Inequality

Feminism is the only ideology that believes that gender is a form of discrimination, if not the strongest of social boundaries compared to race, status, and nationality. For this reason feminists focus on gender inequality and the specific roles that men and woman lead in every day life as a result of gender discrimination. Feminism can be traced back to 1405 in the book by Christine de Pisan’s “Book of the City of Ladies”. This book contained the basic skeleton of thought that is present in modern day feminism, as it celebrates and highlights women and their contribution through out history, similar to cultural feminism.

This clearly shows that from long ago there has always been a demand for equal rights between the sexes. In the last century many schools of feminist thought have emerged as a result of this question of equality and many different remedies have also come as result. Today feminism is an ideology that has a very broad horizon, which is only normal for an area as vast and amorphous as gender. Liberal feminism emerged in the 1850’s and was the school of thought that dominated first wave feminism.

Liberal feminism is the belief that focussed on woman enjoying the same rights as men, and for this reason first wave feminism focussed on the public sphere of politics. Liberal feminists believed that the problem was in the political sphere of life, as woman at the time were literally not allowed in the public sphere of life. The British suffrage movement lead by mother and daughter Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst in the 1903 organised many forms of protest that were aimed at achieving the goal of the female vote.

The feminists at the time thought that gaining the vote would be the most important right that women needed, and as a result the other gender divides in society would disappear. For this reason it is understandable to see why feminists at the time thought gaining the vote would solve inequality between the sexes as the external rights would affect everyday life, and internal affairs. Legislation was the only way that woman could gain the vote, and bring equality.

Once the bill had been passed than it would be the responsibility of the ruling body to implement and protect that laws and this would mean woman having the same protected rights as men, or so they thought so. The methods that the suffragettes used to achieve this ranged from handing out leaflets, chaining themselves to property, and even to the use of hunger strikes. These methods no doubt gained media attention, but not necessarily positive media attention. However these forms of protests did increase awareness among other woman, and also inspired others to join the movement as well.

The movement grew through out the 19th century, and had the clear focus of gaining the vote. Despite woman’s obvious contribution to society it was only until the start if the First World War when they could prove they were just as capable as men were. When the war was over and won in 1918, woman over the age of thirty were given the right to vote in 1920. This right to vote was given for many reasons, woman had proved that they could do the men’s jobs, and were just as capable. Also the government realised that as growing power in the world, the British workforce would be stronger if women were a part of the workforce as well.

The voting franchise was further extended to woman aged 18 in 1928. The goal of first wave feminism had been achieved, woman had the vote and but this caused the movement lose the impetus. But it was clear that inequality still remained between the sexes, gaining the female vote had raised the political status of women slightly, but failed to achieve the original goal of bringing equality between the sexes. . The feminist movement did not stop here, but instead the opposite happened, feminists had to look at the bigger picture and not just rely on one piece of legislation to solve inequality.

Where did inequality start? How is it maintained? But mostly, if gaining the vote didn’t end equality than what would? These questions were the main focus of second wave feminism, which emerged decades later in the 60’s. Second wave feminism aimed at achieving the goals that first wave feminism failed to achieve, and for this reason the movement this time was dominated by a more contemporary approach, radical feminism. In 1963 Betty Frieden wrote “The feminine mystique”, and the first chapter was called “The Problem With No Name”.

This problem was what most women were going through at the time. Trying to live up to the perfect images of a housewife, but at the same time feeling empty and not knowing their true identity. The problem with no name took the idea of true liberation for woman. If woman were liberated in their personal lives, and then this in turn would liberate in the public sphere. Betty Frieden stressed on the message that women should not coup themselves up at home, and should broaden their horizons through striving for true liberation.

Radical feminists like Kate Millett took this new perspective of focussing on woman’s everyday lives further, when the concept of patriarchy was discussed in her book “Sexual Politics” written in 1969. Patriarchy literally means rule by the father, but feminists use this term to describe men’s general dominance in society. Radical feminists believe that patriarchy is how men maintain the position over women in society. When looking at patriarchy radical feminists like to focus on everyday relationships between men and women.

For example when a woman irons her husband’s clothes, this can show how men for their own benefit use women and also how woman are confined to the house. It also shows that patriarchy starts from the home, and is built in the family structure “rule by the father”. Women are socialised into believing that they are inferior to men, they are socialised to be weak, and as Simone de Beauvoir said “Woman are not born they are made”. Thus the only way to get rid of patriarchy is summarised in the statement “The personal is the political”, meaning woman should liberate themselves in their personal lives as well.

