final two stages are mobilization for action, and development and implementation of an official plan. We’re yet to reach stage four which would produce some type of plan or law that would lessen the wealth/income gap or at least stop the gap from increasing. 2. A functionalist perspective is macro-level meaning that it looks at society as a whole system. A functionalist would say that the inequality of wealth and income is normal in a society where the division of labor is organic. In order for the poor, middle, and upper class to exist there must be a top 1%. A functionalist is big on social norms and avoiding anomie because they believe anomie leads to more social problems. Durkheim, being a functionalist theorist, believed the solution to avoiding anomie is to slow down the pace of social change and to keep social norms strong. A functionalist views an individual as a part of society and believe each individual must play a role in the functions of our society. For every million dollar home, there must be a gardener to maintain the lawn. A functionalist would argue that gaps and inequality in income is normal, and would state that people’s education level and occupation is what earns them more income. Without different levels of society or the different occupations and social classes, our society cannot maintain stability. 3. I chose this topic because it breaks my heart knowing there are people in our society that are in that top 1% and yet there are children living in poverty. My opinion on this specific topic is somewhat split. I do understand that people work hard their whole lives, get an education, and have every right to enjoy their wealth. However, I do also believe that the gap is increasing at an unhealthy rate and that it’s becoming too big to sustain. There should be some type of limit on income and wealth distribution. There has to be some type of median where the richest in the country can still be the richest, the middle class can still be healthy middle class, but the amount of people living in poverty decreases. I can’t really think of an ideal perfect world where poverty doesn’t exist. But I do think over time, we can achieve a world where the percentage of people in poverty decreases, while the rich are still rich. Each human deserves to at least go to sleep at night in some type of shelter rather than the streets. Parents should be able to feed their children comfortably and not worry about how they’ll make it by the next day. I think a solution to this problem may be to make some type of law on how much income you can make. We can call it the glass ceiling of income.
Siranush M. 1. The social problem that is discussed is gap between income inequalities in the US. The top 1% of American families had 20.9 percent of all income in the U.S. and by 2012, which is the most recent numbers, that had risen to 22.5 percent. The bottom 90 percent, they had almost 52 percent of the national income in 2008. . The richest 20 percent of the U.S. families own 88.9 percent of all wealth in country, whereas the highest earning 20 percent of all U.S. families earned 59.1 percent of all income. Only about half of Americans are exposed to the stock market either directly or through their retirement accounts. The people who are most benefiting from the run-up in the stock market are the ones are already at the top of the distribution anyway. 2. According to conflict theory, inequality exists because those in control of a disproportionate share of society’s resources actively defend their advantages. While the United States is purportedly a nation that values principles of equality, egalitarianism, meritocracy, hard work, and the pursuit of the "American Dream," the U.S. also has a very high level of economic and social inequality. This extreme inequality in the level of power and wealth that currently exist in the United States exemplifies the central themes of conflict theory, namely that there is a competition for power between classes. The implications of this large disparity in wealth between social classes in the United States includes many disadvantages for those in the lower classes. 3. I chose this topic as it is common for everyday life. On the other hand, it is very harmful to know that there is so much difference between incomes, that only 1% owns more than 52 of the national income. The Solution for this problem would be to focus on the real problem – Redistribution doesn’t expand wealth, it only shuffles it and it exacts a price on the future. The focus on income inequality serves only the ideological prejudices and political aims of proponents, while throwing more obstacles in front of growth and job creation. Help the middle class. The movement won’t do anything to help the huge middle class, which is losing ground. Don’t pit Americans against each other in a fight certain to make losers of all of us.
