Social Inequality In Australia

Analyse the economic and social costs and benefits of inequality in distribution of income in Australia.

Fredrick Engels (1950) gives an example of the labourer’s exploitation with the worker selling their labour power for wages and the capitalist exploiting it, therefore undoubtedly dividing classes. Cited in Engels, (1950: p13):

This reveals that a relatively small proportion of households have high net worth and a large portion of households have low net worth, concluding with the simple statement that: The distribution of wealth is more unequal in Australia than the distribution of income.

All human societies have been class based in some way, shape or form and, interpreting this in the most basic way, it can be said that in every known human society there has been a fundamental division between two broad social groups, the buorgeoisie that own and control the means of production, and the proletariat who own nothing but their ability to sell their labour power (that is, their ability to work) in return for wages. The anger and dissent over the differences in social classes has never wavered

Over the last two decades the Australian population has faced a number of economic instabilities that has seen the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ increase. To determine who the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ are an in-depth investigation will be performed examining the circumstances under which the gap can be manipulated. The economic wellbeing of individuals is largely determined by their command over economic resources (ABS, 2009). The wellbeing of individuals who are classified as ‘haves’ are usually people who are asset rich, contain bonds, shares and are fairly affluent. The wellbeing of individuals who are classified as ‘have nots’ are usually the working poor, who have little assets and little investments i.e. bonds. These

Macbeth's confidence skyrocketed, his sense of invincibility made him arrogant, which led to his death. Macbeth's hunger for power makes his ambition extremely great. “I have no incentive to pierce the foils of my intention” (Act 1, Scene 4). This represents Macbeth's ambition and highlights his dangerous nature. In order to gain more power, he also has to kill people who stand in his way.

First we must define what exactly income inequality really is and that is according to Definition of ‘Income Inequality’ (2015) said to be unequal income distributed to household or individual across the various participants in an economy. Income inequality is often presented as the percentage of income to a percentage of population. For example,

Hello My name is Shane Reynolds. I hope all is well and you are happy in your heart.

Social inequality is a problematic phenomenon that occurs all around the world and affects both the developed and developing nations. It is defined as “the unequal distribution of social, political and economic resources within a social collective” (van Krieken et al. 2013, p. 205). Inequality is closely connected with social stratification, a system of social hierarchy that positions individuals and groups into categories according to social variables such as class or ethnicity (van Krieken et al. 2013, p. 485). This stratification has a significant impact on the opportunity that an individual may have to move up the hierarchy of inequality (Gill 2017a).

Discussion of social inequality has been present in sociological works dating back as far as early 18th century in the works of Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. Centuries later, theoretical foundations of both Marx and Durkheim can be readily applied to social inequality in the context of present day Canada. Durkheim’s theory is founded in analyzing how societies function by focusing on the ideas of the division of labour, merit and functionalism. Marx on the other hand, views society as divided into social classes of bourgeoisie and proletariats, while stressing the importance the role of capital plays in society in relation to inequality. Both Marx and Durkheim’s theories of modern society can be used to critically discuss social inequality in Canada. However, this paper will demonstrate the strength of Marx’s theory when compared to that of Durkheim in terms of their applications to Canadian social inequality. Marx’s theory is stronger in application due to Marx’s view of society accounting for conflicts and frictions between classes, while Durkheim’s view is problematic in application to Canadian social inequality as it ignores inequalities such as gender and class, which produce conflicts that disrupt Durkheim’s idea of a social equilibrium in society.

Looking at this in an Australian context, there is a larger variation and fluctuation between class determinations compared to Karl Marx who believed social class was only determined by the factor of property (Henslin and Possami-Inesedy 2014). Analysing

Western women have traditionally been perceived as the inferior sex, or the domestic partner, subjected wholly to the private sphere, and stripped of legal rights and standing. Meanwhile, men are depicted as the breadwinner, the strong, masculine and dominant partner, who belongs primarily to the public sphere. These historic gender norms have been deeply imbedded within Australia’s social foundation, and although society has gradually shifted away from these roles, evidence suggests that this gender inequality still riddles the modern day workplace. Liberal feminist groups have embraced this issue, and have classified it as being a true barrier to achieving the ultimate gender equality goal. Consequently, these liberal feminists along

Economic inequality has been a long-debated issue within the social sciences. The origin of the most recent debate has roots in Karl Marx’s works during the 19th century. Since Marx, the equality of distribution has become a heated topic in a wide range of social science from economic to social and political. Marx saw the growing inequality and poor working conditions in the beginning of the 19th century as a never-ending process of infinite accumulation of capital. This literature subsided due to the improvement of working conditions

Traditionally Australians have believed in and conveyed the myth of Australia as a fair , egalitarian society without excess wealth or poverty, however we are definitely not a classless society. Australia's education system has been and remains one of the most unequally distributed social resources and could possibly be regarded as the main source of inequality in our society (Encel 1970; Anderson & Vervoorn 1983; as cited in Jamrozik, 2009). Now more than ever, Australia's education system is acting as a kind of 'sorting out' mechanism, allocating people to certain stations within

When the resources in a society are distributed unevenly it leads to social inequality. Often inequality is understood as being socio-economic and it is now closely associated with social inequality. “Social inequalities are differences in income, resources, power and status within and between societies. Such inequalities are maintained by those in powerful positions via institutions and social processes.” (Warwick-Booth, 2013 p.2)