Gaining the vote didn’t bring equality, because patriarchy starts from the family (the heart of society), patriarchy is maintained through socialisation, and patriarchy in turn shapes society. The radical feminist Shulasmith Firestone looks at how women are biologically weaker than men, and how this makes it possible for men to dominate women. She argues that woman have the ability to have babies, this links to menstruation, breast- feeding, and childbirth, which are all disadvantages as they limit what a woman can do in her life.

These biological characteristics also take away large amounts of freedom from women. One of the reasons why woman are mostly in low paid, part time work, is because they have other commitments at home. Most of the high well-paid jobs, are dominated by men, this may be because of the gaps in employment that woman take when pregnant and so fail to get promoted. Her solution to this is to defy women’s nature with the aid of modern technology. Ideally women should have complete control over their ability to give birth and this will mean that children will be born outside the womb.

However women taking control of their biology will only be the first step towards women being completely in control of every aspect if their lives. Radical feminism goes against Liberal feminism in one way, liberal feminists believe that the state and legislation is the solution to gaining equality. However radical feminists believe that the state is used as a tool that keeps women in an inferior position in society. Radical feminism also believes in the concept of sisterhood, and this is shown through how Shulasmith Firestone, stresses that the biological family is present in all societies.

Showing that all women are suffering, and weak as a result of their biology. This is why radical feminists believe that woman should all be united in their struggle, against men, and towards true liberation. Sisterhood is important to radical feminists, as it strengthens the movement, and woman will be able to seek strength in each other rather than rely on men. The other schools of feminists thought that have come about after the 60’s is Marxist feminism, which focuses on how woman are abused by the capitalist system.

Marxists feminists like Sue Sharpe states that women are used as a surplus labour force ready for to be used and disposed of easily. Also that women are drained of their energy and time, through maintaining the present workforce (their husbands), and also at the same time rearing the future workforce (their children). Marxist feminists stress on how woman are used and abused in both the home and the workplace, and men dominate both environments. Another school of feminist thought is ecofeminism, which looks at the link between nature and females.

Ecofeminists like Van Plumwood believe that the world would be a better place if women were in charge. The reason for this is that woman innately are more caring than men, they have they ability to raise children and nurture human life. Ecofeminists also focus on the state of the world today, pollution, global warming, the dumping of toxic wastes, and other environmental issues. But some feminists argue that this form of feminism is reactionary, meaning that it takes woman backwards away from progress, as it is taking the female role back to biology.

This is similar to pro-womnism that also focuses on the positive side about women’s role to reproduce. These two schools of thought would clash with radical feminist who believe that women are handicapped due to their nature. Black feminism is a school of feminist thought, which mixes race with gender. It is the argument that white woman dominates the feminist movement and political scene mainly. This may be true as it was the middle class women, that had the time and the money to involve themselves in politics, and they were usually white.

New feminism can be viewed as the third wave of feminism but it hasn’t really come crashing like the other two previous waves. Maybe because the movement has passed its use but feminists would argue that the movement still has its aims. New feminism believes in breaking the link between the personal and the political hence “the personal is less political”. This has been done because many women are put off by the obtrusive nature of the slogan. The statement shows that new feminism is trying to make women more comfortable with being feminists.

This is ideal for women who do not want the their public life to mix with their private life. New feminism also looks at issues like abortion, pornography, which are controversial and affect woman greatly. This shows that it is not the end of the line for feminism because women constantly face new problems in a modern growing society, and need organisations that will help them. The feminist movement has changed greatly through out the past century, and no doubt a great deal has been achieved.

Feminism by having these different stages has shown the world that it is almost evolutionary, and will be around for a longer time. Organisations like NOW are one of the biggest in America, and lobby a vast range of issues concerning women. Women today are still benefiting from the work of the past feminists, in areas of education, work, and politics. Overall the feminist movement has been a success, a remedy for true equality and liberation may not of been found yet. But instead many have been put forward, which have caused women to think further and also think for the future of “personkind” as well.

Abstract affirmative (AA) action is a policy that the government created for counteracting discrimination against people. This happened for the reason of presenting people the chance of gaining equal opportunities for employment education and business. Many of our formal presidents has authorized executive orders that was meant for all hiring to be free from discrimination of race, color, or national origin with all government contractors and the other specifically for associations that had accepted federal contracts and subcontracts intended to end discrimination within the workforce towards individuals where the focus was on race, color, religion, and national origin. Soon after affirmative action was changed to include no prejudice against ones gender.

