Does God Want You to be Rich
1. J. Osteen- - God wants you to be rich because he cares about his children - Why be poor and wait to get to heaven to be happy. - God rewards people with money -Preaches that every Christian can improve their lives. -God wants us to be prosperous so that we can be happy. Rick Warren - Outsold J. Osteen in books -Believes that wealth is a false idol. -God rewards people with treasures in heaven. There is a significant difference between Osteen's views and Warren. Osteen believes that people should focus on becoming wealthy so that they can be happy, while Warren says that God will give people treasures in heaven and that they should focus on that. However, both do preach that God does not want his children to be miserable. 2. I agree with Warren more because I have relatively rich parents, and pretty much anything I wanted, but I still am not necessarily happy. If I could put it in one sentence I would say "If you think money will make you happy, fuck it, you're wasting your time". But nor do I belive that God will simply make you happy. 3. I am not persuaded by the disitinction Osteen makes, because the way that he is living shows otherwise. One should always lead by example, especially a pastor. He is clearly not saying it but he is implying that people should get rich. 4. Both scriptures speak of wealth and they say that it God's gift. However, money should not be idolized and not wasted. It is hard to find a way that they could agree. But I do no think that they strickly dissagree. It all depends on how you read it. Buddhist Economics 1. Modern economics focuses on maximizing consumption, while buddhist economics is about maximizing satisfaction. Buddhist economics is about living a simple but happy life while modern economics suggests that you have to have a lot in order to be happy. 2. I believe that Schumacher's point is fairly consistent in his essay because he does write about how Buddhist economics is mainly about personal transformation and some sort of refination rather than about gaining money and being self centered. 3. The aspects of Buddhist economics that I find attractive are not focusing on consumption to make you happy and living a simple life. I do not like the culture of consumerism in America. Take a look a Black Friday, people are killing eachother just for stuff they do not even need. Consumerism turns people into selfish animals. This is not the case with Buddhist economics. 4. No, I do not think that the sacred writings of Buddhism force people not to be rich. It is all depending on how you interpret it. It may say that you should be spiritual, but you can be rich and just as spiritual. It would just be a lot harder to not focus on money. Money itself is not evil, but what people think of it and how people worship it may be. 5. Hinudism- wealth is divine. Everyone should try to be a rich a possible. Lord Shiva rewards people with money. Wealth is an aspect of nature. Wealth is supposes to serve the aims of God, not evil. Islam- If you do good deeds Allah will give you money. Interest on money is considered to be evil. Only do lawful things to earn money. Be a truthful and trustworthy businessman. It is intresting that collecting interest so such a forbidden act in Islam.
0 Comments
Noah Narouz
Professor Eric Kufs English 115 29 November 2016 The Effects of Money on Character Many people understand the phrase “money is power” and even hold it true to themselves. And this is no exception for the characters of both The Great Gatsby and The Big Short film. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby and The Big Short directed by Adam McKay are two stories in which money plays a pivotal role. Both stories may take place in very different time periods and settings in American history, but there are more similarities than differences between them regarding views toward money. Money plays a major role in shaping the values of several characters, their success, and their acceptance by society. In The Great Gatsby, money plays a pivotal role in shaping characters, because it is one of the central themes in the novel. The novel explores themes about the rich and the poor and the difference in their lifestyles and their views toward society. Also of how society views both the rich and the poor from an outside perspective. In the novel, money has played a significant role in shaping the character of Jay Gatsby, ultimately turning him from a dirt poor child of a farming family into one of the richest men on Long Island. However, money has not only changed his status in society but also his morals and values. And this is quite evident in the text of the novel. Jay Gatsby’s, then known as James Gatz, story starts as a dirt poor young man who meets Dan Cody on his yacht, an extremely wealthy man who made a fortune from mining silver and copper, while fishing in Lake Superior. Cody then took Gatz under his wing and showed him the ways of the wealthy. Soon after he changed his name to Jay Gatsby. It was upon this event that changed his life. Before this he was a simple man who lived fishing salmon in Lake Superior, but upon meeting Dan Cody, he immediately began to transform into a sophisticated man, learning how to act wealthy. Gatsby ultimately lost a major part of himself when he became