Narineh D. In Respond to Eric K. 1. I agree with Eric that as income inequality increases in our society, our country is going to divide between rich and poor causing the middle class to disappear. The distribution of wealth is not fair between poor and rich because there are some policies that help rich people to keep their wealth for themselves. For example, most of the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do, and this is one reason that the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically. I chose to write on Eric comment because I like the way that he discussed about this issue and brought realistic examples when he wrote about the functionalist perspective. This is a social problem because as the gap gets wider the structure of the society gets affected. By disappearing of the middle class, the bridge that connects rich and poor will be collapse and this going to affect the next generation way of thinking. They are going to lose their empathy and they become selfish people. The rich become greedier and they going to find ways in order to protect their money and collect more wealth. In contrast, the poor become oppressed and they going to have survival mentality. 2. An interactionalist theorist would say that people have different interpretation of the power and wealth; therefore, society starts labeling people based on their understanding of wealth. For example, in the United States because of the capitalist economic system, people define power and wealth by the amount of money that you have in your bank account. Therefore, the amount of the money that you have defines your status in the society. Based on Erving Goffman “Dramaturgy” perspective, people are like actors that are playing on stage every day. Rich people play the role of rich and the poor play the role of poor but in the back stage all of them are human with the same equal right to live on this planet. For this reason, we the people are the ones who define and divided our society into these two groups. On the other hand, an interactionalist also would say that because of this inequality gap between rich and poor, people are going to lose their connection with each other. According to Herbert Mead “taking the role of the other” theory, through interaction with others, people begin to develop an identity about who they are, as well as empathy for others. By widening the gap between rich and poor, they cannot understand the other group situation. For example, rich people may say homeless people are lazy, who are dependent on government and they don’t want to work and change their condition. Why should I pay more tax to protect those lazy people? 3. I think Eric solution is going to be realistic if we live in communist society, but in our society which the system is capitalist, the government can’t put limit for their income. Because the government itself depends on those wealthy people income. In my opinion the solution is to break down the barriers between rich and poor societies. If these two groups communicate with each other and get out of their comfort zone, they can understand the other side’s situation and they may be able to make some policies in order to help the other group. for instance, having meeting every month with each other and discuses about their problems and make some programs that will help both groups.
1.I agree with my peer that income inequality is a social issue that is affecting citizens in this country. The wealth and income gap in this country has been a trending topic as of late and can be seen as something that divides this country into those who are poor ad those who are rich. My peer applied the four stages of identifying a social problem into her argument and stated that we are in the second stage, where an official response is given by officials due to pressure from the citizens. Though, I do think that there has been somewhat of a reaction to the official responses, meaning that we have been somewhat in the third stage. An example might be the occupy movements that happened in late 2011. The occupy movement protesters were protesting against income inequality, claiming that they were the 99 percent of the population, opposed to the one percent who hold most of the nation’s wealth. So even though there is a response to the problem, it doesn’t mean that problem will end. I chose to comment on this entry because the thing that stood out to me when reading the entry was the analogy of distribution of pizzas among the kids. I think income inequality is one of America’s biggest problems because while the top income earners in the country are able to continue and climb the income ladder the countries lower income earners remain in the same spot.
2.From an Interactionist’s perspective they would see this problem from a micro level approach. They would look at how individual interactions between people influence their behavior and how these interactions can impact society. An example might be some interaction between a boss of a big company and a worker of that company. The difference of social roles between the two is apparent. The boss is a white collar worker making a good income amount while the employee, is a blue collar worker who works paycheck to paycheck. Even though the worker might work more hours and earn less than the boss. The worker might see the boss as someone who doesn’t have to worry about their income and expenses thus creating a sense of inequality.
3.The proposed solution that my peer provided was interesting but can’t be done so easily. The way income inequality can be combated is through providing the amount of opportunities people have to move up the social ladder. Many of the top income earners in the country come from wealthy families who had the money to provide their children with such opportunities. The main opportunities that were provided is education. They had access to proper schooling, technology and training throughout most of their life. The opportunities that most of the children of low income families have seem minimal compared to the opportunities the high income earners have. So with providing proper education to the lower income earners the opportunities given will help lessen the gap. Also statistically there is a correlation between the amount of education someone has to the amount of income they make.