Affirmative action consequently established preferential treatment towards all minorities and women in the hiring process and the chance to receive a higher education. affirmative action holds private employers accountable as well. during the civil rights movement affirmation action was a tool that proposed opportunities for women and minorities and to provide equality for them. there are noted changes in how colleges recruit and enroll students housing and also how using public transportation where now blacks can sit anywhere since Rosa Parks.

Since affirmative action was primarily intended on improving chances for African Americans in employment and education but there is still a low percentage of improvement that is why an executive order was signed and it required all government and private industry jobs to increase the number of women disable individuals and minorities to either receive employment or to have the ability to gain an education or have additional training for work enhancement.

There are numerous organization that uses affirmative action and equal employment opportunity policies within their business structure there is still a controversy today surrounding these issues. I researched to see if equal employment opportunity and affirmative action policies mean the same thing. equal employment opportunity definition is that it bans all types of discrimination. this means that no matter the race or gender everyone has the same chance of obtaining and getting promotions and the added incentive of training as the workforce continues to grow.

But then affirmative action focus on past discrimination acts which were meant to give women, disabled individuals, and minorities an equal footing in gaining employment and a higher education. it was to create equality between the workers and employers however it has caused extra adversity in the workforce. because many believed that jobs held by whites were being jeopardized. has affirmative action been consistently and effectively used to create a more robust and productive workforce I would say yes; affirmative action has made it possible for many to see and earn their desired goals such as their life dreams.

I feel that there are still many obstacles but if one applies themselves there are no limitations. Barak Obama was our nation’s first black president and there are many who hold prominent leadership roles that which also includes women. recently in the news it was announced that the FBI for the first time in history may have a woman heading this department. though affirmative action has come a long way there are those who still discriminate and don’t offer equal chances for others to succeed.

Affirmative action has allowed the workforce to become more diverse in races genders and cultures. we must remember that the affirmative action is not about letting minorities to get into college or to get a job but it’s about giving qualified individuals no matter their race a chance that they may not get otherwise. in conclusion has affirmative action been consistently and effectively used to create a more robust and productive workforce i would say yes it has worked extremely well. I hope to see it continue because there are many more who could benefit from this program.

Should we be punished for the mistakes of our ancestors?

In recent times, Affirmative Action has implemented policies of reverse discrimination to help oppressed minorities gain an advantage over majority groups in college admissions and in employment. The term “Affirmative Action” was originally used by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 when referring to his executive order that required all federal contractors treat their employees and applicants “without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin. “

This idea of “goals and timetables” provided guidelines for companies to follow and comply with Affirmative Action regulations. During the presidency of Gerald R. Ford, he extended Affirmative Action to people with disabilities and Vietnam veterans but there were no goals or timetables for these two groups. This type of Affirmative Action required recruitment efforts, accessibility, accommodation and reviews of physical and mental job qualifications. President Jimmy Carter consolidated all federal agencies that were required by law to follow the Affirmative Action play into the Department of Labor.

Before Carter did this, each agency handled Affirmative Action in its own individual way, some were not as consistent as other agencies were. He created the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP) in 1978 to ensure compliance with the Affirmative Action policies. Affirmative Action began to go downhill when Ronald Reagan and later George Bush came into office. Affirmative Action lost some gains it had made and was more or less ignored by the Republicans in the White House and in Congress. Affirmative Action was silently being “killed” by our federal administrators.

In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, initiated by Kennedy, and the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972, the equal opportunity was established. While there was little controversy over equal opportunity, the main issue with Affirmative Action was equal results. Although the equal opportunity was established with Kennedy’s original executive order in 1961, the statistical results showed that the number of minority workers employed or in certain higher-level positions was not in proportion to the surrounding population, making the actual existence of equal opportunity suspect.

As a result of this discrepancy, it became necessary to create more aggressive legislation that ensured equal opportunity and equal results. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 required both, and new Affirmative Action programs were instituted to further support this. These programs range from encouraging minorities and women to apply for certain positions to setting up actual numerical goals, such as quota systems and set-aside programs. However, is Affirmative Action, as many critics assert, just passing on the oppression?

The basis behind Affirmative Action is that because of past discrimination and oppression, such as the dispossession of Native Americans, the unequal treatment of women, and the enslavement of Black Americans, minorities and women have difficulty competing with their white male counterparts in mainstream American society. But is this true? Why must white males be oppressed by Affirmative Action just because their ancestors enslaved and oppressed another race and gender, and be victims of reverse discrimination in college admissions and employment?

