|
|
Post by Weston D on Jan 14, 2016 0:40:26 GMT
While the appealing aspect of free market is to advance from any position to a higher economic status, the unappealing aspect is the varied starting points. Some people may hold advantages over others that propel them beyond what an individual deserves. As a result, capitalism may be the way out of poverty, but an obstacle for others. Capitalism can help poverty if it has just the right amount of restriction to provide opportunity to those impoverished, yet doesn't limit the potential of anyone to excel. The ideal wealth distribution chart , as depicted in the video "wealth inequality in america" youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM, is much more leveled yet still far from being considered socialism. If enough restraints were implemented, such as higher wages,a more moderate form capitalism would be well equipped for dealing with poverty. |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmccolloch on Jan 14, 2016 2:19:28 GMT
I agree. I found that video really interesting because of the contrast between ideal wealth distribution and actual wealth distribution. However, what is also interesting is the fact that ideal wealth distribution still has an obvious gap between the wealthy and poor. We do not have to change our entire system to make it more fair, or get rid of that gap. We can still have incentive and rewards for people who work hard. We just need to put the same amount of emphasis on providing aid to those in the lower section, as we do on ensuring freedom for those in the higher section.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurencox on Jan 14, 2016 3:12:48 GMT
I also agree. I think many of us probably support the proposition from the video; basically to redistribute enough wealth to keep citizens out of poverty while still maintaining a substantial group of wealthy citizens and allowing incentives to remain in place, motivating people to work harder. This would be an ideal situation because everybody would have sufficient money to live decently, but there would also be a system of motivation for all citizens that would allow them the possibility to advance up the economic ladder.
(also, I found the difference between our perception of the wealth distribution and the actual wealth distribution in america to be quite startling)
|
|
|
|
Post by Manuela Velasquez on Jan 14, 2016 3:32:16 GMT
I also (also) agree; we don't have to necessarily resort to socialism or communism and distribute the wealth evenly amongst everyone, as that would go against the tradition of our nation entirely (and additionally those systems haven't proved to be largely successful in areas where they have been implemented). The complete deconstruction of capitalism is simply not a feasible (nor a sensible) option for America. Ultimately, however, it's becoming more and more evident that a redistribution of wealth will become necessary in order for our citizens and subsequently our country to continue to thrive. I agree, I was also particularly surprised by the incredible disparity of wealth between the impoverished and the extremely wealthy, and shocked by the sheer amount of wealth that the top ≈5% or so has just in itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaellandolfi on Jan 14, 2016 5:48:47 GMT
After reading the other responses I noticed a lot of them mentioning incentives for people to work harder which is a good idea but is already in place. I think the incentive to work harder is to gain more money. If a person is to work harder they will hopefully be promoted to a higher position that also has a larger wage. The idea of creating incentives for the impoverished is good, I just think it is already in place with the ideals of capitalism that as you advance through a company you garner higher wages.
|
|
laura
New Member
Posts: 6 
|
Post by laura on Jan 14, 2016 5:57:36 GMT
I agree with all of you. This way everyone would not have an equal opportunity but enough to not worry about basic needs and have a chance to advance. Because of this I believe the video's ideal distribution of wealth would also be the realistic ideal way I would distribute. It takes from the rich but in a way that they would still have an advantage so there would be no complain. I understand that they may not agree because it is there money but it makes sense knowing they will still be extremely wealthy enough to live of well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik Z on Jan 14, 2016 5:59:07 GMT
"I think the incentive to work harder is to gain more money"
Well duh, but earning "more money", which is most likely less than needed to provide financial stability, does not necessarily solve one's problem.
You make it seem as though working is a constant succession of increasing wages, but in reality the impoverished Joe will apply to be a cashier at Safeway and will not magically move up to be manager after "working harder".