1. I agree with Eric that if the rich keep getting richer, other people will have less of an opportunity to change their social economic status. The article mentions how the richest 20% own about 89% of America's wealth. If the divide between the rich and the poor get any further, there is bound to be civil unrest and a social chaos. What stood out from what Eric wrote was that he isn't saying that the rich shouldn't be rich. They are entitled to that wealth. I also believe this. People who worked hard all their lives are entitled but I believe other people should be given the benefits of a healthy lifestyle at least. We, the 99%, make the 1% rich. We deserve happiness and to live stress free. With the amount of money that the 1% have, they can help so many people and it wouldn't even leave a dent in their wealth. I chose to comment on this peer's entry because he believes in putting a type of limit on income and wealth distribution. I also believe this should be the case. There should be a limit. Income inequality is an important topic. Everyone feels it, whether we like to believe it or not. The 99% deserve the ability to free education, free health care, and a healthy living condition. We're not asking the 1% to all give us nice cars, a mansion, or free money. We are willing to work for the money but if we have to work 40 hours a week, sacrifice ten years of our lives to educate ourselves, and barely have the title 'middle class', I think something's wrong and that is why I believe income inequality is a social problem.
2. A conflict theorist would say that that the rich are getting exactly what they want. They know that there is a problem with the poor but it won't ever be a problem to them. The rich will never have to speak to the poor, touch them, or even see them, so they believe they would rather use us like modern slaves. Conflict theorists believe that inequality is systematically created and maintained by power elites and they are trying to preserve their advantage of the system. Conflict theorists also argue that in order for the rich to maintain control over labor, the rich created welfare. Welfare policies suppress protests and enforce submissive work norms.
3. I believe Eric K's idea on limiting income is ideal in a perfect world. But I believe here in America, it would only be possible and realistic if there were a social chaos. There would have to be a war versus the rich and the poor. Right now, the middle and the poor class don't even have the time to do their research in order for them to even comprehend that they are getting used. I don't know the perfect answer to income equality but I think one solution would be to education people. We need to educate society as a whole to overthrow the inequality. I believe many people are uneducated and have fear put in them that if we fight corporations, that we won't be able to survive. I believe education can alleviate a lot of problems in this world and income equality would be one.
1. I totally agree with my peer with the uneven distribution of wealth in the country, which is leaving a lot of tension between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Nowadays wealth and income inequality can’t be defined properly because a lot of people have different views, so that would only mean a lot of answers. I like how Sarah used the interpretation of the pizza (representing wealth) and one kid representing the wealthy percent and the other nine representing the bottom ninety percent of the population. Makes it a clear visual between the uneven distribution of Americas health with one kid keeping an entire pizza to himself and the other nine are left with one to share among themselves, which is what we see in our economy today. Her mentioning the model of Kituse and Spectors also caught my attention because she used it accurately with identifying the problem at stage 2, meaning that this social problem of wealth if getting attention and being “solved” in a formal manner. Although I would have to differ, because the wealth gap is still too huge and I believe that there is not enough action taken from the federal governments part and peoples involvement (although there has been), but if there is, it’s not enough. We the people have to put more pressure as a whole country. I chose to comment on this social problem because it’s been a problem for as long it has existed and the uneven distribution of wealth will not come to an end unless serious action is taken upon by both the federal government and the people. I think the topic is arguable and many people have different approaches to the uneven distribution of wealth among the country. It’s a social problem because corrupt people will be the way they will be and wave around the system to keep profiting and keeping that profit for themselves. They’re not interested in the other ninety percent of the population, why would they be in the first place when they have a lot of money and power for themselves. The problem is with the bourgeoisie, that’s why it’s a social problem, if the powerful wealthy people wouldn't corrupt the system and only have self-interest and care for the rest of the population, then wealth distribution wouldn't be a problem, but it is unfortunately. 2. From a Functionalist perspective, a macro level approach would suite this problem because of society being interrelated parts and more so focusing on the countries social system, in this case the distribution of health in America. A functionalist would take notice that the stability of wealth distribution is way distorted in America and that the distortion of wealth distribution messes up the function of society as a whole because the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poor than what they already were. They would also take in consideration that the activities or actions taken from the wealth are not healthy for the social system, therefore causes dysfunction and disorganization within society. Also they would notice that the top wealthy percent are gesellschaft for primarily being goal orientated and form relationships with others for that sole purpose alone. If the top wealthy families keep most of the country’s wealth, then that leads for the have nots to be in conflict with the system and the function of society as a whole starts messing up. People don’t make enough money and that leads them to doing crimes, stealing, etc. A functionalist would argue that that the social problem starts at the top, and all comes falling down afterwards with the proletariat's “malfunctioning” in society by doing actions they would never do because they don’t make enough due to the unequal distribution of wealth.
