Democratic ideologies in the United States provide the basis for both the limitations and boundaries given to each individual living in the country. However, the term individual is very tricky in a society that promotes democratic ideals but functions by capitalistic principles. This imbalance is seen throughout society but remains highly prevalent in lower economic classes in the country. The core values of Capitalism are not incorrect; however, when intertwined with American core values – democracy, equal opportunities, and pursuit of happiness – they cause conflict and damage the lives of certain individuals. Low-wage workers are often victims of this disparity and find themselves working for their employers without enough compensation …show more content…
When workers work overtime, they display a high degree of commitment to the task at hand and are thus usually compensated for the extra hours they put in. However, this is only possible when there is mutual respect between the employees and employers. An employer who is negligent of the effort a worker puts in his/her work creates job dissatisfaction and distance in the workplace. Beth Shulman in her work The Betrayal of Work, introduces the pharmacy technical assistant, Judy Smithfield. Her job requires accuracy and scrutiny, which is often very time consuming. Without sufficient help, she finds herself working six days a week. Logically, considering the difficulty of her task, reasonable compensation, respect and appreciation should follow. However, her customers are ignorant and can be angry and impatient despite the effort she makes. How can one be satisfied working in such conditions? Commitment means nothing to her employers. Thus she is not a source of profit for the upper classes; her duties are simply essential but don’t deserve monetary merit in their …show more content…
Training is one of these practices he mentions. Training allows an employee to practice and refine his/her skills under the instructions of employers. This forms a bond between the two. When an employee performs a task following his/her training, he/she is showing respect to his/her superiors. This mutualism is essential and forms connections that could lead to higher compensation and better opportunities in the future. Pfeffer asserts this point very clearly, “Investments in training activate the norm of reciprocity. If an employer has invested in an employee, that employee will feel some obligation to reciprocate that investment with greater effort and commitment” (123). Here capitalistic values are in sync with American values of mutualism and equality. Another strategy is information sharing, which introduces the values of trust and communication. Capitalists reserve the upper hand in a workplace. They have money and they have power. They know the crucial details, secrets and unsaid motives. Employees who do not have friendly relations with their superior are less likely to trust them. Thus with information sharing, employers are able to share pertinent information and more importantly communicate with their
In Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting By In America, Barbara Ehrenreich gives an accurate and inside view of how the very bottom of the social strata lives, those who scrape a living from working minimum wage jobs. While there are a few discrepancies that will be discussed, Barbara gives an untold view of the individuals that live at, or below the poverty line. This paper will critically analyze Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting By in America, discuss two major themes in the book, and ultimately relate it to a few points to Political Science 204.
Another element of socialism in American society is the minimum wage law, as well as overtime laws. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Welfare are all socialist ideals that have infiltrated our capitalist society. Our uneven tax scale and universal healthcare for children are other examples. With this blend of capitalism with socialist ideals, the working class can be taken care of, but not at the expense of losing America's capitalist identity.
Analyzing this time period in America brings further understanding to the implications that can arise in a democracy. More importantly the very same democratic mechanisms that took away equality in the first place can be utilized by the citizenry to bring it back. With an understanding of Tocqueville’s argument of industrial aristocracy in a democracy, the American Gilded Age and the sovereign response to the elite, the appearance of inequality during this time period becomes clearer. The culmination of evidence across multiple sources will prove what led to the growth of an industrial aristocracy, its effects on the worker and the overall effectiveness of the sovereign
The contentious little book titled Women, Power, Politics maintains politics to be devalued, acknowledging the fact that only few people do vote, and women are unable to achieve within the realm of Canadian politics. Sylvia Bashevkin, the author of the book argues that Canadians have a profound unease with women in positions of political authority, what she calls the "women plus power equals discomfort" equation. She evaluates a range of barriers faced by women who enter politics, including the media's biased role of representing the private lives of women in politics, and she wonders why citizens find politics is underrepresented in Canada compared to Belgium. In clear, accessible terms, Bashevkin explains her ideas on how to eliminate “low voters turn-out,” “devaluation of politics,” "gender schemas," and "media framing.” She outlines some compelling solutions to address the stalemate facing women in Canadian politics which are; contesting media portrayals, changing the rule of the game, improving legislative quotas, electoral reform, movement renewals, and so on. This response paper would addresses the reality of a political mainstream, actions which should be taken against the oppressive elements of reality, and the awareness it brings through economic, social, and political environment.
Briggs, Vernon. (1998, June 1). American-Style Capitalism and Income Disparity: The Challenge of Social Anarchy. The Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 32, 473 (8).
The ideal concept of American society is one in which all of the citizens are treated equal in all every realm and situation. Class, race or gender does not divide the utopian America; everyone is afforded the same opportunities and chances for success. In this chimerical state Americans are able to go as far as their dreams allow and with hard work and perseverance any thing is possible. Many Americans subscribe to this pluralist view of the Country, believing that within our democratic system it is the majority who maintains control and sets policy. Unfortunately this idyllic country does not exist nor has it ever existed. America is made up of distinct social classes and the movement within those classes is for the most part, limited to the various classes in the middle where the lines of demarcation are blurred. Although the majority of the Country's population would attest to the myth that America is a classless society, the distinctions definitely exist and influence the entire life scope of most Americans. Housing, health care, education, career prospects and social status are all dependent on the amount of wealth one has and their class standing. Our system needs the built in inequities of the class system in order to perpetuate itself and the upper class needs to have their interests as the dominant determiner of corporate and governmental power and policy.
