In Linda Tirado’s novel Hand to Mouth, she goes into great length on how the people who are financially stable, or even better off than she was when she was living in the working poor class, could set a double standard on how they lived compared to how less fortunate people lived. She talks about how these people must do what they can to survive, not necessarily even to thrive, on what little pay they earn. The less fortunate resort to extreme measures at times in order just to be able to put food on the table. Yet the wealthy sit there and judge, and essentially set double standards so that if they, the wealthy, consider it unacceptable for poverty stricken people to do certain jobs or stoop low to feed their family. They do this because they …show more content…
feel entitled to have an opinion about everything and everyone. No matter happens they are always above everyone else because of their status and wealth. At the same time these wealthy individuals are no better and become hypocrites. To clarify, not all reach people are hypocritical, there are however a number of rich people who are and set double standards when comparing themselves to those of lesser status or pay. They disgrace these people by where and how they working and on their personal lives. There are many people who do outrageous things in order to make a small amount of cash in order to feed themselves and their family. We see this happen to Linda when see was working at the strip club. She herself was the entertainment as some more of the bartender at the club. She would have men come over to her and say that she was more of the honest one that worked there since she wasn’t working “entertainment”. At the same time however, these men even went as far to say that what these women were doing was wrong and such. Whether it be some run down strip joint in a shady neighborhood, or a fancy gentlemen’s club in a high end New York loft it’s still the same. Wealthy men and women who are supposed to be setting the standards of how to live are stooping down low because they wanted to have a little bit of fun. These actions are no more demeaning that those who are stuck performing. “Guys actually thought I’d be impressed when they told me that they liked me best out of all the women at the club because real honest women wouldn’t strip, that it was beneath them to like a stripper.... Some guys will moralize at you while they’re getting a lap dance” (Tirado, 2014, pg. 110-111). How are they to judge these women? Yes what they may be doing is a little unethically, but it takes two to tango. There are there just the same as those who are working. Shouldn’t that put them into the wrong as well? This is very hypocritical on the wealthy people’s part because they are taking part of these actions as well. On the other hand those who are performing have more of a justified reason than the wealthy do. They are doing this type of entertainment because they have very few other options to make money in order to survive. Another way rich people try to set themselves higher above those that are beneath them is disgracing where and what type of jobs, even if they maybe well-paying jobs. They look at anything where they have to get their hands dirty, even in the slightest, as demeaning or beneath them. Such jobs would include farmers, garbage men, to even as high as to nurses. The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that the median pay of $69,110 for a register nurse. Even on the lower end of the scale nurses still make $44,970. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011) At the low of the scale that is still a large amount of money, yet there are still a number of wealthier people that look down upon these men and women because they don’t make the money that they do. These men and women save lives everyday but are still treated with very little respect. This just does not go for nurses. It happens to others who work hard for their money, like farmers, garbage men, postal service employees. Another double standard that is set is having children while living in the lower or working poor classes.
The rich people want less fortunate to live a life of purity and not reproduce as often. How is that fair? “Sadly, we as a society are a bit more conflicted about it that. And for some reason, we moralize at the poor about sex than we do at the population in general. (Tirado, 2014, pg. 111) Why? Why must we set rules for poor people and then turn around and don’t even obey the rules ourselves. Why is it the wealthy can have as many children they want and it okay, but if it is a poorer person its wrong. That is because they expect people to, live a life of purity even though everything else they do whether it be their job or how they look, it just doesn’t match. On top of that, why are they denying these people the right to having children if they want to have children? No one goes around telling the very wealthy that they can’t have children. They look at these people and essentially say that you shouldn’t be wasting your time trying to raise a family when you should be focusing on trying to get out of the lower/working poor classes and into a better life. Again it is another double standard that they set up to limit the poor or set high standards that they know they won’t be able to reach. Another reason this happens is the fact that contraceptives aren’t exactly cheap to get for both
genders. Children are affect by this too on both side. Another way to look at this idea is that are the rich somewhat envious that the poor spend more time with their children than they do? There are some families that go long length of time where they don’t see each other due to business trips, or the simple fact that they, the children have nanny’s or care takers of some sort so that their parents do really have to take care of them. Whereas if poorer people spend the majority of the time physically raising their children because that’s the only option they had. Sometimes it can down to the fact that they can’t afford baby sitters and if they do it’s not always a guaranteed thing either. Sometimes they have enough money other times, not so much. Wealthier people have set another double standard that they can voice their opinion whenever they want and they are no major repercussions that follow their actions. On the flip side of the situation, if anyone of the lower class voices there opinion they are looked down upon and in a sense cast of to the side. This happens many times with in the work place. “ No matter how good a waitress you are, you probably won’t make two to three hours’ worth of minimum wage out of tips from your only table in hours. … And if you remind your boss that he is supposed to top off to $7.25, then you run the risk of finding yourself with reduced hours or fired altogether. (Tirado, 2014, pg. 5)” How is that right you ask to have the money that you are supposed to earn within the hour but it you mention it at all, you have the risk of losing work but reduced hour or being completely fired. Another example is when Linda Tirado was called into work because they were short staffed and to get there when she can. Her car isn’t in the best of condtions so