Eduardo G. In response to Sarah K. 3. My peers’ solution is realistic and very doable, but the problem would be for those laws to actually be proposed by someone who isn't just for their own self-interest. I like her solution, but very hard to do with our political system nowadays and besides that it has to get lots of support from politicians and people combined to get a lot of attention from others. One of my proposed solution would be a crash on the stock market because a stock market crash would devalue the portfolios of the wealthy, which is great news for the rest of the country. But isn't as realistic. Another solution I would propose is curtailing access to college and postgraduate education. This would increasingly limit the disparities in the market skills that account for income disparities. If the gov’t can stop putting restrictions on college education and higher level postgraduate education, then then the difference in the demand of skills would limit poor people making little money, which makes them live under the poverty line.
9 comments:
Victoria T.
1. The problem being addressed in this article is the widening wealth gap between the top one percent and the rest of the country. This is a social problem because as income inequality in this country increases, the amount of opportunities for those who don’t make up the one percent shrinks. People have less of a chance to move up the social ladder. As the wealthy become richer, the poor get left behind and the gap they have to cover in order to improve their economic status becomes larger. As the wealthy get richer, the middle class begins to shrink as less and less people are finding it possible to achieve the American Dream. In order to better gain a better understanding of this problem, you can apply Blumer’s Model. Many of us have noticed that income inequality is being talked about more often. By using Blumer’s Model you can see how this social problem is being brought to the forefront. The first stage is social recognition or the change from a personal trouble into a public issue. With the widening wealth gap the poor are the first ones to be affected as they are already at the bottom and the rest of society believes that the damages are applicable only to them because they already didn’t have the necessary resources to begin with. However, as the middle class has begun to see how much more difficult it’s been for them to achieve new levels of wealth, all of a sudden society begins to notice the severity of the problem as even people who have the resources and education to improve their lives are finding it difficult to achieve that new level of wealth. The second stage is social legitimation as income inequality is finally being viewed as a serious issue. In the article, President Obama talks about the issue and is mentioned as having addressed the problem during some of his speeches. Advocacy groups have been created that research the inequality trend and advocate reducing these inequalities. The Third Stage, mobilization for action, includes groups concerned with the issue to take action. Unions have been calling on an increase in minimum wage in order to help those in the lower classes. The fourth stage is what needs to be worked on. Today there is no effective law that helps lessen the wealth margin.
2. A functionalist would address income inequality as a social stratification. They believe that not everyone in society should be equal, as inequality is necessary for social order. Those who have high levels of wealth would be justified by a functionalist as being more important to society, therefore a higher income is expected. Someone like Bill Gates is more important to society than a fast food worker because of what they offer society. Individuals who make up the one percent are seen as deserving of their income because they have characteristics like educational attainment and intelligence that has allowed them to build what they have. A functionalist would also say that the increasing lower class is necessary for society. Poverty creates jobs for the middle class in areas like health and social work. The fact that poverty rates are increasing is due to society getting better as a whole, making advancements in technology which makes the lower class obsolete.
3. I think that more steps need to be taken in order to try and lessen the wealth gap between the one percent and the rest of the nation. I commented on this specific topic because it’s an issue that affects a lot of us as college students. You go to college expecting that when you graduate you will be able to obtain a job that will help you live comfortably while working in something you like. However, more and more people are finding upward mobility difficult and can’t realize dreams of building a better future for themselves than their parents were able to offer. I think one solution to this problem would be raising taxes on the wealthy. The gap won't decrease when you have the rich paying a smaller percentage in taxes than the general public. They should be subject to pay the same percentage that everyone else pays.
Sarah K.
1. The issue that is being discussed in this article is the increase in the wealth gap and how it is difficult to properly define what that gap actually is because of how we fail to define wealth and income. With this widening gap, it makes it so that the wealthier 10 percent of the nation has at least half of the country's income. This is a huge issue because it means that the economy has become too unbalanced to properly care for the bottom 90 percent. It's as if you have ten kids eating two pizzas and one of those pizzas goes to only one of those kids while the other pizza is shared unevenly among the remaining nine kids. Some of those kids are going to starve while the others have too much to eat because the distribution is so uneven. That's essentially what's happening to our economy.