The U. S. Supreme Court has faced many cases regarding this controversial issue, including The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Bakke, a white medical student, was denied admission to a University of California medical school because of a quota system. Bakke claimed that he was a victim of “reverse discrimination” and sued. In a close decision, the Court ruled that schools might not enforce a rigid quota system if whites are not allowed to compete equally.

The issue was still muddied, however, because, in the same decision, the Court ruled that race could be used as a factor. The various regulations and court rulings have made Affirmative Action one of the most paradoxical issues facing America. On one hand, differing local, state, and federal laws require employers to avoid discrimination in up to nine criteria: race, color, sex, age, national origin, sexual preference, handicap, veterans’ status, and religion.

On the other hand, Affirmative Action rules also require certain employers, such as companies with federal contracts, to give preference to racial minorities, women, and others. Consequently, when considering both sides of the issue, it becomes apparent that reverse discrimination and preferential treatment of minorities is absolutely ludicrous when people are preaching equal rights and that “all men are created equal,” and that Affirmative Action should be outright abolished from all aspects of society as an unnecessary evil in order to ensure an equal playing field for all.

Those who wish to retain Affirmative Action regulations argue that America has a moral obligation to right the wrongs of the past – that Blacks and other minorities, whose ancestors have suffered institutionalized discrimination for hundreds of years, have earned preferential treatment. Race-neutral hiring, say proponents, actually discriminates against minorities because the majority of available jobs are not advertised. Rather, they are learned about by word-of-mouth, and minorities are not plugged into the “old-boy networks” through which they might hear of these jobs.

Affirmative Action must be maintained for minorities to rise above the glass ceiling to management positions, and for poor minorities to rise from poverty and unemployment. Affirmative action has been the subject of increasing debate and tension in American society, and through this heated debate, the fight between Angle males and minorities actually sets the two groups apart instead of bringing them together. However, the debate over affirmative action has become ensnared in rhetoric that pits equality of opportunity against the equality of results.

The debate has been more emotional than intellectual and has generated more tension than shed light on the issue. Participants in the debate have over examined the ethical and moral issues that Affirmative Action raises while forgetting to scrutinize the system that has created the need for them. Too often, Affirmative Action is looked upon as the panacea for a nation once ill with, but now cured of, the virulent disease of racial discrimination.

Affirmative Action is and should be seen as, a temporary, partial, and perhaps even flawed remedy for past and continuing discrimination against historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups in American society. Working as it should, it affords groups greater equality of opportunity in a social context marked by substantial inequalities and structural forces that impede a fair assessment of their capabilities. However, its failure highlights the potential for an aura of racism in this country which may perpetuate for many generations on.

As Martin Luther King once said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. ” Affirmative Action would make this dream virtually impossible, bringing race in as a factor in judging college admissions and employment. Those who want to eliminate Affirmative Action regulations argue that preferential programs encourage racial tensions when white students and workers feel they are not getting fair consideration.

Why should whites suffer for society’s past mistakes?

Ask Anti-Affirmative Action activists who also note that Affirmative Action programs make whites the victims of reverse discrimination. Affirmative Action works against minorities, the argument continues, because it is assumed that an individual who benefits from such programs is automatically considered inferior to other candidates for jobs or schools, and because the majority who benefit from Affirmative Action are already middle-class, those most in need of the programs, rural and inner-city blacks, have gained nothing.

Protestors against Affirmative Action have already taken steps to abolish the abominable doctrine through the passing of Proposition 209 in California. The measure would eliminate Affirmative Action programs used to increase hiring and promotion opportunities for state or local government jobs, where sex, race, and ethnicity are preferential factors in hiring, promotion, training, or recruitment decisions. In addition, the measure would eliminate programs that give preference to women-owned or minority-owned companies on public contracts.

Contracts affected by the measure would include contracts for construction projects, purchases of computer equipment, and the hiring of consultants. These prohibitions would not apply to those government agencies that receive money under federal programs that require such Affirmative Action. The elimination of these programs would result in savings to the state and local governments. These savings would occur for two reasons. First, government agencies no longer would incur costs to administer the programs.

Second, the prices paid on some government contracts would decrease. This would happen because bidders on contracts no longer would need to show ”good faith efforts” to use minority-owned or women-owned subcontractors. Thus, state and local governments would save money to the extent they otherwise would have rejected a low bidder – because the bidder did not make a ”good faith effort”–and awarded the contract to a higher bidder. The measure also could affect funding for public schools and community college programs.