this way. The young fisherman, James Gatz was dead. And now Jay Gatsby, a soon to become millionaire, lived on. Gatz “invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen year old boy would be likely to invent, and to this conception he was faithful to the end” (Fitzgerald 98). This shows that money did not only change his social status but also his identity. Money has also transformed Jay Gatsby in the way of making him more of an immoral man. While attending Trinity College, Oxford, after the War Gatsby received a letter from Daisy Fay, his love interest who he met during infantry training, stating that she had married rich Tom Buchanan. Almost immediately, Gatsby decided to become even richer than Tom and committed his life to accumulating wealth. It was in this desperation to become rich that Gatsby truly began to lose himself along with his values. This desperation is evident when after he graduated from Oxford, and moved to New York where during Prohibition he began to illegally sell alcohol with the intentions of getting rich. However, this fact remains hidden until Tom brings it up when they are at the hotel, saying “He [Gatsby] and this Wolfshiem bought up a lot of side-street drug-stores here and in Chicago and sold grain alcohol over the counter” (Fitzgerald 133). It can be inferred that he lied to Daisy about how he got his money because he knew that if she knew that he was a bootlegger she would not love him. And bootlegging is only part of what he has done. He most likely done several worse things with Wolfshiem comparable to murder. Ultimately, money has completely reshaped Gatsby in changing not only his identity but also his values and making him a criminal. In The Big Short directed by Adam McKay, money plays a very significant role in the story because the entirety of the story is about money and how it or the lack of it affects people. The Housing Market Bubble in the United States, which is what the story was about was caused by people getting so greedy for money to the extent that they were completely blind to the risk that they were causing to the economy. However, the housing bubble did not go unnoticed by several characters in the film. And Michael Burry, a hedge fund manager played by Christian Bale, was the first to discover the bubble that high risk subprime loans were causing. But, unfortunately, because of how good the economy of the United States was doing no one believed him and some people actually thought he was crazy. One of the characters that money has been evidently affected by the greed for money is Jared Vennett, based on Deutsche Bank bond salesman Greg Lippmann and played by Ryan Gosling in the film. Vennett is one of the first people to understand Michael Burry’s prediction and the main character who is trying to profit the most from the housing bubble. Upon seeing Burry’s analysis, he confirms it against his own and after finding it to be true he immediately begins to bet on it. Vennett plans to make his fortune off of the fees on selling the credit default swaps to firms that will be profitable when the mortgage bonds fail. He is basically trying to make money off of the American people’s misfortune. Venett is so greedy and opportunistic that he does not see that he is hurting people by trying to amass a fortune while companies go bankrupt. An example of how money determines success in society is evident in the case of Charlie Geller and Jamie Shipley, two young investors who want to be rich played by John Magaro and Finn Wittrock. In the beginning of their story, Charlie and Jamie go to an interview with the JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the United States, hoping to get set up on their trading platform. Charlie and Jamie have started something called the Brownfield Fund and manage over 30 million dollars. However, even though this is a lot of money, they get turned down from JPMorgan and the young banker interviewing them tells them “ ...you're under the capital requirements for an ISDA…[and they need] one billion four hundred seventy million [more]” (Randolph and McKay 40) if they are to be considered eligible to be on the trading platform. From this point on in the story, they become nearly obsessed with trying to amass more money. Money was the determining factor in their failure to gain a spot on JPMorgan’s trading platform. They were good but not good enough in the eyes of society. And this is the case for many other people. People who do not have money are valued less than people who do have money. The more money one has the more they are worth. Though it may be unfair, it is true and continues to hold true throughout many aspects of society and the culture surrounding money. But perhaps this is the true purpose of money, to determine the worth of a human life in the eyes of the greater society. Both The Great Gatsby and The Big Short may be very different stories in terms of the time period and setting the events unfold in, but in their underlying themes they are more alike than they are different. The two stories both provide commentary on money and how it affects one’s values, character, success and worth in society. Ultimately, both stories depict how money and the culture that surrounds it is timeless. No matter who one is in any time or place, money