With application of Spector and Kitsuse's Four Stages of Identifying Social Problems, we see that the issue of the wealth gap has moved into stage 2, the legitimization stage, which is when the social problem starts being handled in a formalized manner. We can see that from the fact that President Obama addressed the issue in a speech. Not much has been done to say we've moved into stage 3, conflict stage, because no major formal response has been made to change the system.
2. From a conflict theorist's perspective, this probably wasn't seen as an actual problem up until recently. For a social problem to exist in the eyes of a conflict theorist, a group of people must feel that their interests are not being met. Within this issue, that interest is the ability to survive and the ability to have basic needs as well as the ability to better your situation. As Obama was quoted in this article, the wealth gap "has jeopardized middle class America's basic bargain that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead". Since another conflict theorist view is that everyone must understand their place in society before they can change it, this really leads to the fact that a large chunk of the middle class, most of the poor, and the entirety of the impoverished do not have the power to change their situation and they know that. So change is in the hands of those with more money who are the same people causing this issue. Conflict theorists love a good struggle, so determining a solution to this issue from this perspective is a challenge. However, power is defined differently by conflict theorists. Power to them is the ability to do whatever you want want because no amount of oppression can stop you from achieving your goals. So is a revolution the solution since society's definition of power is determined by wealth and prestige and not by the amount of avidity of a group of people? Well, the view of what power is even conflicts amongst conflict theorists (which, if you ask me, is ironic and hilarious). I believe that they'd want a revolution led by someone in financial and political power. Someone who has a better shot at influencing lawful change.
3. Honestly, I chose this topic because I always hear my dad complaining about this exact issue so I more or less have an idea of how it is emotionally affecting middle class. I think one of the better solutions for this issue is to pass laws on limiting the income of political figures and military heads as well as some occupations. It would allow companies and the government to raise income for lesser employees and more evenly distribute the wealth.
Eric K.
1. The social problem being discussed in this article is the increasing gap of income and wealth between the richest in the country and everyone below that. Some people may believe that the rich are entitled to their money because they earned it. However, with the rich only getting richer, what opportunities do the people below them have to change their socio economic status? It seems to me that if this social problem continues the middle class will slowly start to disappear and the country will eventually be divided into two; rich or poor. As the article states, wealth and income is not distributed fairly at all. The top 1% of American families have had an increase in percentage of all U.S. income while the remaining 90% has less than half of America’s income. Also, the richest 20% own about 89% of America’s wealth. What does that leave for the other 80%? This problem can be applied to Blumer’s four stage model of recognizing social problems. Social recognition is the first stage, which we have definitely passed. Society is aware of the uneven distribution of wealth. The second stage is social legitimization. This is the stage in which the social problem is recognized by the larger community. We’ve also reached this stage. President Obama himself mentions how this is a threat to the middle class in one of his speeches. The final two stages are mobilization for action, and development and implementation of an official plan. We’re yet to reach stage four which would produce some type of plan or law that would lessen the wealth/income gap or at least stop the gap from increasing.
2. A functionalist perspective is macro-level meaning that it looks at society as a whole system. A functionalist would say that the inequality of wealth and income is normal in a society where the division of labor is organic. In order for the poor, middle, and upper class to exist there must be a top 1%. A functionalist is big on social norms and avoiding anomie because they believe anomie leads to more social problems. Durkheim, being a functionalist theorist, believed the solution to avoiding anomie is to slow down the pace of social change and to keep social norms strong. A functionalist views an individual as a part of society and believe each individual must play a role in the functions of our society. For every million dollar home, there must be a gardener to maintain the lawn. A functionalist would argue that gaps and inequality in income is normal, and would state that people’s education level and occupation is what earns them more income. Without different levels of society or the different occupations and social classes, our society cannot maintain stability.
