Sociological Concepts: Class, Status, & Party
It might strike you as odd that classical sociologists were deeply engaged with broad questions about modernity and social inequality. This led them to question the very basic structures and functions of society and how all of this further bound up with questions about social change.
Marx, Weber, and Durkheim used the concepts of “class” “status” and “party” to explain how people organize themselves into a society. Social groups, furthermore, reflected how people self-organized into social niches or social “strata.”
Contemporary sociologists still turn to this foundational work, because it furnishes concepts that we can use to understand complex issues like social inequality and the role that capitalism plays in society.
Why Should I Care About Social Inequality?
Isn’t it more or less dumb to assume that everyone should be equal? Isn’t it just “natural” that some people are smarter, stronger, and richer than other people? Don’t people achieve success and better outcomes simply because they work harder than others? Superficially, many might say “yes.” But the real answer, of course, is that “life is more complex than this.”
Concepts like social “class” allow us to think critically and pursue an answer to these questions. That’s why it is such an important component of theory building in the social sciences. Yet “class” can be understood as both a theoretical concept and as a “variable.” In the case of the latter, when we look closely at it, we find that what appears to be one variable “class” is in reality comprised of other related interlocking concepts and/or variables like wealth, income, and education.
Given this, social science researchers are keen to study the different ways that the “class” variable is constructed. Moreover, they are interested to understand how this dynamic variable potentially interacts with other variables that reflect different levels or “dimensions” of social stratification like race and gender.
Whenever researchers try to understand the interlocking dynamics of concepts (or variables) like class, race, gender, and party, this is called taking an intersectional theoretical approach. Whereas many might call this a “radical” approach, social scientists think it merely reflects and effort to understand the complexity of human social life.
Defining concepts and variables is the first step in the process of undertaking a systematic effort to measure outcomes that embedded within social patterns. This helps us to appreciate the dynamic multifaceted nature of social group experience.
Looking deeper into social class, we find it is interesting to look at how groups maintain their “groupness” as they make efforts to not only distinguish their class, but to also assert social status (because “status” confers social advantages). As part of this process, they often make choices about how to socially identify with/affiliate with political parties.
Groupthink
Often, and perhaps more interesting, are the ways in which individuals demonstrate their committed desire to maintain a social group affiliation, which political scientists find often overrides any one individual’s desire to demonstrate independent thought on a political issue. Psychologists sometimes refer to this as “groupthink,” a mode of thinking in which individual members of cohesive groups tend to accept a viewpoint or conclusion when it represents a perceived group consensus; they do this regardless of whether or they, as an individual group member, believe it to be valid, correct, or even optimal. For this type of person, it is more important to be socially recognized as professing beliefs that are consistent with their social group identification than it is to be “right” about any given issue.
Equality vs. Equity
Karl Marx
Marx analyzed the development of modern capitalism and predicted the emergence of polarized social class conflict. He became interested in how a given individual’s relation to the means of production. His simple approach understood people fit into one of two basic social groups. His logic dictates that people are either part the bourgeois ownership class (the capitalists) or they are part of proletariat working class…and nothing in-between.
For Marx, it is the dynamic contradictory social relationship between the two different social classes that forms the basis for social class conflict – he sees conflict as the major motive force for change in social systems based on capitalism.
Put another way, Marx saw social class as the main axis around which power relationships are organized (economic and political). An individual’s class outlook (how you see the world) is determined by their material position (wealth). Of course, there are theorists that followed Marx, who find this conceptual framing to be a bit too limited (i.e. Pierre Bourdieu). In short, they felt that there are other things like “feelings” (i.e. rage) that might motivate people to override/disregard their class interests.
Researchers have found over and over again that the material position you are born into has not only a major impact on the way you see the world, but also on how you understand things like politics, major issues, and social problems.
Sadly, they have also found that it is common for people to betray their class interests in favor of indulging their emotions, feelings, and desire to seek proximity to power (even if that “power” seeks their perpetual subjugation).
They love the “invisible hand of the free market” until it one day slaps them in the face. This is the basis for a lot of today’s grievance politics.
Social Mobility
For the record, many people can and do change social classes. Yet despite the efforts of some people, whose engage in “hard work” to facilitate this, this is increasingly not a statistically a common occurrence. In the United States, for example, the statistical norm is for people to remain in the social class that they were born into.
The concept of social mobility refers to a process when someone moves from one class to another, either up or down. Such people are known as “class travelers.” That is to say, they change their social classes over the course of their lifetime. When this happens, the highest attained social class status will tend to exert the most influence over how one sees the world.
Despite what you might expect, even lower class/status people can possess what are called “aspirational” social identities; which is to say, they identify more strongly with the social class situated above them (the class status they hope to achieve), as opposed to their current social class.
The Tools of Distraction
Marx understood that one of the primary goals of capitalism (capitalists) was to distract working class people (the proletariat) to prevent them from achieving class consciousness. This can be accomplished though any number of ways. To this end, it accounts for why capitalists spend a lot of money and effort trying to entertain working class people – the classic “bread and circuses” ploy.
Workers are easily distracted by entertainment, because the have hard jobs and simply desire some level of pleasant distraction that doesn’t require hard thinking. They don’t always have the luxury of time to think about, let alone understand, abstract concepts like “capitalism” to reflect on how they are being exploited in society by capitalists, who can use their money and power to manipulate them into buying their products (that they often cannot afford) and serving their interests.
When working class people buy into the belief system that they must conspicuously consume/buy things (materialist ideology) to be seen as worthy, one of the outcomes of this, according to Marx, it that it prevents them from achieving class consciousness and solidarity with other workers. Now, they have to work even harder to pay for the things they bought, they remain committed to their individualist endeavors, because they are always chasing the next paycheck to pay the bills.
Why is this important? Because alienated workers who carry debt burdens are easy to manipulate; they don’t have the time or inclination to seek out/create social bonds with other workers, which are their best shot at leveraging the force of their collective power to overthrow the system oppresses them.
Now, some people may say “exploited my ass….just quit your job if you don’t like the work.” But that’s not always an option for poor or working class people, who are often focused on “survival” activities so they can get through another day. Future planning looks like a luxury to people who are struggling to survive.
Marx & Conflict Theory
Conflict theorists in the social sciences trace their intellectual roots to Marx in light of his emphasizing that social “conflict” defines the relationship between class factions and is the motive force for social change. Conflict, according to Marx, is inevitable, because the capitalists that control the material resources and wealth in society are they are not likely to ever give up the game of exploiting workers in order to attain more wealth and profit.
More to the point, capitalists keep the deck stacked in their favor by using their influence to shape the key major social institutions in society: the education system, the criminal justice system & laws, the media, and healthcare.
Violence is hard-wired into the System
Violence is, according to Marx, understood to be a hard-wired feature of capitalism. In order to keep people laboring at low levels of compensation (or maybe even working for free, i.e. slavery), capitalists will at some point have to resort to coercion; that is, violence. This refusal by capitalists to acknowledge and compensate workers relative to the important contributions that they make, in Marx’s view, necessitates the violent overthrow of the social system.
Marx says that the only way to end the cycle of violence is to end to capitalism and reorganize the social order in a more equitable fashion, this way ALL people can profit from the system, not just the wealthiest of the wealthy.
Alienation
Another concern Marx had with regard to capitalism and social inequality is how this also produces alienation. According to him, as capitalism advanced and people were forced to sell their labor to survive, the division of labor was increased; this resulted in them becoming alienated. Marx says workers became alienated on 4 different levels:
• alienated from the objects/products they produce
• alienated from the process of production
• alienated from themselves – their “species-being”
• alienated from other people.
In other words, the experience of selling their labor resulted in a loss of control and power over their life as well as their labor. People became slaves of the objects they produced in the same manner as they became appendages of machines.
The inherent structural disparity between the members of the working class and the owners of capital, Marx believed, contained the seeds for revolution, where the working class would have no choice but to rise up to throw off their capitalist oppressors.
Put another way, he believed that the two social classes must eventually “clash” and that capitalism, as s system of social organization, must be superseded in order for man to recover his alienated self and be free from class domination.
Here’s a little video to explain Marx’s concept of alienation:
Max Weber
Weber was most interested in the formation of the modern state and the rise of modern organizations. He formulated a three component theory of social stratification, which included class, status, and party. Some people describe his intellectual work as the sociology of domination.
He was also committed to understanding the history of “rationality.” To be more specific, we might understand his intellectual project as one dedicated to understanding why modern forms of domination – rational legal authority – developed first in Europe. For Weber, rationalization was a process whereby “ends” and “means” were progressively clarified.
Unlike Marx, Weber thought it was important to think about social positioning in terms that took into account non-economic qualities like honor, prestige, religion, and the political power domain.
Weber does not see class as forming a basis for social action and change. He doesn’t theorize a “working class” in the same manner as does Marx. Weber rather speaks of an upper, middle and lower class within lifestyle groups. Nevertheless, he still considers social class to be important to determine an individual’s “life chances.”
Weber, in this respect, understood there to be a multiplicity of classes in any given society, which contained multiple overlapping dimensions and groups. People were driven to achieve their individual goals/ends by employing different means within these overlapping structures. That’s because for Weber, unlike Marx, it’s not just about economics.
Weber is also known for his seminal work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, wherein he coined the term the “Protestant work ethic” to describe how links made by theologians between religion, work, and capital laid the groundwork for capitalism.
Calvinist theology is heavily invested in the idea of “predestination,” which dictates that only an elect few are predestined for salvation from birth. Confoundingly, the opposite also held true: poverty and abjection were signs you’d been denied God’s grace; that you were not one of the “chosen” people. You don’t have any material success to point to as an outward sign of God’s grace and so you are damned.
This double predestination doctrine, despite being cruel and despotic, has been (and remains) very successful. Historically, protestant societies are always wealthier than Catholic, which are wealthier than Orthodox. The United States represents an example of a wealthy society built on Calvinism. Yet here, even as the “Protestant Ethic” persists, most people have long since forgotten about its religious origins. Yet is is worth noting that when this ethic developed in the U.S., many people in the country weren’t even considered people (i.e. slaves). In this social context, slaves were blamed for their misfortune, subjugation, and torture even as they at the same time had the legitimacy and value of their labor erased (slaves worked hard but weren’t even regarded as human).
Naturally, all of this caused people quite a bit of personal anxiety, and so they were compelled to look for hints or signs that they were members of the elect. Since they were invested in the idea that material success was among the most notable indicators of God’s favor, the spent their life doing the hard work, where they set about to create God’s kingdom on Earth through a secular vocation. Hard work thus was considered the primary pathway to achieve God’s grace.
Again, these feelings and beliefs continue to persist, even though the original religious connection may be no longer recognizable. A strong argument can be made that this kind of religious morality continues to inform how many of us think not only about work but also about people whose ancestors were slaves (African Americans).
Note, if religious Calvinism served as the nasty model for capitalism, by way of contrast, the Nordic model (based on Lutheranism), represents an attempt to clean it up a bit, as it aimed to smooth over capitalism’s rough edges and messy exploitation, while still emphasizing the virtue of working hard. This is why people tend to praise the Nordic model whereas they criticize the U.S./neoliberal model of capitalism.
Race & the Protestant Work Ethic
“The Protestant work ethic that influenced the founding of this country included a belief that the more material wealth you have, the closer you are to God,” said Robin DiAngelo, a professor whose research focuses on how white people are socialized to collude with institutional racism.
“So during slavery, we said, ‘You must do all the work but we will never allow that to pay off.’ Now we don’t give black people access to work. Then and now they have not been allowed to participate in wealth building or granted the morality we attach to wealth” (DiAngelo)
This historical entanglement of property and virtue continues to inform racial views.
“Property among white Americans is seen as something to be treasured and revered,” said Winbush. “Black Americans, for reasons having to do with this history of disenfranchisement, have not viewed themselves as truly owning anything in America” ((DiAngelo).
Put differently, when we think about people within a context where work/labor contributes to building God’s kingdom on Earth in a very physical way, anyone whose labor was not recognized as legitimate was denied access to material wealth, success, and social status – all the things that supposedly were indicators of one’s “chosen” status.
Denying the labor of black Americans thus became an important part of the legitimating ideology of white supremacy – it helped reinforce it.
Ethicist Katie Geneva Cannon has written at length about how the institutional denial of citizenship and freedom to black people essentially precluded the possibility of them ever being seen as virtuous in white society.
“The ‘rightness of whiteness’ counted more than the basic political and civil rights of any Black person…
Eventually, institutional slavery ended, but the virulent and intractable hatred that supported it did not,” Cannon wrote in The Emergence of Black Feminist Consciousness. For it is through both erasure and ignorance that we continue to deny the virtue and legitimacy of black citizenship and labor (Cannon).