For instance, the measure could eliminate, or cause fundamental changes to, voluntary desegregation programs run by school districts. Examples of desegregation spending that could be affected by the measure include the special funding given to ”magnet” schools (in those cases where race or ethnicity are preferential factors in the admission of students to the schools) and designated ”racially isolated minority schools” that are located in areas with high proportions of racial or ethnic minorities.

Up to $60 million of state and local funds spent each year on voluntary desegregation programs may be affected by the measure. In addition, the measure would affect a variety of public school and community college programs such as counseling, tutoring, outreach, student financial aid, and financial aid to selected school districts in those cases where the programs provide preferences to individuals or schools based on race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin. Funds spent on these programs total at least $15 million each year.

Eliminating Affirmative Action programs in America would thus save the government a substantial amount of money and pave the road for truly equal opportunity and treatment of all races. In light of the conflicting arguments for and against Affirmative Action, it is readily apparent that Affirmative Action essentially implements reverse discrimination as an “acceptable” solution to racial inequality in America, giving preferential treatment to minorities and women, and should thus be forbidden morally and legally if there is to be any sense of “color-blindness” in race relations in the future.

As Daniel Boorstin once said, “The menace to America today is the emphasis on what separates us rather than what brings us together. ” Truly, doing so would further separate embittered races and pit them against each other in heated debate and controversy. Calling for an alternative to Affirmative Action, Randall Kennedy states, “”We ought to construct a society and set of laws that focus on an individual’s character, not the color of skin.

If Affirmative Action should be banned and society should be “color-blind,” there should be an alternative to Affirmative Action to ensure this. There are a few possible alternatives to Affirmative Action, some of them are very simple and some are a little more complex.

The alternatives include reconstruction of civil society in minority communities, increasing minority and female applicant flow, and most importantly promotion of broad policies for economic opportunity and security that benefit low- and middle-income Americans, both black and white. Building up civil society means strengthening ‘intermediate’ institutions, lying between the state and the individual, such as community associations, schools, media, and independent social agencies, which provide the organizational foundation for collective development and effective public representation. ” If the same capital was made available for minority institutions as other institutions, they would be able to develop in the society and eventually become a strong part of the minority community.

These institutions would give direction and guidance that is needed by all to play a major role in their community. Increasing minority and female applicant flow would be very easy for a company to do. They simply need to include minority colleges and universities in campus recruitment programs, place employment opportunities in minority oriented print and broadcast media, and retain applications of unemployed minority applicants to be reviewed as a position opens. This would be a great opportunity for applicants and employers.

We should work toward broad based economic policies by consistently emphasizing broad-based, race-neutral policies; for example, public investment, national health reform, an enlarged earned income tax credit, child support assurance, and other policies benefiting families with young children. Widely supported programs that promote the interests of both lower- and middle-income Americans and that deliver substantial benefits to minorities on the basis of their economic condition will do more to reduce minority poverty than narrowly based, and poorly funded, measures for minority groups or the poor alone.

These efforts can also be designed to coincide with intermediate institutions and thereby contribute to the overall process of civil reconstruction and renewal. Ultimately, if there is to be any sense of racial equality and equal opportunity in this world, we must abolish Affirmative Action and ensure an equal playing field for all races in America.

Economic Inequality Equality is a foreign concept to nature. Justice and morality do not apply when it comes to the genetic lottery. Is it still survival of the fittest if you’re luck limits your ability to succeed? We lack control over most the factors that pre-determine our fate and govern our lives. I will argue that economic inequality is perfectly Just by defending the entitlement theory and distributive Justice from the works of Robert Nonionic and analyzing the works John Rails and Michael Sanded. John Rails was a philosopher of the twentieth century.

Rails believes that thing that makes us unique to ourselves is in our control. Not only in terms of genetics and demographic but also in terms of work ethic and natural talent. He believes nature and nurture define all characteristics about us. Therefore, we are not entitled to the circumstances of our lives. We do not have a clear perception of justice because of these things that one, we do not have genuine ownership and can not take credit for. And, two, because we are self interested beings we only define justice based off of what will benefit us and our situation.

We cannot decide what is Just until we all come from common, equal ground. John Rails proposes the “veil of ignorance” to neutralize factors that would bias our opinions. When under the veil of ignorance, you are not aware of your demographic, education status, income, class, family circumstance, ethnicity, race, religion, or gender. After wiping these characteristics away, you only know you are a good, moral being. Making Just decisions with the veil of ignorance on allows us to see life from a neutral standpoint and accurately Judge what is Just and what is unjust.