3. I chose this topic because it breaks my heart knowing there are people in our society that are in that top 1% and yet there are children living in poverty. My opinion on this specific topic is somewhat split. I do understand that people work hard their whole lives, get an education, and have every right to enjoy their wealth. However, I do also believe that the gap is increasing at an unhealthy rate and that it’s becoming too big to sustain. There should be some type of limit on income and wealth distribution. There has to be some type of median where the richest in the country can still be the richest, the middle class can still be healthy middle class, but the amount of people living in poverty decreases. I can’t really think of an ideal perfect world where poverty doesn’t exist. But I do think over time, we can achieve a world where the percentage of people in poverty decreases, while the rich are still rich. Each human deserves to at least go to sleep at night in some type of shelter rather than the streets. Parents should be able to feed their children comfortably and not worry about how they’ll make it by the next day. I think a solution to this problem may be to make some type of law on how much income you can make. We can call it the glass ceiling of income.
Siranush M.
1. The social problem that is discussed is gap between income inequalities in the US. The top 1% of American families had 20.9 percent of all income in the U.S. and by 2012, which is the most recent numbers, that had risen to 22.5 percent. The bottom 90 percent, they had almost 52 percent of the national income in 2008. . The richest 20 percent of the U.S. families own 88.9 percent of all wealth in country, whereas the highest earning 20 percent of all U.S. families earned 59.1 percent of all income. Only about half of Americans are exposed to the stock market either directly or through their retirement accounts. The people who are most benefiting from the run-up in the stock market are the ones are already at the top of the distribution anyway.
2. According to conflict theory, inequality exists because those in control of a disproportionate share of society’s resources actively defend their advantages. While the United States is purportedly a nation that values principles of equality, egalitarianism, meritocracy, hard work, and the pursuit of the "American Dream," the U.S. also has a very high level of economic and social inequality. This extreme inequality in the level of power and wealth that currently exist in the United States exemplifies the central themes of conflict theory, namely that there is a competition for power between classes. The implications of this large disparity in wealth between social classes in the United States includes many disadvantages for those in the lower classes.
3. I chose this topic as it is common for everyday life. On the other hand, it is very harmful to know that there is so much difference between incomes, that only 1% owns more than 52 of the national income. The Solution for this problem would be to focus on the real problem – Redistribution doesn’t expand wealth, it only shuffles it and it exacts a price on the future. The focus on income inequality serves only the ideological prejudices and political aims of proponents, while throwing more obstacles in front of growth and job creation. Help the middle class. The movement won’t do anything to help the huge middle class, which is losing ground. Don’t pit Americans against each other in a fight certain to make losers of all of us.
Narineh D.
In Respond to Eric K.
1. I agree with Eric that as income inequality increases in our society, our country is going to divide between rich and poor causing the middle class to disappear. The distribution of wealth is not fair between poor and rich because there are some policies that help rich people to keep their wealth for themselves. For example, most of the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do, and this is one reason that the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically. I chose to write on Eric comment because I like the way that he discussed about this issue and brought realistic examples when he wrote about the functionalist perspective. This is a social problem because as the gap gets wider the structure of the society gets affected. By disappearing of the middle class, the bridge that connects rich and poor will be collapse and this going to affect the next generation way of thinking. They are going to lose their empathy and they become selfish people. The rich become greedier and they going to find ways in order to protect their money and collect more wealth. In contrast, the poor become oppressed and they going to have survival mentality.
2. An interactionalist theorist would say that people have different interpretation of the power and wealth; therefore, society starts labeling people based on their understanding of wealth. For example, in the United States because of the capitalist economic system, people define power and wealth by the amount of money that you have in your bank account. Therefore, the amount of the money that you have defines your status in the society. Based on Erving Goffman “Dramaturgy” perspective, people are like actors that are playing on stage every day. Rich people play the role of rich and the poor play the role of poor but in the back stage all of them are human with the same equal right to live on this planet. For this reason, we the people are the ones who define and divided our society into these two groups. On the other hand, an interactionalist also would say that because of this inequality gap between rich and poor, people are going to lose their connection with each other. According to Herbert Mead “taking the role of the other” theory, through interaction with others, people begin to develop an identity about who they are, as well as empathy for others. By widening the gap between rich and poor, they cannot understand the other group situation. For example, rich people may say homeless people are lazy, who are dependent on government and they don’t want to work and change their condition. Why should I pay more tax to protect those lazy people?