Although it has been a long time since the ideas of the Protestant work ethic took hold – and slavery too was a looooong time ago – nonetheless, we are still trapped within the legacy of inequities brought about by these social dynamics and ways of understanding who “works hard” and who is socially worthy. While the religious explanations that underlie the logic no longer seem to be relevant; the economic logic remains, emptied of its religious content.
American industriousness would not have come about without free slave labor. War and Imperialism (“offense” taking other people’s stuff combined with a little bit of “defense”) was also key to industrial progress. That these things are plainly obvious, yet they still manage to escape critical recognition, is a problem – one that gets in the way of achieving real social progress.
Pierre Bourdieu
Bourdieu’s work represents something of an elaboration and synthesis of the work of both Marx and Weber. He proposed a functional theory that linked the “material” elements of class with the symbolic “psychic” dimensions of class (could it be that they’re not really separate at all?). Bourdieu was, in this respect, interested to explore how social class gets internalized; that is, how it not only reflects the material aspects of your life, but how it also affects your habits of mind, including the tastes and preferences that you develop for culture (i.e. hair, clothes, music, art, food, sports, people, body style, and other aesthetics). All of these things, according to Bourdieu, reflect the individual’s relation to the dominant class in society; they distinguish the dominated from the dominant.
In light of this important work, we might consider how the cultural realm continues to constitute an important site of tension, conflict, and expression, as people jockey for position in the status hierarchy and engage in status-seeking behavior in order to claim their position in the social order. Bourdieu’s ideas further illuminate how economic and cultural relations might be merged with relations of subordination, based on class, age, and gender (he didn’t say much about race) and in doing so shows how multiple forms of subordination articulate and may be deeply intertwined.
Wealth Distribution
Presently, in the United States, we have an economic situation similar to what Marx described.
The vast majority of people are resource-poor, relatively speaking, when compared to their well-off brethren, who own upwards of 40% of the country’s wealth. The following video clip offers a powerful illustration of wealth distribution dynamics in the contemporary U.S.:
How to Fix it: Policy Solutions
For a long time, economists, policymakers, and many lawmakers have argued we shouldn’t worry about social and wealth inequality; that the real problem to solve is how to reduce poverty. Many of these same people insisted that high levels of inequality were unimportant because policies that benefit wealth accumulation among high-income earners effectively help everyone. “A rising tide lifts all boats” is how the wisdom goes.
New research by Branko Milanovic and Roy van der Weide takes issue with this kind of thinking. They assert that policies derived from such flawed logic are dead wrong. According to the authors, social inequality doesn’t produce gains for the economy as a whole (and everyone across the earning spectrum); rather, inequality only benefits the very very rich.
Thomas Piketty advances claims that echo Marx, as he argues that social inequality is not an accident or the simple result of individual actors/groups making better or unfortunate bad choices; rather, he says social inequality is a distinguishing feature of capitalism that can only be reversed through state-based policy intervention. Unless capitalism is reformed, he says, the entire democratic social order will be put at risk.
Prior to this research, economists were prone to argue that wealth redistribution slowed down economic growth. These economists maintained that any attempts to reduce economic inequality through the stimulus of policy mechanisms would have the effect of making poverty worse.
If you can follow this contradictory logic, they are essentially saying is that financial incentives/rewards are a good way to incentivize the wealthy to stimulate the economy; but similar financial incentives/rewards provided to poor people don’t work. This logic further suggests that incentivizing poor people with money will only make them lazy and less likely to work hard and achieve. In short, incentives for me but not for thee.
Given the benefit of an expanding literature on the subject, we now know these assumptions aren’t true; that social inequality actually reduces economic growth. That is to say – the assumptions of many leading economists were backward.
The latest research findings indicate that by structuring economic and tax policies to motivate rich people to invest, thereby increasing social inequality, resulted in even higher levels of social inequality, which prompted poor people to take on more debt as a means to catch up/survive. This has had the effect of destabilizing the economy.
In a consumer driven economy, where there are not enough poor and middle-class families to consume products, businesses are forced to contend with less revenue and fewer customers. Consequently, instead of providing the poor and middle class with an incentive to better their lives (so they might achieve the American dream), higher levels of social inequality gave rich people an incentive to pull up the economic ladder, leaving everyone’s boat stranded.
The rich, in other words, left the poor and the middle class behind. More than this, they invested their riches in building walls to seclude themselves, out of fear of needing to protect against angry poor people, who they know at some point are going to figure out that they got played. Now you know why people increasingly feel like they need so many guns to protect themselves….and why billionaires are building bunkers in New Zealand.
So now, instead being forced to always work harder, the rich are able to sit back and enjoy the fruits of their accumulated wealth (check out HBO’s “The White Lotus”). Research on spending patterns demonstrates that when they’re not spending their wealth on luxury consumables, they often choose to redirect earnings outside the local economy and into off-shore tax havens, through the use of complicated accounting mechanisms and tax deferment schemes.
The poor and middle class, not surprisingly, lose hope and become disenchanted…so much so that they sometimes argue against their own economic interests, where they too will sometimes argue that the rich have every right to become rich by any means necessary (even if it means stepping on the necks of poor and working people)….because that’s just “smart business.” This disenchantment comes from restricted opportunity, a perceived lack of fairness in the system, and the lack of belief that they might help organize the world in a different way, so that poor people didn’t have to be exploited.
The problem with the continued oppression of poor people is that: 1) they will at some point get angry and rise up; and 2) with earnings are depressed and employment not always stable, they will have less money to spend/invest to keep the system chugging along. Bear in mind, one of the consequences of all this is that they probably have less money to invest in their own education to get ahead, as they are increasingly buried in debt and find it nearly impossible to plan for their future.
Social inequality reduces economic growth because it reduces demand at the same time as it curtails upward social and economic mobility.
In light of this, it is important to think about how your different class and status positions might influence how you think and feel about things like social problems. Or are you so privileged to think that social inequality is not a problem at all.
What Does a More Equitable Society Look Like?
A more equal society would mean everyone has shelter, healthcare, education, food, and time to rest and play as well as work. It would mean not discriminating on grounds of identity, sex or skin color.
It would mean having a social system that provides people with access to facilities such as libraries and galleries and parks which could be participated in by everyone.
It would involve foregrounding egalitarian goals and dramatically curbing corporate power and high pay.
It would mean heeding the call for universal public services (i.e. internet, heat, and hot water).
It would mean prioritizing climate change as a social issue that affects everyone.
It would mean prioritizing healthcare as a social issue that affects everyone.
These are structural social problems; they are not “work ethic” problems.
Discussion Questions:
Why is there social inequality? Is it “natural” as many people assume? Is it made by our institutions and social policy? Or is it simply a reflection of the fact that some people don’t work hard?
Is the United States, land of the free, a “classless” society? Or are there defined social classes? If so, what social class do you relate to? Can you identify your class position (as determined by your birth) and relate to how it might impact the way you see social problems as well as opportunities in the world?
Apply concepts and theories related to class conflict, social inequality, and social stratification (i.e. social class, race, gender) explain your own life experiences.
How might your class position influence how you see people located at both the lower and high end of the wealth scale?
Where have you traditionally believed that most of the wealth is located in our society? Do you think it is held by middle-class people? How might your class position influence the way you think about social problems and policy solutions?
If you don’t feel particularly “exploited” based on your present-day economic circumstances, does that make it difficult for you to relate to someone else who might feel that way?
Do you find yourself saying things like, “if you don’t like the way you are being treated, get a better job?” (without questioning why exploitation should be a natural part of someone’s work experience). Think, for example, about McDonald’s workers, Walmart workers, and even union workers.
Do you think that the accumulation of assets at the high end is a simple reflection of “hard work” or “smart work” invested by the people who end up there?
Do you think that the people at the bottom of the wealth distribution are there because they are the natural losers, who didn’t work hard/smart; that they simply failed?
How is the notion of “bootstrapping” and/or the philosophy of “individualism” challenged by the video?
Why do you think working class people are often among the loudest complainers with respect to redistributive politics and programs (programs critics call “socialism”). What is the major source of their complaint? Do you think, for example, that maybe they complain because they don’t like or relate to many of the people who comprise the working poor (blacks and Hispanics) or do they simply just not support any form of benefits (i.e. “handouts”) for poor people in general?
Why do these same working class people often not often complain about giving away tax dollars to support tax incentives for wealthy people (i.e. policies that give money/handouts to banks, wall street, etc.)?
The chart clearly indicates that most of the country’s wealth is concentrated among the top 1% of wage earners. When you add to this the fact that most government and social programs are paid for by wage taxes extracted from the middle class (because neither the very poor or the very rich pay a high percentage of their income in taxes), why do you think it is that so many people across the income spectrum are calling for the poor (and not the rich) to pay more taxes? Does this seem logical?
Why do you think that programs that benefit poor people (food stamps/SNAP benefits) are referred to as “welfare,” but programs that benefit the working and middle-class people (home mortgage interest deduction, unemployment compensation, GI bill), wealthy (capital gains taxes), and corporations (tax incentives, subsidies) are not similarly thought of as corporate “welfare?”
Why do you think so many people accept the upside down logic that rich people need financial incentives (high pay or tax cuts) to produce jobs, but providing financial incentives to poor people is bad policy, because giving them money/benefits rewards bad behavior?
Do you think corporations are the true “wealth” generators in society….or might the be the real “Welfare Queens?”
Class position can significantly influence how we perceive people at both the lower and higher ends of the wealth scale. Our social and economic standing often shapes our worldview and interactions with others. Those in higher classes might feel some empathy or guilt for those at the lower end and may even want to help. People sometimes feel a sense of social responsibility to help through charitable acts or policies, or act oppositely by distancing themselves. Some perceive poverty as an unrelatable issue, and they might stereotype the lower class as lazy or irresponsible. This can happen due to misconceptions that poverty is caused by personal failings rather than systemic issues. For people in the lower or middle class may admire the wealthier individuals for their success, seeing them as role models, or they might feel resentment, viewing them as privileged or disconnected from the struggles of ordinary people. People from diverse backgrounds, education levels, and locations may have different views based on societal norms and firsthand experiences. In societies with greater income inequality, these perceptions can be more polarized with greater resentment or admiration depending on where one stands.
Social inequality isn’t something that happens it’s created by how our society is organized. Also, after reading, Karl Marx believed that inequality is built into capitalism, where the wealthy get richer by taking advantage of poorer people. Max Weber added that inequality isn’t just about money but also respect and political power, so it arises because systems like the economy and politics favor certain groups over others. Looking around and comparing the US to other places, the US is definitely “classless.” It has distinct social classes, such as the upper class, middle class, and working class. Marx would say society is divided mainly into the rich and the working class. And when we talk about wealth, it’s not the middle class the rich keep getting richer by controlling resources and exploiting workers. They get wealthy every day, but the rest of society, including the middle class, has less wealth and fewer opportunities to move up.
I never had thought of workers that work in places like fast food, Walmart, union workers, etc., on why they do not get a better job if they do not like how they get treated because I can relate to them. I work in retail and it definitely gets difficult at times because of customers not realizing social etiquette and instead being the rudest, inconsiderate people ever, especially around the holidays. It also is not that easy to just get a new job that quickly unless you have connections, because a lot of jobs now require lots of experience or they do not pay as good, so people settle for a bad job that will at least pay them a decent amount of money.
I think that the programs that low class people use are called welfare programs because welfare is a term that is mainly used for low class programs that indicates its meant for low class people. The programs that middle-class people use however, are not meant as a way to help them get back on their feet but more as an investment or financial gain.
According to the reading they say why should I care about inequality isn’t it just natural to be smarter, richer, and better outcomes when working harder which is true in some ways. Depending on where you start you may be born into money have a head start and may have not put in any effort which on the other half people born into lower class have to work harder to succeed or to even make a living. In this economy and how these jobs are not paying enough but expect the best but can not even pay people enough to afford groceries and rent or to even buy a house.
We all always been divided into different classes and people were always judged no matter what class you were in for instance in school we had lower class people made fun of what they wear or where they live, or we had the middle class or higher class which were more viewed as stuck up and snobby. Also always been divided when you go into a poor community it is trashy and not well taken care of and in a higher community it’s more clean and put together. People view people how they view them and that is just how America is everyone thinks they are better than the next it is just all competition.