it takes her some time to get there. Once she does finally reach her work, her manger is in a really bad mood and starts complaining about her not being there within five minutes. This puts Mrs. Tirado is a irritable mood but says nothing because at first it wasn’t forth it, however the manager keep pushing her buttons throughout her shift taking jabs at her until she finally had enough. She blew up on him and yelled “WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, YOU INCOMPENTENT F****** ASSHOLE? (Tirado, 2014, pg 65)“ Granted she could have said it in a different way but she was fired for voicing her opinion. The little man doesn’t have a voice because nobody takes them seriously and it is a major issue. The finally double standard that has been recognized is that the wealthy expect the poor to look more appealing physically, whether it be their clothing or overall appearance. The want these men and women to look pretty or done up even though wat they do for a living isn’t very pretty at all. They want you smiling at every moment while you’re working even tough your job is absolutely miserable. For example, they want a cashier to be very kind all the time, smiling away like a mindless robot. The wealthy want this even though they themselves sit and act horrible to these people and wonder why the get an attitude every once in a while. On top of that, these people are standing there hours upon hours in the same spot. They are going to get tired and irritable, just like any person would. If they see this though they start questioning them, the cashiers or others workers, what’s with the attitude or I shouldn’t have to deal with your poor attitude. However it is acceptable for them to throw around attitude whenever they want and it be fine. News flash that’s not society works. Wealthy people act like this because they can get away with it since they make the rules. In conclusion, the wealthy people have set rule and standards that they expect the people beneath them to follow. In doing so, this turns around on them because they are hypocritical because they themselves don’t even follow the standards that they placed. The look down upon people because of how or where they work. They want poor people to live that are pure but what they do for a living isn’t pure, so they are set up for failure before they even start. If the wealthy are going to judge other for what they do and set standards up for them. They should be expected to follow their own rules and to be judge on their actions as well.
Economic inequality and injustice come in the same hand. Poor people are more likely to experience inequality and injustice. The negative assumptions of poor people are created by the media and politicians. Promoting economic justice by offering people living in poverty some form of social support. Barbara Ehrenreich found in her experiment the workforce for low-wage was difficult. Conley talks about the different types of social inequalities and how they have been unsuccessful.
People from lower classes try to achieve success but tend to struggle depending upon their foundation. The problem that people don’t want see is that we all want to become successful, and have the capability to do so but are just restricted by the lack of income.
The book Nickel and Dimed On (Not) Getting by in America, written by Barbara Ehrenreich is a book that relates the experience of how she survived living on poverty-level wages in America as a waitress, maid and a Wal-mart sales associate. Barbara left her comfortable surroundings as a journalist with a Ph.D in biology to work various "unskilled" and "under compensated" jobs in order to achieve, "the old-fashioned kind of journalism". In regards to leaving her comfortable lifestyles for a few months traveling through Florida to Maine and Minnesota, she discovered that people who are paid six to seven dollars an hour did not generate enough income for those who did not want to live outside of a home. The sad reality is that millions of people in America work everyday for those wages and have to just deal with it. The majority opinion is that some poor people are lazy or choose to be that way, when the truth is that individuals work everyday some even two jobs and still cannot make ends meet because of the poverty cycle.
Ehrenreich states “…the United States, for all its wealth, leaves its citizens to fend for themselves — facing market-based rents, for example, on their wages alone. For millions of Americans, that $10 — or even $8 or $6 — hourly wage is all there is.” (Ehrenreich 214) A large portion of us human beings in society today, only care about making money to benefit ourselves rather than those less fortunate. People who have worked their entire lives on low wages may never experience luxuriousness due to the greed of our employers and government. Those graced with a generous amount of money tend to leave others in need of assistance, thusly causing inhuman nature to develop within our communities. Ehrenreich experiences this when she found out that her own self-esteem lowered at the hands of her employers who treated their workers as disposable. These employers as well as their companies, devalue a worker to essentially keep them powerless against them. Many of the job interviews she had gone through avoided any discussion of wages because, the employers wanted to keep the paychecks at a bare minimum. In most situations within our community workplace, a worker is not compensated correctly for his or her labor. Most of the human beings today would do just anything to stay wealthy, even if it means devaluing another. Most of our society spends their lifetimes
Sanger explains that people who aren’t fit to care for a child shouldn’t bare children. She goes on to explain that the less irresponsible and reckless people there are “the less immortality shall exist”. Sanger wants to stop the disease known as over population at the source which is in the hands of women controlling the number of offspring they bring into the world. The argument in the speech is that using contraception doesn’t lower morals, when actually not using contraception is immoral because irresponsible people are “filling the earth with misery, poverty, and disease” (Sanger
The idea that people of poor communities conform to a living standard and behavior is a concept described by Oscar Lewis as the culture of poverty. It is the belief that poor people consists of their own beliefs and values and behaviors. And more than 45 years later after the term, the culture of poverty paradigm remains the same: there is a consistent and observable culture that is shared by people in poverty. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as the culture of poverty. differences in behaviors and values among those that are poor are just as significant as those between wealthy and poor. The culture of poverty is a construct of smaller stereotypes which seem to have implanted themselves into the collective conscience of mainstream thought as undeniable fact. However, as we will see, nothing could be further from the truth. Based on 6 most common myths of what defines poor from wealthy, I will provide evidence to the contrary.
