Inequality seemed to be a reoccurring theme during our class discussion on Friday. In class, I argued that inequality is the driving force behind our economic system, capitalism. While most of the population is not fond of inequality, we sacrifice equality in order to live in a capitalist society because there are many positive attributes to capitalism. One of the most significant benefits to capitalism is, in theory, the ability for an individual to create their own destiny. Now, I am not going to address whether or not in practice this actually happens, because there is a strong argument that despite capitalist theory, social mobility does not exist. However, for the time being, I am going to ignore that argument and just state that in theory capitalism strives to promote the ability for an individual to control their fate.
A writer who I strongly recommend for anyone interested in reading on the strength of humankind in constructing his own destiny is Ayn Rand. Rand developed a school of philosophy known as objectivism. In this theory, the driving purpose of an individual’s life is the pursuit of his or her own happiness. Moreover, the only social system that will allow for the full respect of individual rights is pure laissez-faire capitalism. Rand once stated on the subject of objectivism, “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
With that said, it is still clear that without inequalities, capitalism would not be able to function. It is inequality within individuals that provides incentive for an individual to work harder to produce a product more efficiently or of better quality. It is inequality between products that affects which product has greater selling power. Inequality is inherent in a capitalist economy. While researching inequality for this blog post I came across a fairly disturbing reply to a blog-like post. This individual argued that “Inequality is a condition of life and a mind’s interpretation of its current position in it.” Sure, that sounds about right on a purely philosophical level. However, its also completely absurd when applied to the current state of socio-economics of our globe. To prove that inequality does exist, that it is not a figment of our mind, I found some startling statistics about inequality.
1) Half of the world—nearly three billion people—live on less than two dollars a day.
2) The Gross Domestic Product of the poorest 48 nations (ie. A quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined.
3) 20% of the population in developed nations consumes 86% of the world’s goods.
If given the opportunity to address the individual who believes that inequality is a condition of a mind’s interpretation, I would ask if they would trade their position in society with someone who lives on less than two dollars a day.
Statistics found at: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp
Blog on inequality found at: http://www.philhord.com/phord/barney-frank-capitalism-is-based-on-inequity/
3 comments:
I will not argue that inequality is good and fair, but I do argue that it is necessary. Maybe not on the scale that is represented in the global world, but on a community basis. In order for a community to get by there have to be people willing to accept low paying jobs including janitorial, sanitation, etc. There is a discrepancy that exists because some jobs are given more power than others. Doctors believe they deserve a large salary because of the life altering environment they work in and the high costs of their job and medical malpractice insurance. If they were not afforded such high salaries they would not be able to afford to practice. Other jobs do not carry such high costs and are therefore paid less.
I do argue that the inequality represented in the global world is ludicrous. Your statistic about the GDP of the 48 nations compared to the three richest people in the world is overwhelming. To imagine the millions of people that cannot even get by (cannot afford food, clothing, and shelter) and to compare that to a few people that can afford that and much more is staggering. This sort of discrepancy is unnecessary. Bill Gates is a great inventor and entrepreneur, but to see that his wealth is greater than some nations just does not make sense. What one man earns, thousands and millions are expected to survive on much less.
Inequality is not necessary. I think the idea that inequality exists within a community because it must is absurd. No job is ever more important than any other job...looking at the example of a janitor vs a doctor, a doctor cannot operate if a room is not sterile, which is the janitor's job. On the flip side, the janitor cannot work if he's sick and must seek the help of the doctor. In this instance, neither job is more important than the other. One may argue that there is inequality because the doctor gets paid much more than the janitor. I respond to this by saying that this is not inequality; rather, it is equality. The doctor had to work many years and acquire many skills in order to be at the position he is at. The janitor, on the other hand, most probably did not. The doctor is compensated through his salary.
The only legitimate instance I can think of in which inequality must exist is in a completely communist regime. In this example, both the janitor and the doctor are paid the same. The doctor, however, still had to spend much more time acquiring his skills and is not rewarded for his work, relative to someone who most probably did significantly less work.
The entire idea behind a society as ours (the one in the USA, that is) is the basis of equality. The reason a society as great as ours exists is because of the function of equality within it. Everyone is afforded the same opportunity to go to elementary and middle school and get an education. Everyone is afforded the opportunity to take school seriously and try to do well. Everyone is afforded the opportunity to earn a scholarship to college and further his/her education, given that he made the right series of choices before this particular step in his life. I would argue that a society does not need to have inequailty; rather, the people need to (and always will) have choices.
Although our society is based on the idea of equality and affording everyone the same opportunities, it is clear that this is an illusion. Let's assume that everyone has the same opportunity to go to school. Depending on their socioeconomic background, their school may not offer the same quality of education has a child that goes to a public school near a more affluent community. But let's get back to that idea that everyone even gets the same opportunities in school. I disagree with this statement. The opportunities you are afford generally increase as the amount of wealth you have increases. The child of the doctor never has to worry his family's financial situation, while the child of that janitor suffers from this discrepancy in wealth. The doctor's child has a computer, high-speed internet access, a fancy graphing calculator, etc. The child of the janitor on the other hand has the bare minimum necessary for school. A case can be made that the child from the less affluent family can be just as successful as that of the doctor's family. But the issue here is that one student is going to have to overcome much more challenges than the other. Once high school comes around, the janitor's child may have to make the decision to balance a job with academics in order to help the family's financial situation out. The lack of wealth creates new sets of challenges that the wealthier do not even have to deal with. Actually, I guess I should reword how I feel. The opportunity is there for everyone to receive an education, but for certain groups of people it is a whole lot more difficult than others. So yes, the opportunity is there, but some face so many mitigating circumstances due to the unequal distribution of wealth that many individuals cannot take advantage of these opportunities.
Post a Comment