When discussing issues of people being treated unfairly or unequally the main solution that comes to everyone’s mind is to just treat everyone fairly by giving the same amount of opportunities and benefits to everyone regardless of their wealth status or their societal class. This solution tends not to work out for a vast majority of people as the support they are receiving is not enough to keep themselves or their families stable financially. Where equity really has a massive advantage in comparison to equality is that it has more of a focus on supporting the lower classes first, giving the support to the people who are actually in need of the benefits first. This way instead of having a very wide margin between the financial stability of a given population it is instead more even for everyone regardless of what class and societal group that they were born in.
Social inequality is a significant issue that can be looked at in many ways. Systemic barriers play a huge role in this issue. For example, the U.S. has classes. These classes are lower, working, middle, and upper. People in the upper class would not understand the struggles of a person in the lower class. They have never had to worry about whether they will have a job the next day or not. This creates an ignorant view on employment. To make society fairer, it’s important to have empathy for those who have less.
Programs that help poor people are often called “welfare.” This can be a negative term since it implies that they can’t live without government aid. On the other hand, programs that benefit the middle and upper classes are seen as normal. This creates a clear double standard. Ultimately, everyone in this country has benefited from government support in some way, whether through infrastructure, education, or tax breaks.
Why do you think so many people accept the upside down logic that rich people need financial incentives (high pay or tax cuts) to produce jobs, but providing financial incentives to poor people is bad policy, because giving them money/benefits rewards bad behavior?
I think people accept this logic because poorer people are seen negatively by society, they are seen as lazy, or dirty, or addicted to drugs which isn’t always the case. Society today sees rich people as powerful and hard working which also isn’t always the case. Society think’s giving rich people tax cuts or high pay will make them do something good or improve companies or people’s lives, whereas society thinks if you give poor people the same incentives they will waste it all or not do anything productive or contribute to society. There is no way to tell when a group of people is given an incentive if they will use it ethically or not, poor or rich, but I think in society we continue to fund the rich and neglect the poor.
Social inequality exists for many reasons, including institutionalized racism, the wealthy’s exploitation of the working class, and systems put in place to keep the impoverished in poverty. There’s also the belief in the “American Dream” that’s held in high regard to inspire people to work hard in order to gain success. Belief that one is achieving or will eventually achieve the American Dream keeps the working class motivated, even though hard work is one of many factors that contribute to wealth, and success isn’t guaranteed for those who participate in back breaking labor. Those at the bottom of the wealth distribution definitely aren’t “natural born losers” and are some of the most hardworking individuals on this Earth. However, there are powers (e.g. capitalists) that manipulate the system in order to keep the lower class in poverty (because the less money the impoverished have, the more money to go in the greedys’ pockets). One’s class position could have tremendous effects on the way they view those in higher or lower classes. Someone born into a high class family may justify their luck by convincing themselves that they’re deserving of their wealth and the lower class isn’t worthy, or maybe they’d consider the impoverished lazy/unintelligent since they were unable to come into wealth of their own (like the higher class individual’s antecedents). On the other end of the spectrum, someone in the lower class might believe that the rich are superior, smarter or harder workers, or that higher class individuals are inherently evil and manipulative, leading them to an unrightful fortune.
Working-class people frequently don’t complain about policies like Wall Street because they have been conditioned to think that the wealthy deserve their privileges, through their effort or diligence. Also, economic incentives that are meant to benefit everyone are frequently constructed as policies favoring the wealthy. Individuals may lack the time or energy to question these ideas, especially when they are facing difficulties in fulfilling basic needs. They might also think that they could eventually move up through hard work.
Programs for the poor are called “welfare” due to the negative perception of poverty, with those receiving the benefits frequently viewed as unworthy. At the same time, policies favoring the wealthy or businesses are presented as “stimulus” or “investments,” believed to help boost the economy. This difference shows how capitalism and its institutions rationalize inequality by promoting giving to the rich as acceptable but condemning help for the poor. It’s a method of hiding the systemic favoritism treatment that benefits the privileged.
Social Inequality is known to be comprised of a variety of factors including class, party, wealth, race, etc.. These factors are intertwined and primarily institutional. People will identify with certain characteristics and may fall victim to groupthink when determining some of their beliefs, such as the sharp divide in regard to political parties. However, people’s desire for higher status will drive them to refute policies that are in their favor. They do this under the guise that maybe “one day” they’ll reach that higher status, or they deflect certain blame onto the “lower” classes for the same reasons.
Yet again, this belief that maybe one day they’ll be amongst their desired social class, pushes the blame onto those who need the most support. Perhaps for a lot of middle and upper class people, they take issue with their tax dollars being used to assist the “lower” class because they feel as though they’ve worked harder. The believe that “well I did it all myself, and no one helped me, so why can’t they.” That’s something I’ve heard a few people say.
The concept so many people fall victim to is “pulling themselves up by their bootstraps”, but that’s simply not possible in the present day, especially when considering those without higher education. Most entry level jobs, jobs with few to no education requirement, and minimum wage jobs do not pay a living wage. It’s simply not feasible for the majority of people, let alone if they have a child. They have to work twice the hours to get to the same level wealthier people start at.
Social inequality arises from a complex interplay of various factors rather than being attributed to a single cause. Many people will argue that it is natural due to differences in individual abilities or efforts. Social inequalities are predominantly shaped by structural and systemic issues within societies. Class conflicts, social inequality, and social stratification are fundamental concepts in sociology and social sciences that help understand the dynamics and complexities of societies. For example, there was one moment in time when I was going car shopping with my mother and while talking to the car salesman he automatically took us to some of the older cars because he thought it would be more in our price range. My mother was thrown back and asked if there were any cars maybe a little closer into the year and he was insisting on keeping our price range below 5,000 for our benefit. We eventually left and decided to take our time and money elsewhere because she did not feel she was being treated the same as others partially because we could be black and women.
Social policies, and institutions, along with individual perspectives regarding the financial situations of others, are, in my view, the primary factors of social inequality. Our country is divided into three separate classes: top class, middle class, and lower class. Many members of the upper class and upper middle class believe that members of the lower class are indolent and inattentive workers. I believe that everyone, regardless of status, has some responsibility for social disparities. Some people may not want to work and therefore rely on other sources of income, whereas others to make and work for their own money Wealthy individuals can assist the underprivileged succeed, but it’s all in a competitive market. Their desire is power. Their desire is to witness others fail. Helping the individuals they complain about wouldn’t benefit them because they are always trying to get to the top.
Apply concepts and theories related to class conflict, social inequality, and social stratification (i.e. social class, race, gender) explain your own life experiences.
I was born into what I would consider a upper middle class community. Growing up and in school I really thought my family was more so middle class because of the people around me and how they behaved. After seeing what other peoples lives are like and how they live, I feel like it really opened my eyes on just how much a class can be spread out. I personally feel like I never understood how wide the gap of wealth is. I think it’s fair to say i’ve had a lot of opportunity as someone who had a family support system and the ability to go to school in a fairly high regarded school district. When you are born, a new set of opportunities is given to you based on everything about you, race, sex, and economic status. Many times people cannot break out of those boxes and it becomes how they were born and how they will die. One important thing to note is just how wealthy the United States is compared to other areas and how it’s hard to compare your wealth when some people struggle to just get water. I believe that a lot of todays wealth is in the hands of a few people who are extremely wealthy and the rest is divided among the bottom 99%.
Many people who claim that individuals at the lower level of the wealth ladder are there solely due to a lack of hard work often speak from a place of privilege and a certain level of ignorance. We often hear about the success stories of people who started from nothing and made it all the way to the top, and without a doubt, that is very incredible and very hard to do. However, what tends to get overshadowed are the opportunities and privileges that played a role in their journey. The factors that might not be readily apparent to us. It’s not about discounting the immense effort and determination these individuals put into their journey; rather, it’s about acknowledging that not everyone starts with the same advantages. This recognition doesn’t diminish the hard work and dedication that propelled them to where they are. Instead, it urges us to be mindful that not everyone has had access to the opportunities that may have facilitated their success. Recongnizing that the paying field isnt always as level as it might seem.
Being a first-generation immigrant and growing up watching my parents work for everything that they have with very little assistance has influenced how I view both the rich and the poor. I am guilty of having occasionally wondered why people living in poverty do not do everything they can to escape it, as I saw my parents do. To be more specific, my mom’s first job in America was at a sandwich shop in the Pittsburgh airport. This job, as well as my dad’s income from working at a clothing factory, was what my brother and I were raised on. Now, my dad owns his own business and my mom was able to go to school to become a licensed cosmetologist. Their growth from minimum wage jobs to doing what they dreamed of sometimes makes it hard to believe that not everyone can have a success story like this, however, I now realise that they had to work incredibly hard to get to where they are and still, such opportunities to go from low-income to middle class are not available to everyone. As for high-income people, I often find myself frustrated with the amount of opportunities that they are presented with, regardless of whether they work towards them or not. This natural judgement causes a disconnect in my understanding of the lives of better-off people.
I believe that there is social inequality because of social policies, norms, and institutions, along with individual mindsets on other people’s socioeconomic status. Our country is strictly made up of classes: Upper class, middle class, and lower class. Many of those in the upper middle and upper class often see those in the lower class as lazy and believe they do not work hard. I think everyone in every class is responsible for social inequality. While there are people who work hard to earn every dollar they make, there are some who do not want to work, and rely on other ways to get income. I think it is on all individuals to change social inequality, specifically the rich. I know that there are lots of rich people who came from poor backgrounds and truly worked their hardest in life to be successful. However, many are born into money, which is one of the biggest economic advantages in life. Most born into money have no care in the world for the poor, as money is all they know. They often deteriorate the poor because they feel as if they are the best people in the world. However, they do not know what it is like to be poor. They do not care about anything besides being rich and anything affiliated with money. I believe that if people like this opened their eyes and realized how bad people suffer without any control over it, social inequality would be a smaller issue. Rich people have the power to help the poor succeed, yet it is all a competition. They want to have power. They want to see other people fail. They always want to be at the top, so helping the people they complain about would do no good for them. People with money are truly powerful, but often in dangerous ways.
I feel is some ways the United States can be defined as a classless society, where in principle all men are created equal as written in the constitution. No matter their race, religion, sex, or status they are entitled to the same treatment and justice under the law and are all guaranteed the same individual rights and liberties. Unfortunately though, this often gets abused, whether in court systems, taxes, or corporate structure, where the wealthy can avoid prison time by paying their way out, avoid taxes by using offshore accounts, and abusing their position for higher pay. On top of this, your social class will influence the way you perceive social problems. As most rich people live in neighborhoods with people of similar status, they often are able to ignore the conditions of neighborhoods in poor areas. When someone who is poorer sees an issue in their daily life, they think of ways to get by, while someone who is richer may think of ways to exploit the problem for their own gain, though obviously this is not always the case.
Why should I care about social inequality? I should, mainly because it is a socially constructed concept that is designed to make the rich richer and keep the poor at the bottom of society. The United States is supposed to be the greatest nation in the world, however its middle class is barely distinguishable from the poor. The top 20% of people have more than 80% of the whole country’s wealth and the top 1% possess a staggering 40% of it. It seems practically impossible to move up once you are born into a lower class. The individuals who are at the top of the pyramid more often than not have achieved their success with the help of someone already in a position of power. Regardless of the amount of work, one can only dream to be as wealthy as the top 1 %. Despite having all the numbers and numerous research proving the alarming reality of social inequality, society seems to accept it because they believe that if they work hard enough they too can achieve the good old American dream.
Social inequality is something we see especially with people of color, women, and people of the LGBTQ+ community. These groups of people don’t get the same opportunities as the white man; even if they are just as (or more!) qualified. We have never had social equality in America. Not even equity. America was born on stolen land, then slavery, then homophobic acts. It won’t ever stop because people are self indulgent and greedy. They will believe anything that gets them more money, which then gets them to the top of the food chain. America was made for and by the white man. Women, POC, and LGBTQ+ individuals were not supposed to succeed in this American world. We are slowly going back in time with our belief systems. People haven’t realized that we’re going back in time. More and more murders of minorities are being slaughtered everyday. General crime has gone down, but racist acts have not.
Status and class in today’s society are very important depending on where you are located or what type of profession you do. For example, people who live in high income homes and make a good amount of money would have a higher status than other people. Professions like politicians also care a lot about their status because they need to make a good impression on other people because of their position in the political setting. I believe that the most wealth in our society is located in the government officials because they hold the most power in our society. I think that a very select few middle class people hold some wealth because of their connections and the people they know. The class position could influence the social problems and policy solutions by giving the higher class people more and better options to live their best life. While lower class people end up not having the kind of options that the higher class people have which could lead to them living a harder life.