Although the livable wage has a good intention of decreasing poverty, it is not consistent with the American spirit of capitalism because the livable wage promotes an economy that does not support business. America has always been a business friendly country. America is a business friendly country because of the American belief in a hands-off approach to commerce and the economy. This is called “laissez-faire” economics; the system allows American companies to make decisions that are best for the firm which in turn increases wealth throughout society because it makes an incentive to increase productivity. It also turns out that this system of capitalistic economics is the most efficient at allocating scarce resources. For example, the opposite of capitalism, a command economy, failed in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union’s economy failed because it tried to allocate resources through central planning, instead of having businesses determine how much of a product to produce. Our system of limited government interference in business has allowed American society to become the wealthiest societies in the world. The lack of government intervention income has become ingrained with t...
The American Dream led millions of individuals to travel to America in hopes of achieving this enticing ideology. People across the world sought freedom, education, and wealth. Recent statistics show that a majority of people do not think the American Dream still holds truth, and an even larger majority believe one the most harmful issues is “not everyone is given an equal chance to succeed in life” (Jones, Cox, Navarro-Riverra, 2014). The attainability of the American Dream decreases as inequality, more specifically income inequality, increases. Democracy is arguably the best and worst form of government. The idea of having, freedom, human rights, a say in political decisions, and control of personal decisions creates a place where people
One would expect that social equality would just be the norm in society today. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Three similar stories of how inequality and the hard reality of how America’s society and workforce is ran shows a bigger picture of the problems American’s have trying to make an honest living in today’s world. When someone thinks about the American dream, is this the way they pictured it? Is this what was envisioned for American’s when thinking about what the future held? The three authors in these articles don’t believe so, and they are pretty sure American’s didn’t either. Bob Herbert in his article “Hiding from Reality” probably makes the most honest and correct statement, “We’re in denial about the extent of the rot in the system, and the effort that would be required to turn things around” (564).
In this essay, I will be discussing whether or not there is a problem with worker motivation in capitalist economies. However, before I relay my answer, I must define both motivation and capitalism within the context of this essay. In the book, Motivation and Work Behavior, the authors share their thoughts on motivation. They conclude, “When we discuss motivation, we are primarily concerned with (1) what energizes human behavior, (2) what directs or channels such behavior, and (3) how this behavior is maintained or sustained” (Porter et al. 2003, p. 1). Put more simply, motivation is what encourages human beings to focus and stay on task in any certain situation, in my opinion. In the context of the workplace, one considers motivation to of the utmost importance, since in most cases, time equals money in terms of production. Therefore, there are certain factors that are necessary in order to maintain the motivation of the workers. Some factors might include decent salaries, benefits, or even a thriving corporate culture. Many theorists attempt to explain motivation in relation to a p...
Major enterprises create new technologies that do not require industries or factories. As a result, citizens are struggling to find work due to advanced technology. In addition, the rich one percent enjoy when things benefit them the most (Stiglitz 748). Citizens with good fortune get most of the money from reduced taxes, which is similar to an income boost. Stiglitz mentions tax reductions are illustrated as wealthy people’s main source of staying rich for a long period of time (Stiglitz 748). A decline in unions contribute to American inequality (Stiglitz 748). Workers are unable to gain economic equality without higher authorities to represent them and voice their opinions. Unions that represent nearly forty percent of workers currently only represent a little over ten percent (Stiglitz 748). Rich people stay wealthy while several working Americans struggle earning capital and searching for a stable
The fight between the owners of capital and wage-labor has never been truly resolved. Different periods in American history have oscillated between supporting businesses and the average person. Movements such as progressivism took over to reduce the effect political machines started to have over public policy. Today, the discussion over inequality reminds many people of the period just before the Great Depression and the Gilded Age, where inequality was high and profits for large businesses soared. The difference between history and contemporary politics is that today, movements against inequality are less tinged with socialist undertones. People are angry at the concept of gross inequality, but are not able to properly articulate why. Matthew Yglesias and Ezra Klein both contend that classes beside the upper class have not seen economic growth as well
Starting this paper was quite challenging because I was uncertain about what to critique on. For my first take on paper two, I read a speech by Michelle Obama. In the beginning, I had a difficult time figuring out what to include in my paper since my paper was going to be mostly favorable. I had to read the speech many times to formulate critiques on certain examples and languages that the author used to support my claim. Therefore, whenever I reread the speech, I kept finding something new and became confused on whether to include it or not, because I was not completely sure if it would contradict with my claim. After annotating and making an outline for my paper, I began writing my draft. A few days later, I put together my paper and turned it in. Then I received feedback from Professor Boatner on how it seemed like I did not enjoy the speech, so I had to give another chance on a critique of a different article.
The Great Philosopher Karl Marx (1844, p 1) said “wages are determined through the antagonistic struggle between the capitalist and worker. Victory goes necessarily to the capitalist. The capitalist can live longer without the worker than the worker without the capitalist”. The aforementioned philosophic statement by Marx opens for many issues to be debated between workers and employers, employment cadres and employment policies. As can be seen, in the hands of the capitalists are resources in the form of pay or wages that a worker desires to have in their own hands to provide for their individual needs and wants. Henceforth, the capitalist employ workers and in turn pay wages which are an income
America is considered the land of possibility to many, the land of the free. There is a plethora of businesses that function only through the collaboration of members that reside in every level of social class. As Anyon puts it, “… social class describes relationships which we as adults have developed, may attempt to maintain, and in which we participate in every working day”(anyon 398). One’s social class contains and is built by many different interactions. Your social class begins to be constructed at birth and is developed through interactions in the community, work place, and before all else places of education. Indeed the skills and level of thinking learned through education is a deciding factor in how strongly you can participate in the economy there for determining a major factor in social class (Anyon 398 p. 10). This topic is discussed in articles written by (Kozol, Matzios, and Jean Anyon) who pose similar arguments to reinforce this observation but also have contrasting ideas on the subject.