Not knowing whether you will luck out by chance or not will change the way you want the overspent to be run. You will be more inclined to better the worst case scenario just incase that is your fate. The only way inequality can be Just is if the inequality favors the least off members of society. “The aim is to use the notion of pure procedural Justice as a basis theory. Somehow we must nullify the effects of specific contingencies which put natural circumstances to their own advantage. ” (Rails 704). Robert Nonionic, like Rails was a well known philosopher from the twentieth century, as well.

Nonionic points out there is no pattern to Justice. Economic Justice is eased off the decisions people choose to make in a free market. First off, there is justice in what you start out with economically speaking in nature, what you are born with is what you get and fair game. Second, the economic decisions you make in your lifetime express free will and do not express any code of injustice, therefore, are lust. The entitlement theory outlines principles that Justify holdings called the original acquisition of holdings. The distributive Justice is applied in these circumstances.

Possessions can only be acquired and transferred. The Government would need to intervene on every economic interaction to ensure Justice and equality between parties. “The complete principle of distributive Justice would say simply that a distribution is Just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution. ” (Nonionic 714). Furthermore, it would be a violation to your libel government forces you to give a portion of your profit to charity. If the government has right to claim a portion of your earnings, it is essentially claiming a portion of your time, as well.

This is in a sense forced labor aka a very moderate form of slavery. On one hand, John Rails defends the injustice of economic inequality. He would be in favor of welfare programs and raising taxes on the rich. Though I admire the sympathy Rails shows to the victims of economic inequality, I disagree with his approach. I side more with Robert Nonionic. He is Libertarian and would favor the least amount of government involvement. He would be completely against taxing one demographic more than another and favor private charities over government intervention. I identify with Nonionic more than Rails when it comes to defining justice.

Assume that “you” existed before you were consciously existing. Imagine the moment before you were conceived, before you were conscious and before you were born, you would find that all potential beings are on equal, unexplored ground. No one is anyone. There are no defining characteristics or separating factors that make you different from anyone else. There are no Judgments and no attachments to anyone or anything. In fact, there are even no words or language, concepts or principles that have been introduced to you. You are saturating in ultimate nothingness. I do not believe economic inequality to be unjust.

In fact, I would go as far to say hat correcting economic inequality would be unjust. Economic inequality is as inherent as human nature itself. As I stated above, I believe we come from the same common background before our hearts begin to beat. Once you enter the world, the game of life begins and most of what will define you is pre-determined by genetics and luck, call it fate. Whether it be as subjective as the energy of life force coursing through your veins or as objective as a physical being governing humanity, “God” is present in this process. It is not the governments place to correct “Gods” work.

The overspent should protect citizens rights and provide security. Economic inequality is Just because the government should not be used as a crutch for those who are impaired by nature. Although, Justice has no routine or pattern, inequalities naturally occur in nature. Simply put, government velveteen in economic inequality is unnecessary. The government should keep it’s paws off the matter in my opinion. It is not their place to play god. I believe in the good in people’s hearts to care for each other more than the force of the government. To have complete freedom would be superior to all else.

Economic Inequality in America The Occupy movement gained fame in September 2011 with a slogan that brought together a wide range of people, “We are the 99 percent. ” The goal of the group is to get rid of economic inequality throughout the world. The group sparked a change in the way many people look at the way the world is. Wealth inequality is a word used to describe how money and assets are distributed among a group of people, in this specific case, the group of people is the population of people living in the United States.

Everyone knows there is economic inequality in America, but the degree of inequality is highly contested. Why inequality is occurring is another topic people can’t seem to agree on, is everyone given an equal chance or are some at an advantage over others based on their connections. Many people believe America was and is a land of opportunity, many people have immigrated to the United States to start a new life in a country that regardless of who you are, where you came from, and who you know, you have a chance to make something of yourself.

Many people now believe that the United States is not the land of opportunity it once was, The Occupy movement began protesting how wealth is distributed in the United States. Using slogans like “Of the 1 percent, by the 1 percent, For the 1 percent. ” The movement caught many peoples’ attention. The group claimed that the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans held too much of the wealth of the entire countries population. The top 1 percent of earners make an average of $717,000 a year (Dunn) while the average of all Americans is $51,000.