still has similar effects. Money can still corrupt today, just as it did yesterday. But the extent of which it does so depends entirely on the strength of one’s character. Even though Jay Gatsby is a fictional character the ideas on which he is based are not. And from him and the characters in both stories an important lesson can be learned about how vulnerable we are to money and the lack of money and how if we are not strong, money can corrupt our true selves and drive us to become desperate. As seen from the story of the tragically flawed Jay Gatsby, desperation is a slippery downhill slope from which one can rarely if ever truly recover from. Sources Fitzgerald, F. Scott, and Matthew Joseph Bruccoli. The Great Gatsby. NY, NY: Scribner Classics, 1996. Print. The Big Short. Dir. Adam McKay. Perf. Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling. Paramount Pictures, 2015. Film. "Summary." SparkNotes. SparkNotes, n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2016. "Analysis of Major Character." SparkNotes. SparkNotes, n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2016. "Market Crashes: Housing Bubble and Credit Crisis." Investopedia. N.p., 07 Jan. 2004. Web. 26 Nov. 2016. Randolph, Charles, and Adam McKay. The Big Short. N.p.: Paramount Pictures, n.d. PDF. Noah Narouz
Professor Eric Kufs English 115 29 November 2016 The Great Gatsby and The Big Short Many people understand the phrase “money is power” and even hold it true to themselves. And this is no exception for the characters of both The Great Gatsby and The Big Short. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby and The Big Short directed by Adam McKay are two stories in which money plays a pivotal role. Both stories may take place in very different time periods and settings in American history, but there are more similarities than differences between them regarding views toward money. Money plays a major role in shaping the values of several characters, their success, and their acceptance by society. In The Great Gatsby, money plays a pivotal role in shaping characters, because it is one of the central themes in the novel. The novel explores themes about the rich and the poor and the difference in their lifestyles and their views toward society. Also of how society views both the rich and the poor from an outside perspective. In the novel, money has played a significant role in shaping the character of Jay Gatsby, ultimately turning him from a dirt poor child of a farming family into one of the richest men in Long Island. However, money has not only changed his status in society but also his morals and values. And this is quite evident in the text of the novel. Jay Gatsby’s, then known as James Gatz, story starts as a dirt poor young man who meets Dan Cody on his yacht, an extremely wealthy man who made a fortune from mining silver and copper, while fishing in Lake Superior. Cody then took Gatz under his wing and showed him the ways of the wealthy. Soon after he changed his name to Jay Gatsby. It was upon this event that changed his life. Before this he was a simple man who lived fishing salmon in Lake Superior, but upon meeting Dan Cody, he immediately began to transform into a sophisticated man, learning how to act wealthy. Gatsby ultimately lost a major part of himself when he became this way. The young fisherman, James Gatz was dead. And now Jay Gatsby, a soon to become millionaire, lived on. Gatz “invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen year old boy would be likely to invent, and to this conception he was faithful to the end” (Fitzgerald 98). This shows that money did not only change his social status but also his identity. Money has also transformed Jay Gatsby in the way of making him more of an immoral man. While attending Trinity College, Oxford, after the War Gatsby received a letter from Daisy Fay, his love interest who he met during infantry training, stating that she had married rich Tom Buchanan. Almost immediately, Gatsby decided to become even richer than Tom and committed his life to accumulating wealth. It was in this desperation to become rich that Gatsby truly began to lose himself along with his values. This desperation is evident when after he graduated from Oxford, and moved to New York where during Prohibition he began to illegally sell alcohol with the intentions of getting rich. However, this fact remains hidden until Tom brings it up when they are at the hotel, saying “He [Gatsby] and this Wolfshiem bought up a lot of side-street drug-stores here and in Chicago and sold grain alcohol over the counter” (Fitzgerald 133). It can be inferred that he lied to Daisy about how he got his money because he knew that if she knew that he was a bootlegger she would not love him. And bootlegging is only part of what he has done. He most likely done several worse things with Wolfshiem comparable to murder. Ultimately, money has completely reshaped Gatsby in changing not only his identity but also his values and making him a criminal. In The Big Short directed by Adam McKay, money plays a very significant role in the story because the entirety of the story is about money and how it or the lack of it affects people. The Housing Market Bubble in the United States, which is what the story was about was caused by people getting