Social inequality in America is a complex issue rooted in a combination of historical, institutional, and systemic factors. Economic policies, education systems, and healthcare access play crucial roles in shaping the distribution of resources. I don’t believe it’s a reflection of people not working hard, some of the hardest working people I know struggle financially. My father for example has worked his whole life up to 3 jobs at a time just to make ends meet. I think people refer to food stamps/ SNAP benefits as welfare and not middle class benefits as the same because they see people who collect food stamps as lazy and think they’re “ taking advantage of the system “. This is a controversial topic because I think there are some people who do use the welfare system to their “advantage” but as someone who’s family has been on food stamps when i was little, that’s not always the case.
Social inequality exists because of our institutions and social policy. The rich use their influence to shape the education system, the criminal justice system & laws, the media, and healthcare. The criminal justice system often gives lighter sentences to the wealthy. The majority of media is owned by extremely wealthy people, which means they can influence society a lot with their media. Most people do not care about the wealthy getting financial incentives because the media doesn’t talk about it or talk about it in a negative way. Financial incentives for poor people, however, are viewed negatively by most who are not poor. The media always talk negatively about these because the rich control it and don’t want poor people to succeed economically. Healthcare is expensive because the rich own the system and they can use it to exploit everyone. Everyone needs healthcare and the high prices are a result of the rich being able to charge that much for it. If someone can’t afford the healthcare bill, they are basically owned by the rich because the debt will hurt their credit score and they will need to do a lot of work to pay it off.
Social inequality is not natural in any sense of the word. I am a white male born in a middle class home, I have had it pretty easy when it comes to life so far, I did not work for this life. So the sheer fact that people work harder than me and are not successful is proof enough that this is an established system where people from groups are pushed down. This is an issue that we as a society need to face. But honestly I don’t know where to start.
Social inequality, like, it’s this intricate thing. So, you know, classical sociologists—Marx, Weber, and Durkheim—chatted about class, status, and party to decipher how society sorts itself. Weber, this thinker, tied religion, work, and capitalism in his “Protestant work ethic” idea. It’s wild how race and this work ethic are still tangled up today, shaping how we view people. Bourdieu, another mind, delved into class not just as money but, as, how it messes with our heads and shapes our taste. Now, in the U.S., it’s like the rich are on a different planet. They use policies to stack the deck, even hiding their money in offshore accounts. And us regular folks? We get bummed out and start defending the rich, thinking they must’ve worked super hard. But, hey, it’s not just about how hard you hustle; it’s about the rules of the game. Social inequality isn’t some natural order or about lazy people; it’s about policies and systems favoring the rich. So, we need to shake things up, push for fair policies, and rethink what matters for everyone to have a shot at a good life.
Social inequality is an inevitable topic. Because inequality will always exist, it has existed in the past and will exist in the future. In the animal kingdom, the class also exists. Cats, for example, the stronger of the cats will lick the fur of the weaker. And humans, as a species with higher intelligence, are not immune to the existence of class and inequality now.
It is not only in terms of status that consumption reflects inequality. I once read a point of view about the rich and luxury. Many people have a longing for luxury. They spend a lot of experience saving up just to get a luxury item or two. Some people expressed great disapproval of this behavior. Because luxury goods were created for the entertainment of the rich. It is a channel for the outflow of their wealth. And the consumption of luxuries by ordinary people will put their financial situation get more pressure.
The existence of a class is not a problem, but a class creates problems. The gap between the rich and the poor only becomes wider and wider underclass. Take for example the luxury goods just mentioned. Although some people see luxury goods as a way to bring the wealth of the rich into the CASH CIRCULAR SYSTEM, this does not spread the money around. The people who own the luxury companies are also one of the top earners in society. And the poor will only be drained by luxury goods. As a result, the rich will get richer, and the poor will get worse off financially. Therefore, luxury goods are just a symbol of the rich people, not a symbol of wealth. This means that owning luxury goods does not mean that someone will enter the rich class, rather luxury goods will automatically flow to the rich. The level of consumption in a way reflects the difference in class.
It is indeed a thought-provoking situation. What we need to think about is not only about the current situation of social inequality but also about what we are looking for.
Whenever it comes to thinking a statement like “if you don’t like the way you are being treated, get a better job” I try my hardest to stop myself in my thought process. As someone who has schedules to work around, I understand what it is like to work for a corporation that is awful, and not being able to get a different job because of the schedule. Or sometimes someone might not be qualified for another job without the sucky one they are at. Thinking that someone needs to just get a “better job” is easy when just thinking about it. So many “better job” places say that they are hiring but will not hire you without experience. And most of the time the experience they want has to come from a place that sucks. Or the distance might be an issue. A sucky place near you might hire you because you live close. However, if they take advantage of that because you are close, then you are screwed. You can’t leave the job because of the distance, however, because of being close to your job, you are taken advantage of. It is hard trying to move from one job to another when you have to worry about more than just yourself.
Social inequality is not a natural phenomenon but a result of institutional structures and policies. It’s simplistic to chalk it up to individual work ethic alone. In the U.S., despite its image as a ‘land of the free’ and ‘classless’ society, there are clear social classes influenced by factors like income, education, and occupation.
As an African-American woman from a middle-class, two-parent household living in a low-income area, my class position has influenced how I view social problems and opportunities. My community, often associated with drug crime and violence, has shown me its brighter side through my involvement in youth outreach, McKeesport Womanhood, Talent Search, sports teams and other leadership programs. These experiences have opened my eyes to a different narrative than what’s commonly portrayed in the news.
Living at the intersection of middle-class opportunities and low-income challenges offers me a unique view of the wealth spectrum. I empathize with those at the lower end, recognizing the systemic roots of their struggles. At the same time, my background shows the importance of community support and the potential for upward mobility.This blend of experiences informs my understanding of class conflict and social stratification, emphasizing how race, gender, and social class interplay in shaping life experiences. I see firsthand the barriers created by systemic inequalities and witness the transformative power of community effort and individual resilience. My outlook balances recognizing these structural challenges with believing in the power of agency and change.
Social inequality is a complex issue with various factors at play. It’s not solely natural or solely a result of individual work ethic. Institutional structures, social policies, and historical factors contribute significantly. In the United States, despite the idea of being the “land of the free,” there are indeed defined social classes. I would identify myself as belonging to a middle-class background.
Being born into the middle class has its advantages, but it also shapes how I perceive social problems and opportunities. I recognize that systemic barriers can hinder upward mobility for many. Understanding class conflict and social stratification theories helps me see the broader picture of inequality, encompassing factors like race and gender.
My class position influences how I view individuals at different points on the wealth scale. I’m aware that those in lower economic positions might face systemic challenges, and it’s not solely a matter of personal effort. Conversely, I understand that not all success at the higher end is solely due to hard work – factors like privilege and opportunity play crucial roles. This perspective encourages a more nuanced understanding of social issues and fosters empathy towards diverse experiences.
I think working-class individuals may not always complain about tax incentives for wealthy people for several reasons:
1. Lack of Awareness: Many working-class individuals might not be fully aware of the intricacies of tax policies and how they impact wealth distribution. Tax incentives for the wealthy are often complex and not widely discussed in mainstream media.
2. Economic Beliefs: Some working-class individuals might hold economic beliefs that align with trickle-down economics, believing that policies benefiting the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone by stimulating the economy.
3. Political Influence: Wealthy individuals and corporations often have significant political influence, which can shape the narrative and public perception around tax policies. This can make it challenging for working-class people to voice their concerns effectively.
4. Divisive Politics: In some cases, working-class individuals might be divided along political lines, with partisan affiliations influencing their stance on tax policies. This can make it difficult to build a unified voice against policies favoring the wealthy.
5. Prioritization of Immediate Concerns: Working-class people may be more focused on immediate economic challenges such as job security, healthcare, and education costs, which can take precedence over broader tax policy issues. Keeping a job and keeping their bills paid is a priority a lot of working families have to deal with. People who also don’t earn salaries also human be working a job they don’t even like. Working just to keep a roof over your head is survival that many people in America understand and have gone through at a point in their life. Some of them also spend their whole life going through this.
In summary, the lack of complaints about tax incentives for the wealthy among working-class individuals can be attributed to a combination of factors, including limited awareness, differing economic beliefs, political influence, divisive politics, and the prioritization of immediate concerns.
I don’t think that social inequality is natural, instead I think that society has made it to where it has to feel that way. American states were made with racist laws and ideals and i feel that that plays a huge role in what society is today. There are still laws that are made and are being made based on these same ideals. I don’t think that it is because people do not work hard, in America you literally have no choice but to work and slave for a good wage so that cannot be the case. A lot of theorists and other white Americans kept the same ideals and passed it on to future generation and that is why their is social inequality today. Our system is not based on morality and it shows, even though we are more advanced in technology, even though they have less, they show more morality.
The land of the free would be believed to be wonderful and full of opportunities but in reality there is no real way to exceed anything or anyone without money or power. Our country’s society is blindly sectioned into classes mostly depending on financial stability, education, and occupation. The most common hierarchical social categories are upper, middle, and lower class but there are subcategories and many other things that lie beneath the surface. My family relates mostly to the middle class and I believe your class heavily affects the way you see the world and the social problems that come along with it. A person born into the lower class will have to learn survival skills but a person born into the upper class already has an advantage from the start, and if you’re born into the middle class you are born with just enough of an advantage that you might just be part of the upper class some day.
Social class is a major discussion within this topic. Social class can change and fluctuates based on different factors. The rich get richer and the poor gets poorer is a saying for a reason. These challenges that face these groups are very different in ways. But this also shares hand and hand with equity and discriminatory Acts among everyone in the United States. I feel social class is a way to separate the fortunate from the unfortunate. In this cases you see million of not billionaires riding around in yachts and not working a single day in their lives. This was based on some privileges before they had access to this. Theories like Marx used key examples and several other ideas based on what causes people to act the way they do in these circumstances.
America, in my opinion, is a society organized by class. No matter what anyone says, I think we have always been. I believe that many people base class on things like how much money they have, whether they live in a “good” neighborhood, have a nice car, excellent clothes, and a nice house, among many other materialistic criteria. I think how people are treated or perceived by others depends on how they were raised. Because they believe they have all the power, those in the top class don’t want to associate with those in the lower or middle classes, in my opinion. Rich people, in my opinion, may consider that those in lower classes than them, “can never be at my level” and look down on them. My family and I belong to the middle class. I grew up in a small town and attended Elizabeth Township Public School. I’d like to think that my two other siblings and I all obtained quality educations in our high schools. I think I was raised to put a lot of effort into academic success, athletic achievement, and anything else I set my mind to. Living in a small region, in my opinion, may sometimes make you feel as though you are living in a tiny bubble. That is how it has played out for me, at least. I feel as though I have never considered anything to matter outside of Elizabeth Township; I have always felt protected and that this is where my life is. But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that there is a lot going on in the world around me that is not contained by this bubble. There is definitely more to the world than what I first realized when I started college. However, I think that growing up in a quiet neighborhood outside of Pittsburgh eventually had an effect on the way I view the world. But as I grew older and matured, I became more conscious of what was happening in the outside world.
Social Inequality stems from the different variables that factor into who you are when you are born. Being born with money is considered an economic “advantage” that will last for your lifetime. You are already looked at differently and may be treated differently. There are multiple classes and statuses in America, depending which one you are in leads to different things you push for. People in lower and middle classes come together to push for a movement to tax the rich. Poor people are looked down upon by people with generally more money, but they do not truly understand why that person is in the situation they are in. People born within money tend to have it easy in life. They can use that money to make even more money or overall just have an advantage. They do not have to budget their money or even worry so much about becoming broke or poor. People in the middle class form some kind of jealousy for the rich because of how hard they have to work for what they want. Looking back on the American Dream makes me think of this topic. It is possible to achieve the American dream, but it is extremely difficult. You can not achieve the dream from working hard, it also comes from what you were born into.
Social inequality is an inevitability of a capitalist society like the united states. The money that companies make is not distributed evenly among all the workers but it can be hoarded at the top. Being born in a working-class family influences me to see anyone around me doing financially better than us as wealthy when in reality the wealthy live nowhere near me in big cities like LA or New York City. you would think that these wealthy people did something right in life to gain this amount of wealth but all they did was be born into a good family. Those in the working class strive to be like the wealthy and so they don’t support social programs designed to help them and give them a leg up because they hope one day they’ll be the ones with the wealth and not want to pay taxes for poor people who didn’t work hard enough to make money. The rich pay off politicians to pass laws that take the tax burden away from them and onto other social classes. In this way, they secure their financial situation by making more money and allowing the poor to get poorer and the widen the gap between the rich and middle class. People think that this extra money that rich people get from not paying taxes is used elsewhere like to expand their businesses and create more jobs when in reality it just sits in their bank account or goes towards their new million-dollar yacht. Personally, I feel cheated and angry that the system in America because just by my birth climbing the social ladder is so much harder than someone who just hit the birth lottery. There needs to be a change in the system soon so that my future kids won’t have to struggle to pay for food while the rich rule this country.