The average net value, or total worth of all assets f the top 1 percent is 8. 4 million dollars or 70 times the worth of lower classes. The top 1 percent control 43 percent of the wealth in America and the next 4 percent control an additional 29 percent, so the top 5% of Americans own 72 percent of the wealth of all Americans. The occupy activists think its wrong that so much is controlled by so few, while people on the right believe that it’s fair as long as everyone has an equal chance to make it to that top 5 percent.

Income inequality is being caused by a large amount wealth being held by a very mall portion of people, while a large portion of people only control a small amount of wealth. Many of the top earners are born into a rich family who are in the top 1 percent and the child has an advantage over children who are not in the top 1 percent. The child who has money is more likely to go to college, and usually a better college than a child with less money. The child who is in the top 1 percent is also more likely to have connections to people who can help them earn money, and stay in the top in adulthood.

Conservatives see the disparity as an incentive to work hard to make it to the top if you’re in one of the bottom groups of earners. Occupy movement activist call for a redistribution of wealth, so there is equality. Conservative groups see redistribution as taking away from people who have worked hard for what they have and giving it to people who have not tried as hard to make money. Some conservatives will go as far to say that income inequality doesn’t exist, but because of the way income is shown on tax forms it appears the earnings are larger than they ally are. “Arguments”) Many people also believe that many in the top 1 percent have gotten their money through inheritance from a wealth relative this does happen in some cases, but a study showed that only 14. 7% of the wealth of the top 1 percent has been through wealth transfers, which also includes gifts. ( Matthews) In 1992 the same wealth transfer equaled 27 percent of all of the wealth of the top 1 percent of earners, showing that more money is being earned by the group than was being handed down, or given as a gift. Many people say that the disparity of wealth is hurting the economy.

Brannon Millennia, a World Bank economist, has said “Widespread education has become the secret to growth. And broadly accessible education is difficult to achieve unless a society has a relatively even income distribution. ” According to a December 2010 paper by economists Michael Summon and Remain Rancid©re of the MIFF. In the sass’s when there was a boom in the economy, low wage workers were encouraged to use credit to make up for wages that didn’t keep up with inflation, which than caused rage defaults when the economy crashed.

And the same thing happened in the 2008 recession. But others say that inequality is a sign of growth, and good for the economy because it causes the hardest working to make it to the top. And they spend more, thus pumping more into the economy. In capitalism, the incentive is to work hard, and succeed because of your hard work. But now many people are thinking that no matter how hard they work they can’t get ahead unless you know someone, related to someone or are lucky. While there think you can, but you Just aren’t working hard enough.

Inequality in America is a topic that people disagree on whether is exists in a bad form, or is a good thing to help the economy. Works Cited “Arguments (and Counterarguments) Against Fixing Income Inequality. ” Untitled Document. N. P. , n. D. Web. 01 DCE. 2013. Dunn, Alan. “Average America vs. the One Percent. ” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 21 Mar. 2012. Web. 30 NOVO. 2013. Matthews, Dylan. “Research Desk: Did the Top 1 Percent Inherit Its Wealth? ” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 04 Novo. 2011. Web. 19 Novo. 2013.

Women often experience male dominated barriers when they seek to rise to the top of organization ranks. Despite the moves that have been made for equal opportunity employment, men and women that start in the same job often are not paid equally, and do not advance at the same rate. In a male dominated business world, the women are seen as weaker, less intelligent, passive, fragile, with a lack of commitment to their career often because of family obligations.

Managers often form alliances with those that tend to have the same background and lifestyle as themselves, since women are seen as different they cannot bond with those upper level managers and often get overlooked when new management positions are open. (Maume p. 483) The glass-ceiling is the lack of mobility for women in careers, due to prejudices against women”s ability to perform as well as men. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, known as the Glass Ceiling act, established the glass ceiling commission to study and make recommendations about eliminating the barriers and to create opportunities to advance women and minorities.

If men hold the higher positions, choosing who is most suitable for promotion it is likely that women will remain in the minority with power positions. Women often move into male jobs either because market conditions force employees to reach down into the labor queue to hire women or because men reevaluate and then vacate jobs. (Maume p. 483) Traditionally women are offer less opportunity for training than males, if women are not getting equal education for a company then it cannot simply be gender that may later cause poor performance in a higher management position.

Training is often expensive, since companies as a whole feel that women are more concerned with family priorities they offer it to those they believe will stay the longest and in their (male) minds be most attentive, the men. Studies show that after 12 years 56% of white men will be waiting for promotions with 44% already advanced, while 85% of white women and 93% of black women will remain waiting for a promotion. Maume p483) Some men often feel that the glass ceiling does simply not exist and that women”s over all performance has been causing the divide in distribution of power.

