John Ruskin Work

While they were only getting richer with their corrupt methods, the poorer classes were getting poorer because of the money they spent on the capitalists’ goods. In “The Robber Barons of Today, 1889”, the robber barons are seen with their “knightly” attire while the poor pay “tribute” to them. (Doc D) It represents the poor paying the “amazing” capitalists and being subservient for the goods they need. Also, in Henry George’s Progress and Poverty, 1879, it said that the gulf between the classes is getting wider and wider. Because of the industrial tycoons taking the poor’s money, they are getting richer. They are also providing fewer jobs since the industries usually have one major company for a particular manufacturing, and so “the poorer class is becoming more dependent” on the capitalists to provide jobs and goods. (Doc A) The robber barons took the poor’s money to become wealthier and to feed their greed while worsening the gap between the social

The sloth of governments abroad have led Utopians to pursue lives of group work rather than personal property. In Book I, Hythloday confronts the wealthy as "rapacious, wicked, and useless, while the poor are unassuming, modest

As the wealthy increased their assets in the cities, at the same time, a large class was “impoverished city dwellers.” A huge contrast between the wealthy and the poor were forming and becoming more apparent from the beginning of the eighteenth century in the colonies. The data that was collected on the people who were submitted into poor houses clearly with little “doubt that the third quarter of the eighteenth century was an era of severe economic and social dislocation in the cities, and that by the end of the colonial period a large number of urban dwellers were without property, without opportunity, and except for public aid, without the means of obtaining the necessities.” This evidence of poverty in the colonies is one that Nash tries to point out to support his argument that there was a sharp contrast in the distribution of wealth, and that the masses were at this time more focused on the economy’s downfall of the period than defending for constitutional rights and liberties. Protest sparked as the result of the enormous poverty in the colonies. Frustrated with their living conditions the middle and lower classes protested violently in the cities. During this time of frustration with the economic conditions, “rank had no privileges, as even the lieutenant-governor was shot” in Massachusetts. The wealthy were attacked

As civilization has evolved, economic inequality has existed since the feudal era and has made its place in modern society. It is a dilemma that examines the gap between the low wealth of the middle-class worker and the profitable earnings of the monopolizing upper-class business owner. It is a socio- economic issue that can best explored through the lens of the conflict theory; thoroughly explaining as to how the wealth gap came to exist and the consequences of such an economic state on the interaction between the middle-class worker and the wealthy businessman.

Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” and Samuel Gompers’ letter to Judge Peter Grosscup offer different opinions concerning the course that people of different economic standings should take in regards to power and social stature. However, both works mean to steer society in what seems to be opposite directions. Carnegie focuses more on how the wealthy in the society should take the seemingly philanthropic approach whereas Gompers’ offers a more organizational and structured point of view.

Supposedly, both the individuals with ascribed statuses with hereditary wealth and the poor and homeless have equal chances to become successful although, Orestes Bronwnson in The Laboring Classes, pointed out that this is not true. “Do the young man inheriting ten thousand pounds and the one whose inheritance is merely the gutter, start even?” (219). As a result, the harsh separation of the rich and the poor, where capitalism thrives and,” the division of the community into two classes, one which owns the funds…the other provides the labor” (216). The inhumane apprehension of a capitalist society that keeps its workers “in a permanent system, [has] given preference to the slave system” (214) says a lot about the evils of capitalism corresponding with the false American Dream. An outcome of capitalism is the frustrating rivalry between the poor. “There’s more people! That’s what’s ruining the country. The competition is maddening”

The axis of inequality that will be focused throughout this paper is the social class. Social class is defined as a group of individuals who are categorized according to class (i.e. poor, middle, and upper) due to their income, wealth, power, and occupation. Social class is socially constructed by the way we view how much income and wealth a person possess (Ore, 20011a, 10). In reality it is much more than that. According to the text, poverty is not only the shortage of income, but it is the rejection of opportunities and choices that leads a person to a standard way of living (Ore, 2011a, 10). Stereotyping also contributes to it being socially constructed. These stereotypes influence us by defining who is who based on their principles in each class category. This can cause some to feel worthless.

The essay provides vital information about the social distinctions in the society but readers may disagree with the idea that the working poor may never get the opportunity to advance their lives, regardless of the effort they put. It is only right to argue that the working poor remain in the impoverished condition because their undertakings do not generate enough income to help them get out of the unfriendly situation. The working poor, however, may emerge to be

As Ewen begins by describing the two contrasting perspectives of social reality. “It described factory industrialism as producing the accoutrements of a democracy, one which invites every man to enhance his own comfort and status. Equating democracy with consumption” (Ewen 187). Ewen recognizes that “Mass production, according to this outlook was investing individuals with tools of identity, marks of their personhood” (Ewen 187). One side of the perception of social reality is production.

Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Great Gatsby, and Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn all explore the effects of wealth and class on society. On closer inspection, a common strand seems to form between these three classic novels. The idea that wealth (and the social class that comes with it) determines a person is refuted via the use of deep characterization. In the end, it seems, wealth and class don’t determine a person’s moral integrity and value, but rather how they interact those two things. Ultimately, Twain makes a case for the lower-classes, that even the poor (and enslaved) can be truly good, setting a better example than the wealthy. Fitzgerald, on the other hand, shows that rich aren’t entirely superficial, rather, that they can be great men. Bronte’s Jane Eyre is a bit more of an oddball than the other two novels, focusing instead on a protagonist that leaps from riches (under the supervision of a cruel aunt), to rags, then back to riches once again. Still, this common strand holds true between the three books: no class, poor or rich, is entirely exempt from moral bankruptcy. A poor person like Pap Finn can be morally corrupt, while a rich man like Jay Gatsby can be good. All character-based judgments in these books lay solely on the person they are judging, blind of the class and wealth that surrounds them.

There are different opinions towards inequality, some people are accepting of it while others dislike the whole idea of inequality. Is it okay to let the wealthy have more control than the poor? Should their ideas matter more than the non-wealthy? And most importantly should the poor be okay with this, if not what must they do? In “Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie and “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx, both Carnegie and Marx expose their thoughts behind inequality and its traits. They both focus and touch upon the poor (proletarians) and the rich (bourgeoisie). They bring up the pros and cons about inequality, capitalism, and communism. Inequality was in Carnegie 's view. In his opinion progress required the processes of competition. Making capitalism an engine of progress. Carnegie believed that there is good to inequality while Marx begs to differ. Marx had his own view on capitalism, he believed that it would eventually result disastrous. Marx believed communism was the best solution to keep both the proletarians and bourgeoisie in an equal place. Both of these socialists have much to say about capitalism and communism and also for economic inequality. They both share different points of view, neither wrong or right. Their opinions are based towards their life experiences and this essay will be noting the differences between they share on inequality, the means of production, and capitalism.

They come to realize that a system of welfare that makes no moral judgments in allocating economic rewards promotes antisocial egotism. The spiritual impoverishment of the population seems to them worse than anything they have ever known in their own countries. And what they see is all the worse, of course, because it should be so much better. The wealth that enables everyone effortlessly to have enough food should be liberating, not imprisoning. Instead, it has created a large caste of people for whom life is, in effect, a limbo in which they have nothing to hope for and nothing to fear, nothing to gain and nothing to lose. It is a life emptied of meaning (Dalrymple, 6).

(27) There is a demarcation between the classes beginning with the rich elite, the upper upper class and the lower upper class. Those with inherited wealth are placed above those with self-earned wealth while those with great wealth are distinguished from those with a moderate amount of wealth. They are stable within their ranks, not dependent upon the economic climate of the country to sustain their positions. The upper middle class belongs to those people who are doing well and whose position also is not likely to change with the economic climate of the country. The middle class is comprised of people who are relatively comfortable and can afford a minimal number of luxuries. The working class can afford very few luxuries and are just getting by. Their position, like the middle class is subject to change with socio-economic changes in the country. The working poor cannot actually make ends meet and often become displaced workers with the ability to plummet down into the lowest class. They are not usually able to access the minimal comforts of the working class. The Underclass is a desperate position whose ranks lead substandard lives with no amenities and little chance for mobility.

Society has evolved to the point where money is the biggest factor in our lives. People spend an incredible amount of time at their workplace for that miniscule pay raise. Money also plays a role in our relationships with the people around us, seen in the fact that people of similar economic status tend to congregate. This desire to gain more money causes conflict, mainly between people who have a great deal of money, and the people who struggle financially. There are many examples of conflict between the different economic classes. Class conflict in Russia led to the Russian Revolution, and class conflict in France led to the French Revolution. Economic status is also the cause behind many ordinary crimes. This conflict, both between and within classes, is exemplified in The Great Gatsby, which shows that conflict occurs because of the differences among the classes and the strive to rise to a new class, known as the American dream. In order to effectively reduce conflict in any form, something must be done to eliminate the distinction between the different economic classes.

The lower class, also known as the “working class”, were those individuals whom partook on the strenuous and dangerous jobs. These individuals were expected to work each and every day for multiple hours as a time and without a break. Although they worked extremely hard, the lower class was not paid well for their effort. Instead, they received the very minimum wage that one could, and were expected to live off of this (Allingham, 2002). Because the people of this class did not have as much money, their material items such as; housing, clothing, and food were very minimum. Even with the small amount of income that they received, the “lower section of the society was also burdened with numerous taxes that made their life miserable.” (Bishal, 2008) Lastly, the working classes remained shut out from the political process, making these individuals in reality separated from the rest of society (Allingham, 2002).