Social inequality is the condition of unequal access to the benefits of belonging to any society. The reason for there being “social inequality” in todays world is because peoples’ backgrounds. Many of it is based on by stereotyping roles in societies that include social class, cultural background, and economic wealth. I believe it’s natural for people to assume social inequality. It’s also not peoples’ fault to be placed where they are at in society so it’s hard not to get judged for what you do. People can be told if they work hard in their life they will be rich and their time will come. But, if someone works a minimum wage job for long hours, most likely they will not get to where they want to be. The United States is not a “classless society”. If you are located in the middle class of society it’s very easy to judge how you look at lower and upper. You might say that the lower class needs to do better and get better jobs, but it’s hard to get out of a position if you grow up in the class. Most likely you will not get out of the lower class unless you have luck and are in the right place at the right time. Even by looking at the upper class, most likely they will be judged because people lower then them are presumed to be jealous of what they have.
I think it is very interesting, for the question as far as why we call benefits for the poor welfare but for the rich it’s a bad thing when they get a break. I feel all of this stims from people being jealous. There is a lot more poor people in this country then rich, and that is why people call it the things they do, they are jealous of the rich. I do understand when people are concerned with the top 1% of people because they earn way more money than they need, but I don’t understand why they should be taxed more and why people have such an issue with how much money they make. I think that people again are jealous and feel if they make less money than the more rich, they should be taxed less. I think this is a flaw in our system and needs to get fixed. But no matter what people do, they are always going to have an issue with something. Nothing will ever be good enough in any aspect of this country or society.
This is an excellent point that you make here…we can discuss when you return to class or next term. Thank you for raising this issue!
There is social inequality in today’s society because institutionally and socially the status your family has is the status you will pick up and it is hard to remove this. In the United States it is not classless, every single person in America holds a class. The upper class being the highest people with money and fame, then middle-class, working class, and lower class. As related to birth I am placed in the working class and for me it becomes difficult to reach upper-class as I do not have the money to support this, but middle-class is attainable as the support my family can give me can lift me. In class positions it is common for those to look up to the classes ahead of them, but look down at the ones below and think you are better. I do believe most wealth is held in the middle-class because they invest much of their money to let it work for them instead of buying many expensive things to look materialistic. The lower down on the pyramid the more issues you will see and fight for, but the higher you are the less you see and advocate for. I think those in the Upper classes are there as a result of smart work.
The “American Dream” is supposed to be the belief that anyone, regardless of where they were born or what class they were born into, can attain their own version of success in a society in which upward mobility is possible for everyone, but sadly that is not how it works here. Our country is completely consumed by capitalism. And no I do not believe that the people at the bottom of the wealth distribution are there because they are the “natural losers” who didn’t work hard enough, I believe that we have just become more evolved, more jobs require education further than high school diplomas and some people can’t understand that nor afford it. To get to the top of the food chain in American you have to know someone to help you get there, we no longer are a culture of values.
When looking at social class, is comprised of a few different variables including wealth, income, and education. People in each of these “classes” (working, middle, or upper) tend to view the people above or below them. Most of the time, they base this judgment based on the people surrounding them. In class, we talked about someone owning two Mercedes as being “rich.” Although, they are only looking at the people in their communities, which might consider wealth different than California. This could lead to someone thinking they could attain that type of “wealth.” However, looking at someone in the class below them could result in a different type of response. Most people that are in the lower class are often labeled negatively. People in other classes don’t think much about why they may be in that situation and believe it is their own fault. However, a lot of people are in these areas for a reason and feel “trapped.” People should show more empathy for them before judging them on their financial situation.
For me personally my family has always been apart of the middle class. While we have struggled at some points and still currently do, I can say growing up and even currently that I have never wanted for anything. I think my position has helped me view people in positive perspectives personally. As for the wealthy class and rich people, It has put a drive in me to get there and be wealthy in life and for the lower class I really would like to help out if I was ever wealthy enough. I think personally that the way someone views classes or treats them is by the way they were raised and kinda taught to treat those kinds of people based on their own personal class scale. Unfortunately we are not all equal and some people come straight into this life with disadvantages before they even know it. I think we must not only work hard, but we must have goals to achieve because without goals you can work as hard as you want, but will never achieve anything to get there. I believe that race and gender also play big roles at least from perspective, I have seen women and certain races be told they will never be successful or that they can’t do something and I think this personally can take a tole on someone especially when these things are said at an early age. I don’t think everyone the bottom is a natural loser or not smart, some people just make not smart decisions and then they end up at the bottom before they even know it. To end this article I can say I am personally middle class and nowhere near being wealthy, but have never wanted for anything in life. I think I view everyone at their own perspective and how they act, there are some rich people who will treat you just as equal and others who wont even acknowledge you. I think a lot of all these situations is based off how your raised and brought up and taught to value everyone and everything.
I think social disparity exists in our society on a variety of different levels. The classes we take, in my opinion, are the main cause of this. It goes without saying that those with greater wealth will have greater privileges. One may believe that they must work more to get more privileges if they have more money, but this isn’t always the case. Many of the richest people acquire their wealth through investments, while others simply inherit it from their parents. Whether we recognize it or not, I believe that members of our society frequently judge one another based on their “class.” Many individuals claim they don’t care what other people think, but this is untrue because we frequently strive to dress to impress and, unconsciously, we continually try to impress and evaluate others based on their appearance.
I believe that there are defined social classes in the United States. Most of my life I have been a part of the middle class. This was a good place to be growing up. I understood that I needed to be grateful for what I got. I knew that there were kids who couldn’t afford what I had, but also kids that were going to have so much more. I think that being raised in this environment helped me realize the importance of working hard, but also being grateful. I saw everyone as equal, even at a young age. I have noticed that people in the upper and lower classes don’t learn this until later in life. People will judge others on their economic status until taught otherwise. But no matter how much we try, social inequity will always exist.
I think that the accumulation of assets at the high end is a simple reflection of “hard work”, “smart work” or just get things handed to them. I think it depends on certain individual’s situation or circumstances. There are many people who work hard to get to where they are in life. They had taken the time and worked hard aimlessly to be at the high end. if we look at the top 1% in America, they didn’t end up there because they didn’t work hard. They are at the top because they have worked hard enough and didn’t give up on investing money, own stocks and bond, etc. However, there are some people who are at the high end because it was passed down by generations. If you come from a wealthy family, you will most likely inherit the wealth from the family. Not all the people that are at the high ends are there because they work hard. Instead, they just simply inherited it from their families. But then there are some who grow up having nothing then become wealthy by not giving up to work hard.
I think giving everyone the same treatment is equal, say there are 3 people , john , Mark , and Jeff…. Jeff has $5 , John has $52 , and Mark has $100, and there is $90 to give among these three guys. How would you split it up? Some will $30 to each person… Some would give Jeff $70 and John $20… I believe that splitting it up equally between the 3 is the most fair and equal way, if you give all to one that’s not fair because everyone started life with the same chances, some just had more of a boost and advantage. Also I believe if we are having people believe that splitting it up equally we need to do the same with tax’s. Many higher bucks aren’t paying taxs and to many lower class\poor are paying tax. It should be the other way around or at least the same. If you are going to tax one tax all!!!
I believe that people are constantly being judged based on their economic status, which is unfortunate because some people do not have the ability to change their economic status by simply just ‘working hard’ because of the environment that they are in. This is true in many situations which then leads to people turning to crime in order to make money, and feed their families. Marx had mentioned a few things about ‘alienation’ which I feel is important because it is very prominent in society today, for example when you purchase a hamburger in Burger King, the worker there is most likely not really WANTING to make that burger for you, they are separated from the product they are making. This is true almost anywhere you go and purchase ‘cheap’ materials and things that are produced by people making little money while doing it. On the other hand, regarding class and status I do agree with the statement made by Insider Higher Ed, “For many students, where they go to college depends largely on where they live” this is true because most of my family members had gone to Penn State and now myself, am going to Penn State Berks. Along with this, in many cases places where colleges are far away and the families do not have enough money to travel to where education is, may result in not going to college and falling through the cracks to either commit crimes or do other illegal things. Regarding wealth inequality, I feel that the video displayed successfully how unfair the wealth is distributed. Inequality is displayed everywhere, and new solutions must be implemented in order to help stop inequality, and promote equality.
Social inequality it will always exist either there are many social status out there. There are many groups of people that want to be better than others. People are always being classified by class, and race as well always status. In the eyes of God we are all equal and one day we all going to died, but until that day happens there always be social inequality. Classes are used to put certain people in a category to distinguish one form the others. As in my own experience I can say that I had been in a low class person in my country, but now I am in the middle class and I can say being a low class person it made me a thoughtful person because I have passed through many obstacles and learned to appreciate a lot of things that I can’t regret. I believe that the way you position people is the way you have been raised. I’m totally against on how people are not fair on how the salaries are being distributed. For example, I used to work in a bakery and used as a cashier, but that was title only because I had to clean, and organized other things as well witch in the other hand the supervisor used only to walk around and she used to get paid three times more. I don’t think is fair at all because I was the one that used to keep the bakery organized, clean and everything for the customers. My conclusion is that people that do more of the job duties get paid less than the ones that don’t do anything get paid triple. Nowadays, everything is so expensive that the minimum salary are not enough to survive. As Marks stated that the social class would be important in order to decide a persons life possibilities.
Lets face it, we are not all equal in the U.S. As a Colombian man, when I walk, let’s say in the Prada store I’m asked “Would you like to see our clearance section?”. I just want to reply with “BITCH I MAKE WHAT YOU MAKE IN A YEAR IN JUST A FEW MONTHS!!”. Instead I keep cool and say no thank you and I walk right out. I noticed when white people walk in, they get champagne right away and an assistant….where the fuk is MY glass of the bubbly?! Moving on, we get pre judged by our skin color and the clothing we wear. I’m sure that if you’re looking for the American dream, be prepared to go through the nightmare first.
I do believe that we all must work hard to achieve what we want but then again, at what degree of difficulty do we have to work to see a great pay out? Soldiers go to Iraq and make less than minimum wage to dodge bullets and risk life and limb everyday of being in the shit while McDonalds employees want to make almost double the minimum wage of $15 an hour to flip burgers and take meal orders.
To sum it all up:
-No we are not equal.
-The American dream is only as real as your realistic expectations.
-It doesn’t matter how hard or easy you work, it’s what your goal consist of.
I just want to add, please dont be like Debbie Ulloa who commented here a few months ago and said she looks down on the poor just because she’s on her way on becoming a lawyer and there is no excuse to being poor. NO ONE should ever be looked down on! This here is one of the problems of society yoday. Once you believe you’re above someone, you have already become part of the problem. Remember that at the end of the day, we are all human beings.
For the past 12 years since i emigrated from South America to United States. i have been looking foward to achieve the illusionable “American Dream” that most people dream about it. However, the most educated i get, the most i realize that the reality is that the “American Dream” is just a fake belief which was created by society with the only purpose to motivate and keep the working class people to work harder and harder for them “to finally live the dreamable happy and comfortable life”. In Addiction, the accumulation of assets at the high end is a simple reflection of “smart work”. let me explain why? first of all, everyday i witness the rich people getting richer and the poor people getting poorer, in fact, big companies keep exploting their workers by pay them miserable salaries. For instance, i worked in mcdonald a few years ago, they got me cleaning toilets, floors, dishes and taking out the trash. They paid me 5.90 per hour. My weekly pay check was 212.40 and they deducted taxes from that amount. After all the deductions i got left with 165 dollars per week ( which didnt help to pay my rent at all). It is fair to work hard?. In the other hand, we see the goverment and companies complaining daily about undocumented people because they belief that those people are causing much damage to the United States’s economy. However, i have witnessed many construction companies hiring undocumented people to work for them for a very low salary. So then, who works smart? the undocumented person who does all the hard work and gets pay unreasonable pay or the construction company which pays cheap labor and makes big profits for their own benefits.
In conclusion, the people at the bottom of the wealth distribution are there because they are victims of a society that allows the rich people to keep the working class people as slaves. For rich people is better to maintain the poor people ignorant and busy with work rather than thinking critically and start protesting for their right and equality.
Your comment is posted
From a very young age my father always tried to teach me the value of a dollar. Whether it would be from working or saving birthday money. I do appreciate that a lot because I feel as though many people today spend more money than they actually have which ends up financially hurting them a lot. I am not saying that everyone does this but many just don’t know how to use their money wisely. I believe moving through the economic classes is not just hard work or opportunity, instead its about what you do with your hard earned money. Do you put it in the bank or spend it on a drink at the bar.
