“The One Percent” is a documentary that addressed wealth and social inequalities among the American population (Johnson, 2006). The film was created and narrated by Jamie Johnson. Jamie’s great grandfather was the founder of Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical company. Therefore, Jamie’s father inherited a fortune that has given Jamie many privileges that are uncommon throughout the rest of the American population. Although Jamie has lived his entire life by reaping the benefits of his family’s inheritance, he has come to realize just how privileged he and his family truly is. Jamie discussed how families from similar socioeconomic classes, such as his, make up an incredibly small percentage of the American population. This is why the film is …show more content…
Marx is often connected with critiques on capitalistic societies. In a capitalistic society such as America, individuals are primarily driven by the accumulation of profit. Marx believed that social inequalities in capitalist societies were molded by competition over resources and various goals. He theorized that wealth, power, and various advantages would eventually become disproportionately distributed among segments of the population due to this competition. Descendants of Marxism commonly focus on the ways in which this privileged segment of the United States strives to perpetuate their status and wealth. The documentary emphasizes a great concern for preserving family wealth and status that appeared to be shared among many of the wealthiest American families (Johnson, 2006). For example, a segment of the film took place at a conference strictly allowed the wealthiest Americans alone. Jamie discussed how this conference was held annually with intentions of teaching incredibly wealthy Americans ways in which they can preserve the wealth of their family for successive generations. The film closely relates to many common aspects of sociology overall. However, “The One Percent” really stressed ideas similar to those presented by many Marxist conflict
The video then goes on to identify who the one percent is, including celebrities and political figures. It even goes on to compare the amount of work done by the 1percent in comparison to those in the middle class. All of the data is presented in such a simple manner so that many can understand the issue of wealth inequality throughout the United States.
Karl Marx believes that a capitalistic society separates the rich from the poor. corporations that holds the money hold the power to dictate whether certain fucntions of society.
The 99 percent consists of average Americans whose homes are being foreclosed upon, who have accrued colossal student loan debt and are most affected by economic setbacks. A definition of power is the “ownership, control, and distribution of resources”. In this way, the 99 percent is powerless in America because they lack the ability to exist independently of the one percent who has the power over the nation’s resources. The one percent has an advantage in its ability to influence the government and public policy. The protestors point to many societal problems as evidence of this inequality. Some of these examples are unequal access to healthcare, poverty, exorbitant student loan debt, unemployment, and unfair practices in the housing market. These are all indicators of the unequal distribution of resources and subsequently power that Occupy Wall Street denounces.
Stiglitz identifies dwindling opportunity, monopoly power and tax treatment, and the investments of the government as the effects from manipulating the economy to exclusively benefit the top 1%. The societal impact becomes clear when the author states that the ultimate price is the “erosion of our sense of identity,” which includes “fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community” because a majority of people realize the importance of these topics related to the success of themselves and their country (Stiglitz, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”). The article concludes with the significance of paying attention to common welfare as a “precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being” that the top 1% have a history of failing to grasp before meeting their
In today’s capitalist economy, where economic transactions and business in general is centered on self-interest, there is a natural tendency for some people to make more than others. That is the basis for the “American Dream,” where people, if they worked hard, could make money proportional to their effort. However, what happens when this natural occurrence grows disproportional in its allocation of wealth within a society? The resulting issue becomes income inequality. Where a small portion of the population, own the majority of the wealth and the majority of the population own only a fraction of what the rich own. This prominent issue has always been the subject of social tension
A Critical Analysis of The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap
There is no doubt that wealth inequality in America has been escalating quickly; the portion of total income earned by the top one percent has doubled since the beginning of the 1970’s. The wealthy are the main beneficiaries
It is a fact that in the US, 50 percent of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. But is it really such an unfortunate reality that we would need a system other capitalism to stem the tide of upward movement of wealth distribution. In my view, what is wrong is not the 1 percent's hold on 50 percent of wealth but the resulting decline in middle class that is now a major problem for the US.