He will remain a cashier and might switch over to being a shelf-stacker or janitor. Sure, in media, specifically television, the slow process to a promotion is sped up, and Joe might get lucky and strike gold when the previous manager somehow disappears, leaving an opening for him, but sadly, there can be only one manager. Maybe one person encounters a job promotion, but there are twenty others who don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresaamor on Jan 14, 2016 6:01:38 GMT
While it's true that the economy already provides a certain level of motivation, if someone is stuck at a certain level there is only so far they can advance. For example if someone has a lower than high school level of education it is nearly impossible to find a high paying job, leaving them stuck with a minimum or close to minimum wage job. While the desire to earn more money could motivate the person to go back to school and obtain a higher level of education and thus a higher paying job, it is not always easy to get that education without help. Going back to school requires money that they may not be able to spend and time that they may need to be spending working to support themselves. Even though they may be motivated to work harder, the constraints of their situation might make improvement impossible without outside help.
|
|
laura
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by laura on Jan 14, 2016 6:07:08 GMT
You can have self motivation but in reality a lot people who are struggling financially is because they are working one or two low-skilled low-payed jobs that usually don't offer raises or promotions because of it. No matter how much they want to advance they can't afford to leave these jobs to train for better ones because they are impoverished and struggling to pay bills and feed their children who are trying to make it in this country. The way for these kids to more likely succeed is through help from a government that allows for a more fair opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattcwirla on Jan 14, 2016 6:10:16 GMT
I agree with Teresa that it is illogical to believe that people can work multiple jobs and be expected to receive a college education at the same time. I think that one possible solution to this problem could be to increase access to scholarship programs and other forms of financial aid. While this obviously does not solve the problem, this may alleviate some of the costs of a higher education, and therefore make it a more feasible option for the impoverished American.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurelpatrick on Jan 14, 2016 6:11:29 GMT
I agree with the idea that there are faults inherent in a free market society: one of the main tenets of capitalism is that it is designed to encourage competition, with rewards for your successes. However, another aspect of capitalism is the idea that success comes as a result of individual efforts and is equitable to working hard. This implies that those who live in poverty under a capitalist economy are "lazy" and not working hard enough, when the truth can be far from it. You can't compare someone working to expand their already established family business into a new sector of industry with someone working to keep their family afloat- who's more likely to accept lower pay for the assurance of a steady job? Who has more opportunities to work in more lucrative positions? Although both people in these situations can put forth the same amount of effort, because they started in different positions, one may grow increasingly wealthy, while the other remains in poverty. As such, while capitalism has the potential to help some, it more often favors those who further the success of their predecessors rather than those who start out with nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by alissamcnerney on Jan 14, 2016 9:11:05 GMT
The income statistics shown in the video ranging from an average worker to a CEO, who makes 350 times what this average worker makes, reveals the immense disparity present in the economy today. This is not necessarily fair because many people started out impoverished and with less opportunities than those would would become successful CEOs, and many of these impoverished people work hard, with multiple jobs, but still can not achieve the wealth that the CEOs have. Some of the excessive wealth earned by CEOs should be redistributed to the average worker to increase their financial stability, decrease poverty, and create a system where upward mobility is more feasible, but this redistribution of wealth should be done cautiously and with limits to avoid upsetting the system of capitalism and still allow CEOs and higher income people to reap the benefits of their work.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxwellheller on Jan 15, 2016 4:00:30 GMT
Today, the wealthiest people in America make at a minimum approximately $430,000 and pay 39.6% in taxes. Any tax increase to the wealthy would be wrong; if the tax rate increased to 45%, then these individuals would have a tax rate that is 35% higher then other Americans. If being stuck in a cycle of poverty is not fair to the poor, then how is increasing taxes fair to the wealthy? In either situation, a group of people is being exploited. If we choose to examine capitalism from a moral perspective, then how can we purposely treat people unfairly? If we have a duty to assist the poor, then don't we also have a duty to protect the rich?
|
|
|
|
Post by marcellovial on Jan 15, 2016 4:18:03 GMT
I agree with Maxwell. Responsibility for the economic disparity in the country should not fall heavier on the wealthy than it does on the government itself. For the government to effectively promote an equality that will close the economic gap, it must work to promote early cultivation of a successful mindset. Funding the public school system can help to increase the possibility of social and economic mobility, keeping the American Dream alive without compromising the position of the wealthy. Eventually, the equality of opportunity could create a system in which only hard work will distinguish people, and starting with less would not necessarily mean being stuck behind those who start ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew y8s on Jan 15, 2016 4:24:58 GMT
I think that it is wrong to suggest that taking money from the rich is as bad as not assisting the poor. The difference between having enough money to pay your electricity bills is far larger than the difference between having enough money to buy a summer house in some foreign country. In the end, if we are to give the poor enough money to live comfortably, it has to come from somewhere, and the most sensible source of the money is from the rich executives who payed minimum wage workers so little in the first place. The rich are not going to be forced into any kind of unreasonable situation by taxation, whereas without assistance the poor will continue to struggle to make ends meet.
|
|