My parents came to the United States from Ecuador with small amount of money in their pockets and ever since they have lived here, they have worked very hard to better future. My father worked every job there was, from being a garbage collector to a contractor driver for FedEx. My mother would do cleaning service in office, gym, etc. and now she is clerk in FedEx. My family would be considered middle class because there are times when money was an issue. However, my parents were willing to work hard for a better education and a better future for their children. With the help of grants, financial aid, scholarship, and my parents, I was able to attend college and continue my path into becoming a lawyer. Because of my parent’s hard work in achieving what they have now, I do look down upon people who are below me because I believe that anyone can do anything if they put their mind to. People can also rise up in the class system if they wanted to.
The American dream used to be about everyone receiving an equal opportunity to succeed in this country, however it is called the American dream not the American reality. The sad reality is that this is not how America works anymore. This is a country consumed by the idea of absolute capitalism. Whether we admit it or not, we as a nation have adapted to a new way of life. This new way of life is survival of the fittest. To climb the ladder of success Americans either have to know someone at the top or step on a few heads to get up there. We are no longer a culture of collectivistic values, we have strayed to a more individualistic selfish way of life.
Without value, money would not be able to control someone’s life; without value money would just be a piece of paper. The system currency categorizes individuals based on how much one was worth. America does not need wealth equality, America needs opportunity fairness. I am not saying to take all the money and split it up amongst everyone, this is not a socialist nor a communist country. I am saying that everyone should have an equal opportunity to make something of themselves. Everyone needs an equal chance at a job, an equal chance at a promotion, an equal chance at a raise, and an equal chance at being wealthy.
The social class of a person often reflects the opportunities they were presented with throughout their life. I believe this is largely based on where the person was born and the school system they were enrolled in. The education the students receive at any specific school is determined by the social class of the surrounding area and the occupation’s of the student’s parents. The school system is a major influence in maintaining social class structure because they tend to provide an education according to what jobs the students are expected to receive after graduation. A middle class school would obviously not teach the same topics or teach with the same strategies when compares to an executive elite school. Lower class schools are very textbook, and teach students from a young age to follow instruction and to take orders. On the other hand, affluent professional and executive elite schools teach independence and creativity so the child learn to think and problem solve on their own. Even when students from lower or middle class school’s want to pursue jobs like lawyers or doctors, they aren’t receiving the necessary academic foundation because their schools are only offering classes to prepare them to work in factories or blue collar jobs. In addition, motivated students enrolled in lower class school system are constantly bogged down by their peers who don’t want to improve their lifestyle and are satisfied in the class they were born into. These students are then not accepted to better colleges or receive higher paying jobs because they weren’t as prepared as the student’s from an upper class school. Everyone loves hearing about the poor man who worked hard and is now a successful millionaire, but for most it isn’t that easy. People at the bottom of the class spectrum should be looked down upon as lazy or losers, nor should every successful man or woman be praised for their hard work and determination. A large majority of the classes in today’s society are created and maintained by forces out of a person’s control. Beating the system is harder than it looks.
I think that working class people criticize redistributive programs to the poor because they see it as their own tax payer money being handed out to those who do not “work hard”. So many people are not educated on the flaws of the distribution of money to the wealthy, so when they see that the poor is being “handed” food stamps or welfare checks, they are just going to think that those people are receiving those things as a basis of not being able to do their jobs. However, most people who collect food stamps or welfare desperately need it because they are stuck in the lower class. The reason they are stuck there is because of the way our economy is set up, and because of the 1% of the population that takes up 40% of the countries economy. It is the wealthy that actually harm the working class by making these redistributive programs necessary. Working class does not see things this way because they look up to those who are wealthy, they have a desire to be as successful as they are and believe they have the chance to be that way as well. The working class thinks if they work hard enough, that can be their lifestyle, not knowing that for themselves it is just as impossible as it is for the Mcdonald’s worker to have a decent middle class paying job.
I would consider myself in all aspects part of the middle class. Because my parents are divorced, I see myself as mostly upper middle class because of my step dad and his successes. However, when I am with my dad I consider myself just regular middle class. This leaves a very confusing position for my sisters and I, since we would not get the opportunity to go to private colleges or even go to college at all if it was not for my step father. I know for myself I do not blame those who struggle, because as a student studying sociology and for how I was raised I know you need to work hard to obtain success in life, however I know that sometimes people in a lower class do not ever see the opportunity to do that. I think that it does make it difficult for me to relate to those who feel exploited by their own economic standing because I do not know what it feels like to feel “stuck” or to be in a position for the soul fact that you were born into it. People think that it is so easy for those in the lower class to just take themselves out of those positions, and that if they do not, they are being lazy. However if somebody does not have the proper education, for example, how to speak at interviews, they are not going to get hired even in a low paying job. If they do not have the proper money, they are not going to dress appropriately for these interviews, and if they were going to get a job, they would be paid less than desirable wages because their employer can get away with that because they are so desperate for money. These problems then result in these people not feeling that such a low paying job is even worth it, thus resulting to quick, uneducated easy money, and the vicious cycle continues. Although I can not relate to these people, I can see that it is a continuous issue based on our countries capitalism, and in order for those in higher power to stay in higher power, they need it to continue to stay this way. When the economic structure of our society is so flawed, it gives those with the upper hand more reason to continue to keep it that way, because they do not feel this struggle and they have the power to continue to live the lifestyles they desire. In my opinion, nothing is going to change any time soon; those who struggle will continue to struggle and those in power will continue to pretend that it is their own fault.
The society around us sends many messages; sometimes we do not even know these messages are being sent to us. Hard work can be defined in many different ways depending on the situation. Our society gives the notion that hard work will pay off, however there are other factors in the equation of being successful. The social class one is born into is a huge factor. An individual that was born into the upper class is going to have many more opportunities for success then as someone who was not born into that class but works hard. They will also have parents who will teach them how to make all of the “smart” decisions in becoming successful. I am a strong believer that hard work does pay off, and that many people in the upper class have worked hard, however in most of the cases I feel that “smart work” is a huge factor in most peoples success. If someone works hard but does not work smart there chances of being successful may be even more limited. Someone born into a poor family may work hard all of their life but never got an opportunity to better their life because of the class that he or she was born into. This certainly does not mean that this individual is a natural loser. I am not even sure why anyone would call someone else a “natural loser”, people make poor decisions but those decisions do not make them losers, however these decisions may be a result of feeling as if he or she can not succeed because society has told them that they have not succeeded. I also do not believe only those of the upper class work hard. There are many different types of jobs; a paycheck does not always determine how hard someone works. Someone who has a job involving some kind of physical labor has hard work set out for him or herself regardless of how much he or she is paid.
Social inequality is the existence of unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions or statuses within a group or society. Although the United States differs from most European nations that have a titled nobility, the U.S. is still highly stratified. Social inequality has several important dimensions. Income is the earnings from work or investments, while wealth is the total value of money and other assets minus debts. Other important dimensions include power, occupational prestige, schooling, ancestry, and race and ethnicity.
Where I am from, it is a melting pot of diversity. my town is smack dab in the middle of two low class areas called Long Branch and Asbury Park NJ. When I get asked about where i am from, no one really recognizes it unless i say by one of these two areas. then I get a snide stare, and people say, ” Are you are really from there? its scary there!” i can not believe the wrong connotation of my area due to two towns. My town is a middle to upper middle class town. there are some patches of uber upper middle class people. to define my class I would say upper-middle. having a privileged life style doesn’t come easy. My mother and father grew up in the lower and working middle class. They had to share rooms with their siblings, and wonder what is for dinner. Growing up where I have been for the last 22 years impacts my life greatly. Ive seen very poor people, try to give to them the most that I can. It makes me realize to appreciate what I have made and what kind of life my parents made for me. being adopted I always think, it could be way worse and thats why i sympathize for the under privileged.
How has your own social class influenced your perception of who is poor and why they are poor?
My class identification would be the lower class. To have a roof over our heads meant constantly working paycheck to paycheck just to get our main necessities in order to survive in today’s society. To define a poor person from my perspective would be the people who are very dependent on government assistance just to live and have food for a couple of nights. They are the people who have roamed the streets for as long as I could remember, just trying to get by, by pan handling as a way to get some money. I believe people are stuck in these scenarios because of how unavailable jobs have become for people to obtain and because the prices for living have increased drastically over the years. In order to buy substantial food for anyone to eat is already about twenty dollars, and even that amount of money would only last for one or two meals depending on how it is split up. Even being able to keep up with bills to have a roof over your head compared to the amount of money people get do not match up. So what ends up happening is that in order for people to survive, they live paycheck to paycheck. For anybody to get a job, even if it is to flip burgers at a fast food place, many steps are taken before you are hired. You have to have had some job experience, dressed the part to attend an interview, and have no convictions or have taken any drugs. If any one of these criteria are not met, a person looking for a job will face difficulties’ obtaining one. So what ends up happening is that more people cannot have jobs because of the things that hinder them from doing so. Without people being able to get a job, living becomes much more difficult.
Why do you think that programs that benefit poor people (food stamps/SNAP benefits) are referred to as “welfare,” but programs that benefit the working and middle class (home mortgage interest deduction, unemployment compensation, GI bill), wealthy (capital gains taxes), and corporations (tax incentives, subsidies) are not similarly thought of as corporate “welfare?”
These programs are known as welfare because they help out poor people who are stereotyped as the lazy individuals who are capable of getting jobs, but choose not to. These people who receive food stamps are mainly white Americans, however more people are likely to associate food stamps and government help with minorities. Because society has stigmatized food stamps and SNAP benefits as welfare programs, people are trapped with the stereotypes.
Why is there social inequality?
There is social inequality because the top 1% holds most of the united states wealth and you have things like taxes and stuff which help keep them rich and the poor poor. All the government does is help that 1% stay wealthy is well. The problem is its hard to overcome poverty there are only a few exceptions. That 1% owns all major cooperation’s and businesses putting them in control. For those who are In that 1% they stay wealthy because they pass their wealth down generation after generation making it harder for the poor to move up.
Why do you think that programs that benefit poor people (food stamps/SNAP benefits) are referred to as “welfare,” but programs that benefit the working and middle class (home mortgage interest deduction, unemployment compensation, GI bill), wealthy (capital gains taxes), and corporations (tax incentives, subsidies) are not similarly thought of as corporate “welfare?”
I think this is because of the stigma placed on people who are on welfare. Its different because they feel they are just giving the wealthy what they deserve like they have been hard workers the poor on the other they feel are lazy and don’t want to help their selves. hey think if they help the poor their going to become dependent upon the government but the wealthy have worked all their lives so they don’t mind lending a helping hand and providing benefits to them. It’s like saying what have the poor contributed while the wealthy have contributed everything they are helping to provide these benefits and programs but how much are they really contributing.
Social inequality and classes are perpetuated because of their functionalist value in society. By creating this skewed distribution of wealth and hierarchical strata, people are given goals to work towards. If there was a universal recognition of the social construction of these systems- that the value of being in a higher class is designed and not intrinsic- perhaps more people would remove themselves from the system. This is difficult with the constant promotion of wealth through various media and information channels, in turn causing people to aim for idealistic wants rather than simply whatever means are needed to survive comfortably. Since this dogma is so engrained and internalized, to ignore it would be considered fairly outlandish. This system is maintained in the interest of institutional success, rather than individual fitness. By being placed into this system from birth, and socialized accordingly, our understanding of the world is inherently biased. For example, my family is of the middle class. While my mom has an administrative position in healthcare and we are comfortable financially, we do not really have room for excesses. The best way to explain this is through this common paradoxical situation: we don’t qualify for most financial aid programs, and meanwhile can’t afford my tuition. Where I used to live, in Medford, this was probably the average family’s situation, if not wealthier. However, when I moved to Toms River, I developed a much wider understanding of class and inequality, as there is a wide range of incomes in the area. One part of town is home to doctors and lawyers and their children who drive fancy cars, down the road there are small, lower income apartments. While my family and neighborhood are in between these two ends of the spectrum, I have come to see that social systems clearly tend to benefit the former, meanwhile there are plenty of people who are very much in need, though there is often much stacked against them.
How has your own social class influenced your perception of who is poor and why they are poor?
I think from being from a more privileged family and a town where everyone has a decent amount of income, its easier to not think about the fact that there are multiple people suffering from not having a job or being homeless. On the other hand, there is towns near mine where they are significantly poorer and represent the broken windows theory. Because the town looks run down and people with low income live there, it is subjected to crime. I also have friends who are significantly higher up in the financial ladder and its sad to say that some of them have a snobby attitude toward poor people. Some of them think they did it to themselves, when any educated person on the matter knows that is not always true.
