My Last Year On Wall Street

In addition to new freedoms arrives the idea that one can make as much money as he or she desires. If those methods were to include educational scholarships or a job, money is always available. Dana Gioia’s “Money” poem makes the statement, “Money breeds money” (69). In the minds of the America

In the article “Money: The Real Truth about Money” by Gregg Easterbrook published In Time Magazine (2005), the author compares two different generation’s attitudes towards money, and how it affects their happiness. The author’s standing qualifies him to write and appeal this issue, he’s a contributing editor of The Atlantic and The Washington Monthly, and he also writes the Tuesday Morning Quarterback column for ESPN.com. Easterbrook’s primary audience appears to be middle class Americans however he draws a wider secondary audience’s attention. The author succeeded in convincing his readers through his rhetorical appeals, credible sources and his clever use of language.

In the book Money and Class in America written by Lewis Lapham, the way Americans look at money is exposed. It compares other nations view on monetary value against that of the Americans. It is a fact that we place more value on money than anything else. This book illustrates the corruptness of the “American Dream” as it focuses money as the “currency of the soul” and through the dream, men remain free to rise or fall. Their life is the product of the effort and the decisions put forth by them.

“Money talks” is an expression many form as a simple analogy to the problem associated with wealth today. However, the value of money is not to be taken in vain as money does not always showcase the attributes of knowledge and power. At the same time, those who do possess money do, in some cases, possess the attributes commonly associated with the wealthier class. “Money and Class in America” wrote by Lewis Lapham in 1988, showcases the pessimistic feelings Lapham has towards the American faith in money. Lapham believes that Americans are at a loss to hold the majesty of money at bay. Though I agree with Lapham to a point, I also believe that the assumptions of Americans do apply to a point.

Money is the supreme power of the world. Its immeasurable power and limitless influence has hacked into our society today, ruining our political democracy, our capitalistic economy, and our chances at achieving the American Dream. Money is handled differently between the rich and the poor. Money in the hands of the poor is spent on essential items necessary for survival, and since money is not abundant in the hands of the poor, every single penny is cherished as a gift from God. However in the hands of the rich, money is used to acquire more money. The urge to succumb to greed influences the rich to use any and all means necessary to grow their wealth, to grow their power, to grow their long lasting influence. We look up to the rich with awe for their ability to achieve the American Dream, but what we are blindfolded from seeing is the true rise to stardom, their true pathway to success. Not all, but some have achieved the American Dream through immoral acts and satanic deeds, swindling the desired ones from their exit of poverty or their chance to enter into reality. In the end of The Great Gatsby, F Scott Fitzgerald revealed to us the true Jay Gatsby. Fitzgerald teaches us that not all people achieve the American Dream immorally, giving the example of Jay Gatsby

One argument made by Structural Functionalists is that society should be a meritocracy. People should be rewarded based on their abilities. (Class notes, SOCI 201, Winter 2010)

     There is a problem in the United States that is growing and is causing issues in our country, but not everybody knows about it. The problem is the distribution of wealth in our society and the world as a whole, and how it is getting worse. Some people would say that it is an inequality due to the needs of the society, while others would say it is to the needs or individuals. This causes even more problems because of there being more than one supposed reason for the issue at hand. The problem is that the distribution of power is possibly starting to be lopsided, and for many reasons. There are two main views of why this is happening, the functionalist perspective and the conflict

Throughout the modern era, society’s views on money’s effect on a person’s emotions have drastically changed. Many people believed that the more money a person has, the more satisfied he or she will be. However, due to recent conclusions made by writers and case studies, money has proven to not be responsible for a person’s contentment. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, The Great Gatsby, Daisy and Gatsby’s wealth ultimately shows the reader that money does not equal happiness.

The sociological views of functionalist and conflict theorist on stratification and economic inequality have had profound impact on the current economic discussion. In the past, economist have argued that wealth inequality is essential for “economic strength and social stability. [5] That wealth inequality “is needed to reward hard work, talent and innovation”. [6] However, in recent years, many economist have come to the conclusion that extreme wealth inequality, can lead to economic stagnation and social instability. What degree of

The whole idea of rags to riches embodied the work ethic of the 1920s and previous decades as the idyllic Golden Age of flappers and mobsters thrived. However, the ideology was flawed in itself that people were striving for money and not happiness. The average American assumed that happiness was money and were therefore obsessed with the culture of the attaining money. While this was also mostly a time of attempted moral reinvigoration in the older generations, baring the Prohibition and all, many would do whatever they could to get what they wanted, which in most cases was money to buy ‘nice’ things. Everyone’s goal was to become extravagantly wealthy or to die trying. The saddest part of it all is many went to the grave unable to fulfill their actually quite impossible dream.

Author William Hazlitt in his essay “On the Want of Money” describes his feelings on the topic of money. Hazlitt employs stylistic devices to illustrate the deception and illusions that come with having or working for money. He explains that money is sought for by everyone, yet few have it, and the ones who do, usually do not enjoy it because they are worried about losing it. Through lengthy syntax, scholarly diction, and repetition, Hazlitt creates a negative mood for the reader to discover the raw truth about money and the horrible things that it can do to people.

Functionalist argue that stratification is "necessary and beneficial" to a society to ensure the highest qualified individuals will fill the best societal positions. Inequality in the

The typical millionaires portrayed in the book were not the jet setting, high profile, luxury car driving executive that most would equate with affluence. In fact, the typical millionaire is a 57 year old male, self-employed, with an average income of $247,000. They are fairly well educated, wear inexpensive suits, and drive late model American made cars. On average, these millionaires live in modest homes and work in occupations such as: contractors, auctioneers, farmers, owners of mobile home parks, and stamp and coin dealers. These individuals are organized, live within a budget, and spend considerable time and energy investing. These individuals are also self-described tight wads. In lieu of receiving money directly for their time, the authors offered to donate money in the interviewee’s name to a favorite charity. The reply of most of the millionaires was “I am my own favorite charity,” and kept the money for themselves.

A functionalist perspective on social inequality would argue that inequality is necessary for the survival of any society. It is argued that without this inequality division of labour would be difficult, it is also argued that to attract people to both the important and less important roles there must be variation in rewards that motivates individuals to make the effort needed to gain the top positions. (Kent, 2006: 224)

Marketers want others to believe that living a selfish life, involving nothing but the pursuit of money and fame will bring success and happiness. Sadly, this is not accurate. Money is comparable to the often-mentioned new toy, fun while it is brand new and fresh, but terribly boring and unexciting after it’s played with for an hour or two. Though money can buy conveniences and comforts, people need much more than superficial luxuries to live a successful, well-balanced life. Money does make life easier, but it does not necessarily make it