One example of this view is an article that was printed in Men”s Health magazine, although this is not scholarly it provided insight to the propaganda that is kept alive by men to other men. The article was titled “The Glass Ceiling has been shattered” and went on to describe that women were simply inferior in management positions. The writer Jeffrey Csatari believes that men did not build the glass ceiling.

It was built by women”s poor performance, he sighted a study in the University of Minnesota that found female managers tend to hire timid and self effacing employees with no corporate potential, as opposed to male counterparts who hired self assertive and competent employees. (Csatari p. 43) This article was published in a national men”s magazine, with no mention about the training level of the managers studied, it may be variables in the training they were provided or job experiece rather than gender that caused the differences in employee choice.

Men made the study standard, which made the test biased since men were writing the rules of which employee would be successful and which would fail, perhaps women do not simply make decisions on what is said but are closely attentive to body language as well. The economist Solomon Polachek holds a hypothesis that each occupation has a rate of atrophy that job skills depreciate with lack of use. Earnings power declines at atrophy, therefore if women plan to participate inconsistantly in the labor market they would best benefit from jobs with low atrophy rates like teaching and service work. Duncan p. 479)

These jobs are often classified as women”s jobs, which have a traditionally lower starting salary than male jobs. If the view that Mr. Polachek holds were universal than it would make advancement for women almost impossible if they planned to have families and take off work for any period of time. Differences in male and female preferences in jobs do exist however and can account for some of the inequality in the business world.

The Hawthorne Studies of the 1930″s and studies since have shown that women choose positions that are more meaningful, with positive social relations as opposed to males that choose careers on basis of income potential. (Tolbert p168) The traditional views of women as the supporting partner and the man as the primary earner have become barriers for women that would like to advance. Job desegregation does not yet exist wide spread however, there has been occupational desegregation. Women have been entering into traditionally male jobs in increasing numbers.

When a job gets a majority of female occupants the occupation tends to become a female “ghetto” with the males moving on to higher paying positions within that field. (England p17) The government has passed laws but women as a whole have to strive to break the perceptions men hold of their abilities. The double duties of women at work along with their life after hours, with household duties along with childcare should be examples of the strength of women”s abilities not as just a weakness.

The alternative that men would like to perpetuate is that women should be more like men. Women are responding to the challenge of the workplace, some are moving to the higher levels, but through much adversity. The choice of many women is to start their own businesses such as Mary Kay cosmetics, and Avon that is female dominated. The abilities of a person to succeed are not rooted in their gender but in the individual goals and knowledge. Women are typically being kept from the higher level positions by men that consider only other males their peers, and women as inferior.

If women have to strive to be more like men to advance in business, does this mean that they are to stop producing children and forgo the family that males are entitled to in order to achieve the equality that they deserve. Hopefully, women will be able to achieve both career and family without having to sacrifice one for the other, or be seen as weak. The ability to be a mother is a sign of dedication, commitment, and strength not weakness, as males believe.

Equality and Inequality Under Perfect Competition The mythical world of perfect wage equality Under certain very strict assumptions, a perfectly competitive market will lead to perfect equality of wage rates. All workers will earn exactly the same. These strict assumptions are as follows: All workers have identical abilities. There is perfect mobility of labor. All Jobs are equally attractive to all workers. All workers and employers have perfect knowledge. Wages are determined entirely by demand and supply.

Given these assumptions, if consumer demand rose in any industry, the demand for labor would rise. As a result, wage rates would begin to rise. Immediately workers would flood into this industry, attracted by the higher wages. Very quickly, then, wage rates would be competed back down to the level in the rest of the economy. Likewise if wage rates began to fall in any industry, workers would leave, thereby eliminating any labor surplus and preventing the fall in wage rates.

Under these conditions, therefore, not only would the labor supply curve to a firm be infinitely elastic, but so too would the labor supply curve to each industry at the universal wage rate. Of course, in the real world these conditions do not hold. Huge inequalities of wages exist. A financial dealer in the City can earn fifty times as much as a shop assistant. But even if markets were perfect, inequality would be expected to persist. Causes of inequality under perfect competition

In the short run, inequality will exist under perfect competition because of the time it takes for changes in demand and supply conditions to bring new long-run equilibrium. Thus expanding industries will tend to pay higher wage rates than contracting industries. But even after enough time has elapsed for all adjustments to be made to changes in demand and supply, long-run wage differentials will still exist for the following reasons: Workers do not have identical abilities.