3. I think Eric solution is going to be realistic if we live in communist society, but in our society which the system is capitalist, the government can’t put limit for their income. Because the government itself depends on those wealthy people income. In my opinion the solution is to break down the barriers between rich and poor societies. If these two groups communicate with each other and get out of their comfort zone, they can understand the other side’s situation and they may be able to make some policies in order to help the other group. for instance, having meeting every month with each other and discuses about their problems and make some programs that will help both groups.
Jose I.
In response to Sarah K.
1.I agree with my peer that income inequality is a social issue that is affecting citizens in this country. The wealth and income gap in this country has been a trending topic as of late and can be seen as something that divides this country into those who are poor ad those who are rich. My peer applied the four stages of identifying a social problem into her argument and stated that we are in the second stage, where an official response is given by officials due to pressure from the citizens. Though, I do think that there has been somewhat of a reaction to the official responses, meaning that we have been somewhat in the third stage. An example might be the occupy movements that happened in late 2011. The occupy movement protesters were protesting against income inequality, claiming that they were the 99 percent of the population, opposed to the one percent who hold most of the nation’s wealth. So even though there is a response to the problem, it doesn’t mean that problem will end. I chose to comment on this entry because the thing that stood out to me when reading the entry was the analogy of distribution of pizzas among the kids. I think income inequality is one of America’s biggest problems because while the top income earners in the country are able to continue and climb the income ladder the countries lower income earners remain in the same spot.
2.From an Interactionist’s perspective they would see this problem from a micro level approach. They would look at how individual interactions between people influence their behavior and how these interactions can impact society. An example might be some interaction between a boss of a big company and a worker of that company. The difference of social roles between the two is apparent. The boss is a white collar worker making a good income amount while the employee, is a blue collar worker who works paycheck to paycheck. Even though the worker might work more hours and earn less than the boss. The worker might see the boss as someone who doesn’t have to worry about their income and expenses thus creating a sense of inequality.
3.The proposed solution that my peer provided was interesting but can’t be done so easily. The way income inequality can be combated is through providing the amount of opportunities people have to move up the social ladder. Many of the top income earners in the country come from wealthy families who had the money to provide their children with such opportunities. The main opportunities that were provided is education. They had access to proper schooling, technology and training throughout most of their life. The opportunities that most of the children of low income families have seem minimal compared to the opportunities the high income earners have. So with providing proper education to the lower income earners the opportunities given will help lessen the gap. Also statistically there is a correlation between the amount of education someone has to the amount of income they make.
Fernando L
In reponse to Eric K.
1. I agree with Eric that if the rich keep getting richer, other people will have less of an opportunity to change their social economic status. The article mentions how the richest 20% own about 89% of America's wealth. If the divide between the rich and the poor get any further, there is bound to be civil unrest and a social chaos. What stood out from what Eric wrote was that he isn't saying that the rich shouldn't be rich. They are entitled to that wealth. I also believe this. People who worked hard all their lives are entitled but I believe other people should be given the benefits of a healthy lifestyle at least. We, the 99%, make the 1% rich. We deserve happiness and to live stress free. With the amount of money that the 1% have, they can help so many people and it wouldn't even leave a dent in their wealth. I chose to comment on this peer's entry because he believes in putting a type of limit on income and wealth distribution. I also believe this should be the case. There should be a limit. Income inequality is an important topic. Everyone feels it, whether we like to believe it or not. The 99% deserve the ability to free education, free health care, and a healthy living condition. We're not asking the 1% to all give us nice cars, a mansion, or free money. We are willing to work for the money but if we have to work 40 hours a week, sacrifice ten years of our lives to educate ourselves, and barely have the title 'middle class', I think something's wrong and that is why I believe income inequality is a social problem.
2. A conflict theorist would say that that the rich are getting exactly what they want. They know that there is a problem with the poor but it won't ever be a problem to them. The rich will never have to speak to the poor, touch them, or even see them, so they believe they would rather use us like modern slaves. Conflict theorists believe that inequality is systematically created and maintained by power elites and they are trying to preserve their advantage of the system. Conflict theorists also argue that in order for the rich to maintain control over labor, the rich created welfare. Welfare policies suppress protests and enforce submissive work norms.