Today in America, income and wealth inequality has continued to grow at an unsettling pace. The rich continue to get richer, while the number of people categorized as lower class grows exponentially. As Joseph Stiglitz has explained, many theories that are seen as strongly Republican, such as the trickle-down effect, has caused the rich to take money from the poor, and as a result the lower class grows and the middle class disintegrates. The top 1 percent of America’s households currently holds 30 percent of America’s economy, which is much more than other first-world countries and helps to emphasize the extremity of inequality currently in America today. This increased inequality has in turn caused America to become a much more divided society; those born in poverty typically stay in poverty, with little to no chance of self-improvement due to a lack of education provided in their areas. In contrast, those that are born wealthy typically go to better schools, have better health care, and are all but spoon fed information on how to remain wealthy. These two sides of society almost never cross, and this causes the country to be more divided than ever. In order to limit this inequality, drastic changes must be made, such as large corporations paying their fair share of taxes and giving back to the lower class, and minimum wage should be raised. If everyone in America works together, we can raise social mobility and re-unite what has become an increasingly divided country.
This first lecture gave us a close look into the unequal share of wealth and the factors that determine the wealth of individuals in the American society. One of the first factors that affect immensely the inequality in America is the obsessiveness of wanting to classify people and make them mark a box for their gender, race and class. Where men and whites have more privileges than any other person and are not only paid higher, but would most likely spend less time in prison for committing the same crime as an African American. The United states is so unequal that the top 1% of the population has 38.1% of the wealth and the bottom 40% which is a little less than half of the people living in America only have 0.2% of the wealth. And as if that statistic alone was not scary enough, we learn in this
In “inequality for all”, a documentary presented and narrated by Robert Reich, Reich discusses what is happening in terms of the distribution of income and wealth in the US, why it is happening, and is it a problem. “Inequality for all” is directed by Jacob Kornbluth, it premiered in 2013, and it runs for 90 minutes. Reich studied at the University of Oxford in during the late 1960’s, where he befriended future president Bill Clinton. Subsequently, they kept in touch, and in 1993, when Clinton was elected president, he reached out to Reich, to be secretary of labor. Reich was in office for the following four years, and today he is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. For about three decades now, Reich announced that out of all developed countries, the US has the most unequal distribution of wealth, and that inequality is getting even greater in the US. In the documentary, the most compelling topics covered by Reich, are the changes that started happening in the late 1970’s, the fact that 42 percent of Americans born into poverty stay poor, and that nowadays, money controls politics.
The documentary film “Park Avenue: Money, Power, and the American Dream” directed by Alex Gibney is about the wealth gap between the rich and the poor in the United States. The documentary compares the access to opportunities of residents of Park Avenue both on the Upper East Side and in the South Bronx. The documentary includes interviews with a series of people: a doorman at 740 Park Avenue, journalist Jane Mayer, Yale University Professor Jacob Hacker, Berkeley Professor Paul Piff, and Republican advisor Bruce Bartlett. The documentary makes a compelling case that inequality exposes democracy and that the victims of inequality include not only those who find themselves in the rapidly expanding underclass, but the American dream itself.
This “middle-class nation” is struggling to support all those who live in its borders and the misconceptions about wealth are vastly overrated. Furthermore, the idea of wealth and stability is incorrect, and there is a very sharp contrast between the rich and poor in the country. As the richest twenty percent of American hold ninety percent of the total household of the total household wealth in the country, those at the bottom have managed very poorly and suffer to get through the days.
Capitalism has been the central force behind the growth of the United States’ progressive economy. Within such advanced economic system the chances of economic disparity are significantly high. In fact, over the past three decades there has being a steady increase in unequal wealth distribution among the economic classes. To sustain the current unequal wealth distribution among the classes of the American population, there are numerous factors that influence and shape this trend. For some members of the population it is alarmingly disturbing to know that recent statistics have shown that, “In the US [alone] the wealthiest 1% of its population owns more than the bottom 95 %” (Gutman). As for the difference in economic wealth, it resulted
In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Joseph Stiglitz, a noble prize winning economist, argues that the upper 1% controls about 40% of all wealth in America. This top 1% has taken about a quarter of all income in America, and has seen their income rise about 18% in the past decade. This has made the inequality between classes in the US expand. Eventually, this inequality gap will even hurt the top 1%, because the other 99% will either fight for a bigger piece or just stop working all together. The top 1% can buy anything they need, but their fate realizes on the other 99% to work hard and not fight back. If the 99% stopped working, there would be a simple way to gain back money… that would be to raise taxes on the rich. However, the rich get rich by capital gains, which have a low tax policy. So overall, the upper percent can eventually learn, but a majority of the time it is too little too late.