She also appeals to the ethos at the very end of the speech by identifying three separate and conflicting social classes that are based on intelligence and wealth. She describes the first class as being “intelligent and wealthy members of the upper classes who have obtained knowledge of birth control and exercise it in regulating the size of their families.” She then compares the highest class to the mid-level group by saying they too are “equally intelligent and responsible” but can not gain knowledge and therefore can not plan their families. By comparing the first two alone it appeals to ethics as two groups with equal knowledge and wealth should both have knowledge and control over the size of their families. She ties in the last group by saying that the lowest group is “irresponsible and reckless” and states that this group reproducing in large numbers is bad for society as it will spread disease and the increase in size of this “feeble-minded” group.
This is nothing new in Catholic Social Teaching. Pope Paul VI condemned the “flagrant inequalities” in both the enjoyment of possessions and the exercise of power. In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI writes, “The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require, particularly today, that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive and morally unacceptable
Society today is split in many different ways: the smart and the dumb, the pretty and the ugly, the popular and the awkward, and of course the rich and the poor. This key difference has led to many areas of conflict among the population. The rich and the poor often have different views on issues, and have different problems within their lives. Moral decay and materialism are two issues prevalent among the wealthy, while things such as socio-economic class conflict and the American dream may be more important to those without money. Ethics and responsibilities are an area of thought for both classes, with noblesse oblige leaning more towards the wealthy.
I am well aware of global poverty statistics and I do agree that if the most affluent people banded together, global poverty can altogether be abolished. However, I definitely cosign the fact that, what I work for is mine, what I own is mine and I am entitled to it. John Arthur suggests that equality and entitlements are both of equal importance when the topic is our social moral code, which is a system that we follow to guide us and that we use to make decisions. For example, as a full time college student, I work 35 hours a week, getting paid an inadequate amount, - which is besides the point - I see a homeless man begging for money, and my options are to either take the Peter Singer approach and give him money, because I feel the need to lessen global poverty even though it’s a small step towards improvement, or I can take the John Arthur approach and simply keep it moving and not even bother to contribute whether it be to lessen or worsen the issue of global poverty. It may sound selfish, but it is what it is and I simply see it as I’m entitled to my earnings. I’m more inclined to choose the option of not increasing or decreasing the problem at hand because I feel if roles were switched it wouldn’t even be an option for someone to help me even in the slightest way. We are all equal but however, that doesn’t mean financially or physically, it is in terms of we are all
When lots of people walk down the street and a homeless person is sitting there what do they do? They walk on and mumble something like get a job or try harder. Most poor people can’t do much more to fix their social class. It’s like they are stuck there. In Tammy Crabtree’s story, her family suggests this idea, “I growed up poor, my dad worked hard. He worked 27 years..........and it ain’t easy.” (People Like Us: Social Class in America) Tammy and her family have nothing else to do. They have worked all their life and been smart with their money. They do not have anything else to do to make their life better. People that are poor and don’t look the best can not get a good job either. They are stuck in that one job because no other place wants to hire them.
In the excerpt “Rich and Poor” from Peter Singer’s book “Practical Ethics,” Singer critiques how he portrays the way we respond to both absolute poverty and absolute affluence. Before coming to this class, I have always believed that donating or giving something of your own to help someone else is a moral decision. After reading Peter Singer’s argument that we are obligated to assist extreme poverty, I remain with the same beliefs I previously had. I will argue that Singer’s argument is not convincing. I will demonstrate that there are important differences between being obligated to save a small child from drowning (in his Shallow Pond Example) and being obligated to assist absolute poverty. These differences restrict his argument by analogy for the obligation to assist in the case of absolute poverty.
Not all people are wealthy. The word poverty has many meanings. There are an abundance of people around the world without jobs and money, which leaves them poor and living in the shadows of the streets. Poverty is when people are living in hunger, living without a home, not being able to live up to the basic human needs. Citizens living in poverty get sick and there won’t be a doctor they can go to because they do not have the money to afford anything. In addition, many families don’t have the financial support to pay for their child's education and so, that generation will have a hard time earning money as well.
wanting to give more than what they have. moral character of the rich and the poor and
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we