3. I believe Eric K's idea on limiting income is ideal in a perfect world. But I believe here in America, it would only be possible and realistic if there were a social chaos. There would have to be a war versus the rich and the poor. Right now, the middle and the poor class don't even have the time to do their research in order for them to even comprehend that they are getting used. I don't know the perfect answer to income equality but I think one solution would be to education people. We need to educate society as a whole to overthrow the inequality. I believe many people are uneducated and have fear put in them that if we fight corporations, that we won't be able to survive. I believe education can alleviate a lot of problems in this world and income equality would be one.
Eduardo G.
In response to Sarah K.
1. I totally agree with my peer with the uneven distribution of wealth in the country, which is leaving a lot of tension between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Nowadays wealth and income inequality can’t be defined properly because a lot of people have different views, so that would only mean a lot of answers. I like how Sarah used the interpretation of the pizza (representing wealth) and one kid representing the wealthy percent and the other nine representing the bottom ninety percent of the population. Makes it a clear visual between the uneven distribution of Americas health with one kid keeping an entire pizza to himself and the other nine are left with one to share among themselves, which is what we see in our economy today. Her mentioning the model of Kituse and Spectors also caught my attention because she used it accurately with identifying the problem at stage 2, meaning that this social problem of wealth if getting attention and being “solved” in a formal manner. Although I would have to differ, because the wealth gap is still too huge and I believe that there is not enough action taken from the federal governments part and peoples involvement (although there has been), but if there is, it’s not enough. We the people have to put more pressure as a whole country. I chose to comment on this social problem because it’s been a problem for as long it has existed and the uneven distribution of wealth will not come to an end unless serious action is taken upon by both the federal government and the people. I think the topic is arguable and many people have different approaches to the uneven distribution of wealth among the country. It’s a social problem because corrupt people will be the way they will be and wave around the system to keep profiting and keeping that profit for themselves. They’re not interested in the other ninety percent of the population, why would they be in the first place when they have a lot of money and power for themselves. The problem is with the bourgeoisie, that’s why it’s a social problem, if the powerful wealthy people wouldn't corrupt the system and only have self-interest and care for the rest of the population, then wealth distribution wouldn't be a problem, but it is unfortunately.
2. From a Functionalist perspective, a macro level approach would suite this problem because of society being interrelated parts and more so focusing on the countries social system, in this case the distribution of health in America. A functionalist would take notice that the stability of wealth distribution is way distorted in America and that the distortion of wealth distribution messes up the function of society as a whole because the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poor than what they already were. They would also take in consideration that the activities or actions taken from the wealth are not healthy for the social system, therefore causes dysfunction and disorganization within society. Also they would notice that the top wealthy percent are gesellschaft for primarily being goal orientated and form relationships with others for that sole purpose alone. If the top wealthy families keep most of the country’s wealth, then that leads for the have nots to be in conflict with the system and the function of society as a whole starts messing up. People don’t make enough money and that leads them to doing crimes, stealing, etc. A functionalist would argue that that the social problem starts at the top, and all comes falling down afterwards with the proletariat's “malfunctioning” in society by doing actions they would never do because they don’t make enough due to the unequal distribution of wealth.
Eduardo G.
In response to Sarah K.
3. My peers’ solution is realistic and very doable, but the problem would be for those laws to actually be proposed by someone who isn't just for their own self-interest. I like her solution, but very hard to do with our political system nowadays and besides that it has to get lots of support from politicians and people combined to get a lot of attention from others. One of my proposed solution would be a crash on the stock market because a stock market crash would devalue the portfolios of the wealthy, which is great news for the rest of the country. But isn't as realistic. Another solution I would propose is curtailing access to college and postgraduate education. This would increasingly limit the disparities in the market skills that account for income disparities. If the gov’t can stop putting restrictions on college education and higher level postgraduate education, then then the difference in the demand of skills would limit poor people making little money, which makes them live under the poverty line.
Post a Comment