Why is there social inequality?
In my opinion, social inequality exists because of the top 1% holding the majority of income in the united states. With such a small percentage of people controlling a majority of the income, its hard for people to move up on the social ladder. If there was a tax on the top percent, forcing them to share some of the excess of money, it would balance out the economy more and the country would prosper as a whole. This of course, isn’t something the top 1% would agree with considering they have nothing to gain from this. Also, with most of these 1% people running majority of major companies, they end up just getting passed down throughout their family. This makes it difficult for anyone outside affluent families to get wealthy.
If you don’t feel particularly “exploited” based on your present day economic circumstances, does that make it difficult for you to relate to someone else who feels that way? For example, this might include McDonalds workers, Walmart workers, union workers.
I think from a young age growing up in private school, teachers always preached that you have to go to college so you don’t end up working in fast food restaurants, flipping burgers for the rest of your life. I don’t think its necessarily the people with these jobs that feel exploited because they work at McDonalds, but its the people who view these people in a negative manner. The ones who have more money and not have to work at fast food places, think the people who do are dumb or lazy. They say, oh they did it to themselves. This isn’t always true and is a stereotype that exploits workers that have lower end jobs.
I strongly believe that the way you grow up shapes how you view the world. However, this does not mean you necessarily need to adopt the viewpoint others in your same status have. I encourage people to break away from what they are “expected” to believe and challenge it, question it, and form their own opinion.
My parents came from different backgrounds. My mom was one of six in a suburb of northern Jersey. Her father worked and her mother stayed home to take care of the children. My father, who came to the United States from Colombia in his 20’s, was one of ten and grew up in a more difficult situation than my mother seemed to. My mother went to college and has a career, while my father did not continue his education when he came to the U.S. but has a steady job. The fact that my mother and father came from different upbringings has definitely helped shape my view on the world. I feel as though I can understand more than one viewpoint regarding society because that is how I was brought up. I am lucky enough to have been exposed to multiple backgrounds. For that, I am thankful. I have a better understanding of those who struggle, which makes me more open-minded, while some people cannot fathom a lifestyle other than their own.
I live and grew up in a predominantly white suburb in northern Jersey. The majority of the people who reside there live fairly comfortably, not really worrying about where money for the next bill will come from. I remember believing that everyone lived like I did. It wasn’t until my father was laid off and couldn’t find a job for about a year that I truly began to understand what others go through. Although I was in high school, I did not really pay attention to the financial aspect of his lay-off. What I noticed the most was how it personally affected my father. I watched my dad struggle with the fact that he couldn’t provide for his family. I watched him come home after several interviews feeling incredibly discouraged when he was not hired for the job. I witnessed him first hand opening checks from unemployment, feeling powerless because although he got a check, it wasn’t nearly enough what he used to earn. I know that he wasn’t jobless for a lack of trying. I think a lot of time that gets lost when looking at a society as a whole, or when you generalize a whole group of people. While there may be those who try to live off of the system just because they can, there are those people who are crushed by the fact that they have no other option.
It’s understandable that the rich have an extremely different view of society than those in lower classes have. Your environment has an enormous affect on your thoughts and your actions. Although a great deal of how people think stems from where they are from, it does not mean they need to be close-minded. What society needs is to have people from all different walks of life to be exposed to several different lifestyles. Maybe then the rich will understand the platform of the poor and the poor will understand the thought process behind the laws and policies that hinder their growth.
I believe there is social inequality on many different levels throughout our society. the main reason for this i believe is because of our classes that we have. obviously the people who have more money are going to be more privileged. one may think well if they have more money they must work harder so deserve to be more privileged but this isn’t necessarily true. a lot of the wealthiest people get there money through investments and the money they have is just passed down from their parents such as donald trump. i think as a whole our society is very judgmental on each other about our “class” whether we realize it or not. many people say they don’t care what others think but its not true because we try to dress to impress often and without even noticing we are constantly trying to impress and judge others by their clothes and what not.
The chart enlightening where all of the country’s wealth is concentrated among the top 1% of wage earners, raises numerous questions like “Why is it so unequal?” “How can we fix this?” So many people call for the poor to pay more taxes because many don’t understand how the top 1% uses the media to exploit the mass by appealing to our hearts. We buy into their ideas and proposals without legit and strategic plans like policies. The wealthy target the poor because they gain at their expense. There are structural impediments that cause poor to turn to deviant behaviors. For example, urban areas have generally little to no resources, poor education, and little to no economic opportunity. There are also racially discriminatory laws that confine blacks and minorities to poor neighborhoods now known as ghettos. When people are excluded from the core economy, they are forced to create their own economy through deviancy like drug dealing. Is it a logic approach to enforce the poor to pay more taxes? Absolutely not! First, the poor cannot afford to live and support themselves, so how could they afford to pay more taxes? The ones who have tons and tons of wealth, the top 1%, should be paying more taxes.
I see the relationship between class, wealth, income, and education. Upper class tends to be wealthy and have a higher income and therefore able to afford a higher education compared to the working middleclass and the lower class. Working middle class and the lower class tend to be less or not wealthy at all and have lower incomes which only permits them to have a standard education. Due to the upper class’s ability to have a higher income they can afford to send them to private and boarding schools while the working middleclass and the lower class typically send their children to public school due to their financial capabilities. I personally classify myself as middle class. I was fortunate enough to be able to live in a diverse suburban area, attend a high school that offered AP and college level courses, be involved in extra-circular activities, and travel abroad to Spain my sophomore year of high school. Not many people get the chance to have those opportunities simply because their neighborhoods do not present those types of positive reinforcements. Although, I have had great opportunities, I understand the circumstances of the lower class and question the lack of support from the upper class. It is understandable that anyone would not be content with a low paying job however; it does not make it acceptable for one’s unhappiness to affect their job performance. Lacking in one’s job performance simply because they are not satisfied will not improve their circumstances. In fact, they might lose their job. I cannot imagine what it is like to have to wake up everyday and not know how you are going to make ends meet. Not everyone who is poor is poor by choice some people lose their jobs. Even with the help of unemployment, it is still not enough for one to really survive off of. I think that being middle class allows one to see things from an open mind because we are the outsiders looking in. Seeing the struggle that the lower class experience inspired me to want to help people who are less fortunate than me in positive ways. I can only hope that more people in the upper class would feel the same way and want to use their wealth to help the middle and lower class. However, with such a strong division between social classes I can only hope rather than expect a change.
Unfortunately, race and gender make the division stronger. A good amount Caucasians are predominantly wealthy while minorities are predominantly middle and lower class. This is because there are more Caucasians than minorities. Weber is right there are more aspects other than class that determine our status. We tend to judge and classify individuals based on their appearance and access to materials. If someone looks well dressed it is interrupted that they have money. If someone is not well dressed it is interrupted that they do not have that much money. One’s outward appearance is often determined based on name brand labels. Many people try aspiring wealth buy trying to work hard enough to make enough money in order to buy certain materials. I also think race can play a factor because people associate wealth and certain name brands with Caucasians and they associate middle class or the poor with common name brands or non-name brands with minorities. Overall, I think class is based on wealth, income, education, race, gender, and access to materials.
Social inequality is a byproduct of the capitalistic system we have in place today. Not only is it a byproduct but I believe that the social inequality gap has been increasing over time by design not by accident. The reason classes have developed is because of this inequality. People identify themselves with those who are similar in terms of income and living standard. The reason classes have developed is because rich people decided it’s better and more acceptable to hang out with the rich while poor people decided they are more comfortable around those who share the same issues. I believe that the social class inequality can easily influence how someone views the world. Growing up in an area riddled with section 8 houses and low income home I saw firsthand the difference in attitudes and beliefs of people from lower class areas in comparison to those who were better off. People who are found in the lower class spectrum are more likely to do drugs, commit crime, and basically participate in dangerous activities because they feel they have nothing to lose. The belief is that things are already so bad that getting locked up or killed can’t be much worse. This mind state is developed because of the community and the people around it who truly feel this way. In better of communities people are much more positive about everything. They do not go through the same everyday struggles as those from the lower class ultimately making it easier for higher class people to have a more positive attitude towards things. I feel exploited by the work force in many different ways. I believe that large companies such as Walmart and Mc Donald’s are making millions daily and still have the indecency to pay their employees bare minimum wage. The amount of human capital and work put towards selling these companies products is scarce into comparison of profit gains. People are producing profits for these companies at a much higher rate than they are receiving wage and I believe that is ridiculous.
I think that the accumulation of assets at the high end is a simple reflection of “hard work” or “smart work.” I think it depends on certain individual’s situation or circumstances. There are many people who work hard to get to where they are in life. They had taken the time and worked hard aimlessly to be at the high end. For example, if we look at the top 1% in America, they didn’t end up there because they didn’t work hard. They are at the top because they have worked hard enough to invest money, own stocks and bond, etc. However, there are some people who are at the high end because it was passed down by generations. If you come from a wealthy family, you will most likely inherit the wealth from the family. Not all the people that are at the high ends are there because they work hard. Instead, they just simply inherited it from their family.
On the other hard, I don’t think that the people at the bottom of the wealth distribution are there because they are the natural losers, who didn’t work hard or aren’t smart enough that they simply failed. There are many people who work hard everyday but still remains at the bottom of the wealth distribution. For example, one could build a business but if the business does not go well, it could lead them to the bottom. Or, if someone loses their job, it could also lead them to the bottom. Then there are other people who are poor because they live in certain areas where it’s unsafe to be around and they do not try to get out of the poverty or increase their wealth; they just stay where they are. Therefore, it all just depends on individual’s circumstances and the situation, which they are in.
Strictly speaking in terms of American history I believe that social inequality stems from the introduction of slave labor during our colonization. Back then social classes were pretty much determined by race. Now things have “improved” in todays culture, but stigmas created are still around today. The power elite who are in control of the most accessible media outlets do there best to try and push their ideas and beliefs onto the masses (and who in my opinion take everything news broadcasts say as the truth). I know it is rather simplistic but I believe that those in the 1% prefer it the masses to stay where they are and remain as disposable tools to further their already vast amount of wealth. I do believe that social inequality is inevitable to a point. There will always be those who are in control and those who just simply follow orders. However, the clear division between the top and bottom has no legitimate reason to be as far apart as they are now.
I believe there is social inequality in today’s society partly due to capitalism and the policies that have been put into action. The idea of capitalism which is always wanting more money plays a big role in social inequalities. Capitalists are the ones employing the working class so they have the opportunity to increase social inequality through various means. They can make the working class suffer at their profit causing the gap of social inequality to grow. The capitalists that have obtained vast amounts of money are now able to shape policies to their benefit because the politicians in charge of making policies can be influenced by the capitalists by giving them money. Instead of creating policies that would help society all together the politicians now create policies that are only in the interest of the Capitalists, and that is only to grow their wealth which in turn increases social inequality. Some social inequality is a good thing because it will incentivize some to work harder and try to move into a higher social class. Obviously certain jobs are going to require higher wages/salaries due to responsibility and other factors. Different earnings will put people in different social classes and it creates a healthy amount of social inequality. When social inequality becomes too great it will slowly squeeze every last penny out of the system until society collapses. Social class has affected my life in different ways. I am from the middle class, but I have a close relative who is a part of the upper class. I was taught as a child that there is no short cut around hard work and that if I wanted to be successful I would have to work as hard as I can. Until I started to notice the differences between myself and my relatives I thought the idea of hard work was the same for most people. One day I heard the words “we are rich so we can get whatever we want” from my relative and I have come to the conclusion that some people may not have to work as hard or at all. This experience helped me come to the conclusion that it is not the upper class’s fault that they are born into a class that is better off than others, and we all have to play with the cards we are dealt. If there was less social inequality then people would have more of an equal chance of becoming successful.
I do not think the acquisition of assets at the high end is a simple reflection of “hard work” or “smart work” of smart people who end up there. I do think hard work and smart decision making can play a factor in the accumulation of assets by those people, however in many cases the accumulation of assets at the high end has a lot to do with resources afforded to those people by the economic status they were birthed into, and the resources their parents or family members were able to provide them with. I feel there are many people at the bottom of the distribution of wealth who work extremely hard and make smart decisions and still end up receiving the short end of the stick. For example, a college student that came from lower middle class who parents worked and sacrificed for them to receive a college education may not get the same internship opportunities, scholarship opportunities, or even acceptance to an accredited program or college because an upper middle class parent with the same age college student had the connections, networking, or bank account figures to get their child a better opportunity. Working hard and making smart business/ life decisions does not always validate the accumulation of assets. Some people have the simple luxury of having companies or business passed down to them because their parents are getting older and need someone to take over. Some people from better economic statuses can work at their parents companies and acquire wealth and never had to apply to a job, or change careers to afford themselves a better life. I believe those who come from lower economic statuses are not natural losers, because their are success stories and people who come from nothing and live comfortably, however those born in lower middle classes face more challenges and strife naturally.
Social inequality is the unequal opportunities and gains that are available within a society. I think there is social inequality based on the fact that some people are more privileged than others, for example some are able to gain an education, which puts an advantage than others. They usually use this advantage to basically think for the person who hasn’t achieve a certain level of education, wealth or prestige.
Some people are born with certain privileges that puts them at an advantage on the social ladder. Basically there is going to be social inequality due to the fact that there is different classes in the society, according to Max Weber, he sees three classes, the upper, middle and lower. The fact is with different classes, there is bound to be social inequality in any society. According to Karl Marx, there is the capitalist and the working class, obvious unbalance here, with such an unbalance there is going to be social inequality. The quality of life will be different for for these two groups. The capitalists are always exploiting the working class in order to have a “bigger bank account,” while the working class is working hard continuously to survive. This brings meaning to an old adage, “the rich will be richer and the poor poorer.” This social inequality can be seen in the type of lifestyles portrays i society, some people are able to drive a expensive car while others can’t, some can afford a healthier lifestyle than others. Social inequality will always exist as long as there is different classes and statuses in every society.
Remember, Marx only recognizes two classes: bourgeois and proletariat. Respectively, they are the owners of capital and the workers. Those who would identify as in-between/”middle” are a group that Marx says over the course of time will recognize that their interests are consistent with the interests of the working class.
I think the way I was raised has a lot to to with the way I see those above and below me. In my family’s case of social mobility, we were opposite in that we were foreclosed on costing my dad his business. While we were never extremely wealthy, seeing both sides of the haves and the have-nots put class into perspective for me. I used to think that the great thing about America was that even if you were poor, there was an opportunity for you to lift yourself up because it’s America, the land of opportunity. As I grew older, i came to realize this was not the case because often time, those who get the opportunity to lift themselves from their current positions often have, if not money, connections to those with money or access to opportunities. I often see myself and my family as lower middle class because money is extremely tight. But thanks to the help of family members, I am able to be in college right now. It is an opportunity like this, something as small as having family members who are willing to help, that can set apart those who are able to change their lives from those who aren’t. For example, Weber talked about class not being the only form of power. Instead he bases his theory off of one’s life chances, which tend to be diminished when there isn’t sufficient financial stability. However things like your race and where you’re from unfortunately also factor in to the equation. Someone who’s been convicted and in jail’s life chances are detrimentally reduced when upon their release, they no longer qualify for housing, welfare or are looked at for job positions. Especially when you have someone who may have committed whatever illegal act just to make money to get that night’s dinner. I think growing up never having to wonder where my next meal is coming from has made me question how some people can do the things they do. I often find myself thinking “there must have been another way”, meanwhile the person committing said crime saw no other viable option. Overall, I think there is social and economic inequality because people are brought up in their own social circles, some never having to witness the struggles of others far beneath them financially. In our society, the “goal” is to try and “make it” and for some capitalists (1% – by no means does this apply to everyone), “making it” seems to be a very materialistic thing. People try to compete for who has the nicest stuff, which is why many “middle class” people strive to join the ranks of their upper class friends. I think this in general is what causes those who strive for “bigger and better things” to look down on those who may be comfortable with what they have now, and the “why wouldn’t you want better?” is a thought process derived solely from a profit-seeking society. Like previous comments mentioned, Marx talks about how capitalism alienates it’s workers, so they’re too far removed to realize their exploitation, and if they do they’re too tired to start a revolt. This keeps capitalists at the top, far removed from the rest of society and often unable or unwilling to see the struggle of the lower class for what it truly is, especially because it would hurt their profits to change it.
I think I grew up lower middle class because my father was a blue collar worker at Budweiser in Newark. My mother cleaned houses for extra money and when my father was out of work for a year after losing his job at Ballantine Brewery before going to Budweiser, she contributed by being a companion on the weekends to an older woman. Other than those short periods, my mother was a housewife and my father supported 9 kids fairly comfortably. We owned a house and a car, my mother made dinner every night, but there weren’t a lot of extras and no vacations. Still my parents’ generation resented those on welfare, believed the rich were being helped by donating to politicians’ campaigns, and they believed the middle class took the brunt of keeping the economy healthy. Now we have a dwindling middle class because big businesses have moved out of the U.S. by going overseas where there is cheap labor and probably many other savings that most of us don’t even realize. In the Citizens United case, corporations are now allowed to contribute unlimited amounts to political campaigns because they are basically considered “persons.” If the courts consider corporations people, they should be held to moral standards then. I believe the government should better regulate corporations and put restrictions on their practices. For example, not allowing them to outsource or move out of the U.S., leaving thousands of citizens jobless, deindustrializing cities, destroying vibrant neighborhoods and creating poverty and despair. Through education and marrying a well-educated professional with an advanced degree, I am considered upper middle class yet I have a better understanding of the real reasons behind class differences. Lower classes, the working poor and even the middle class are not being served by our government. The rich are being served and in such a way as to guaranty they will always enjoy special status. People who are not rich are not lazy, unimaginative or complacent. Maybe some are satisfied where they are in life and good for them. Scapegoating people at a lower social status than we are serves no purpose and is actually a mindset that keeps us in our place. We don’t question or fight the inequity between us and the 1% who hold the vast majority of wealth in this country because our attention is focused elsewhere. It reminds me of the Romans’ bread and circus. They gave free bread, wine and entertainment (gladiator contests) to the masses so they could forget their troubles and not turn against the upper classes.
My family is an example of social mobility even though it is rare. My mother came to this country, without any wealth, from China as a child with her mother, father and siblings. They started out very poor living in a small apartment, in Philadelphia, working for family members who owned small restaurants to make a living. My mother would go to school, come home to feed and take care of her younger siblings, then spend the rest of the day and night working in Chinese restaurants until closing where customers treated her badly with no respect. After years of working hard my mother was able to graduate high school and had saved enough money to pay for a college education at West Chester University with the help of many scholarships. She attended college for four years and achieved her degree in business. Now my mother is working a comfortable government job. Because of her efforts my family would now be considered upper middle class. With the influence of my mother’s triumph, I think I do look down on poorer people a little more than others because I haver seen how hard work and determination can lead to rising in the class system. But I also know that just because someone is upper class and has more wealth, it does not mean that they necessarily got to their position by working hard.
It’s good that you can see that, Jenna. Often what happens when people experience social mobility, either within their own generational experience or between generations (as you point out with your mother), there is a tendency to think “I overcame difficult circumstances through hard work, so anyone in similar circumstances can do the same.” But it doesn’t always work that way. Maybe it was simply that you and your mom are both super amazing and exraordinary people. Not everyone faces the exact same obstacles. They don’t all have the same personal resilience; nor will they always have access to the same support structures (i.e. a stable family life). There are many factors that determine where people end up. It doesn’t always come down to a simple matter of hard work. I’m glad to know that you are open to seeing this. It’s a good thing. Life is complicated. I think we all do our best to try to find our path in life.
I think that food stamps are considered as “welfare” as opposed to things like mortgage deductions because of our society’s class system. If someone looked at the middle or upper class, they would think that they are financially stable and would not require any sort of welfare from the government because they either already have a job or it is obvious that they are financially secure. However, the lower class are rarely seen as people who have jobs or a lot of money, so they seek out things like food stamps to help them.
In the understanding of how a society operates economically, politically within itself and coexists with other societies in those terms, very often it’s the case that rational thinking fails; under optimism of activists who believe in the revolutionary change equalizing qualities of lives between social classes, as well as in the cynical opposition. The system was created to satisfy our curiosity of human destination, our sense of living, which is a subject somewhat difficult to gain an ideal picture of. However, everyone should make best of what can be done within reach at first, that is essential to understand the reality better and thus making smarter decisions.
After reading this I truly believe everyone is constantly being judged on how much money they make and where they lie with being wealthy or poor. Everyone should be treated the same and be equal, not just because you have more money. Everyone in the world has to pay taxes no matter what so why should anyone be treated differently. I am taking a poverty class this semester and my eyes have opened up to seeing what the governement will and wil lnot do with those who are in poverty. No matter who is working hard everyone should be treated the same, the rich the poor and the middle class. Everyone is very quick to judge others by how much money they make or what kind of car they drive. Capitalism is honestly like the upper class just constantly find ways to make more money and the lower class is stuck and loses money. This is an unfair system that probably wont change.
Dear Student:
The wealth is indeed concentrated in the United States but it is not a new phenomenon. Social stratification as a system remains as such,
– it is a trait of a society
– it persists over generation
– it is universal but variable
– it involves inequality and beliefs that supports them
For example, during the Feudal times landowner monopolized the military for political power, capitalism the bourgoisie gained control of political institutions and the privileged class used power of the state to protect it’s own interest.
Prof. Trappen:
Moving forward I will post on time, please don’t reject my imput.
Thank you
I believe people shouldn’t be judged by their economic status, everybody is human, and as equal, we should all have the right to live equally. Low income people work and paid taxes as everyone does; why they cannot have the opportunity to obtain a better salary!. Being that the United States is consider one of the richest countries, it should give everyone equal opportunity in order to enrich its population. The government should regulate capitalist to make it kind of fair for those suffering in low income- Middle class families. The permanent conviction that those who work hard and play by the rules will be rewarded with more comfortable present and a strong future for their family faces assault in every direction. Everything goes back to the American Dream which based its conviction on that the future holds opportunities worthy of hard work and sacrifice and that such effort will be rewarded. In the past, unbending optimism has helped Americans emerge from difficult times stronger and more resilient. Because the challenges of the past decade have directly undermined this pillar of the American economic, where the gap from being poor to being rich is ridiculous, the task of restoring confidence and growth has been made more difficult. To me the idea of a capitalism society is simple define as, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. As long as the systems wouldn’t change everything will remain the same or worst.
I think most Americans are caught in the middle of America’s fiscal problem. Most often than not it’s the middle class Americans who pay higher if changes to taxes, whether higher or lower, even changes an inch, the middle class Americans are the ones it constrains. Middle class Americans are more anxious at any changes to tax out of fear of paying anymore than we already are. I think middle class Americans are eager to either stay where they are or try and save their pennies, to feel like we have more, than pay for programs deemed as welfare. When the rich are taxed, I can imagine people being afraid of their reaction. It could mean losing thousands of jobs, benefits, security if a rich corporation goes bankrupt and government intervention, welfare, is okay because it affects the people in a higher class, who hold the power. I feel the burden on the middle class is what makes us so vocal about any kind of change. I know I am one of those middle class people are eager for change.
The old “canard” of supply-side economic theory (disproven by the last 30 or so years of results) is that we must cut the taxes of the rich so that they will create more jobs. This has been thoroughly disproven in study after study. Nonetheless, people still want to believe in the myth of Santa Claus. Think about it: stock market/profits are at an all time high, but job growth is stagnant. How could that be? Consequently, if the rich are paying low or no taxes and the poor have barely anything to tax, the only people left paying taxes are the people in the middle, whom I would add are feeling justifiably overburdened. In light of this, middle class people should bear in mind that every time they support a tax cut for the wealthy, they are at the same time advocating that more of the tax burden be shifted to their own backs. So the interesting question to think about here is why? Why, given so much evidence that proves this makes no sense, do they continue to do this?
One major point that George Carlin stroke is that politicians spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. From my point of view, Carlin has distained himself from for all governments, because they are all the same around the world, and nobody seems to care. Apparently, we will never understand politicians, and it’s never going to get any better. It’s also pertinent to say that the wealthy and the big business lobby the government to make their way, control things and make all the important decisions. For example, apartment/housing rents are tremendously high and prices are going up every day. We have being squeezed and it’s getting harder to make a good living in NYC, while the politicians lobbying with the real state, and landlords.
Marx says “”you are either part of the Bourgeoise o r proletariat” Marx believed that based on the social structure coined by power elites people are to rate tgemselves as being superior or inferior depending on their social strata.However how do we know that Marx is not one of the Capitalists?Social control comes in many forms and we are lead to believe that we have to behave certain way especially to maintain our safety in the capitalist world. If we do not adhere then there would be sanctions .Unlike Marx Webber says people should not be concerned so much about money but about power. I agree to spome extent but money does give people power