so greedy for money to the extent that they were completely blind to the risk that they were causing to the economy. However, the housing bubble did not go unnoticed by several characters in the film. And Michael Burry, a hedge fund manager played by Christian Bale, was the first to discover the bubble that high risk subprime loans were causing. But, unfortunately, because of how good the economy of the United States was doing no one believed him and some people actually thought he was crazy. One of the characters that money has been evidently affected by the greed for money is Jared Vennett, based on Deutsche Bank bond salesman Greg Lippmann and played by Ryan Gosling in the film. Vennett is one of the first people to understand Michael Burry’s prediction and the main character who is trying to profit the most from the housing bubble. Upon seeing Burry’s analysis, he confirms it against his own and after finding it to be true he immediately begins to bet on it. Vennett plans to make his fortune off of the fees on selling the credit default swaps to firms that will be profitable when the mortgage bonds fail. He is basically trying to make money off of the American people’s misfortune. Venett is so greedy and opportunistic that he does not see that he is hurting people by trying to amass a fortune while companies go bankrupt. An example of how money determines success in society is evident in the case of Charlie Geller and Jamie Shipley, two young investors who want to be rich played by John Magaro and Finn Wittrock. In the beginning of their story, Charlie and Jamie go to an interview with the JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the United States, hoping to get set up on their trading platform. Charlie and Jamie have started something called the Brownfield Fund and manage over 30 million dollars. However, even though this is a lot of money, they get turned down from JPMorgan and the young banker interviewing them tells them “ ...you're under the capital requirements for an ISDA…[and they need] one billion four hundred seventy million [more]” if they are to be considered eligible to be on the trading platform. Since this point in the story, they become nearly obsessed with trying to amass more money. Money was the determining factor in their failure to gain a spot on JPMorgan’s trading platform. They were good but not good enough in the eyes of society. And this is the case for many other people. People who do not have money are valued less than people who do have money. The more money one has the more they are worth. Though it may be unfair, it is true and continues to hold true throughout many aspects of society and the culture surrounding money. But perhaps this is the true purpose of money, to determine the worth of a human life in the eyes of the greater society. Both The Great Gatsby and The Big Short may be very different stories in terms of the time period and setting the events unfold in, but in their underlying themes they are more alike than they are different. The two stories both provide commentary on money and how it affects one’s values, character, success and worth in society. Ultimately, it depicts how money and the culture that surrounds it is timeless. No matter who one is in any time or place, money still has similar effects. Money can still corrupt today, just as it did yesterday. But the extent of which it does so depends entirely on the strength of one’s character. Even though Jay Gatsby is a fictional character the ideas on which he is based are not. And from him and the characters in both stories an important lesson can be learned about how vulnerable we are to money and the lack of money and how if we are not strong, money can corrupt our true selves and drive us to become desperate. As seen from the story of the tragically flawed Jay Gatsby, desperation is a slippery downhill slope from which one can rarely if ever truly recover from. Many people understand the phrase “money is power” and even hold it true to themselves. And this is no exception for the characters of both The Great Gatsby and The Big Short film. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby and The Big Short directed by Adam McKay are two stories in which money plays a pivotal role. Both stories may take place in very different time periods and settings in American history, but there are more similarities than differences between them regarding views toward money. Money plays a major role in shaping the values of several characters, their success, and their acceptance by society.
1. The Valley of Ashes is a poor area that is used to commute to the East and West Eggs. It is dirty and mainly filled with working class people. There is a lot of soot and ash everywhere because there is probably coal burning or mining nearby.
2. Mr. Wilson is the owner of a gas station in the Valley of Ashes. He does not seem to be very intelligent. He is poor and has a wife named Myrtle. He tries to keep very strict control over her because he does not want her to cheat on him. Myrtle is Tom's mistress. She does not seem to be very smart just like her husband. She is not as pretty as Daisy. She likes to be with Tom and does not seem to be happy with Mr. Wilson. Yes, they both seem to fit into the Valley of Ashes because they are part of the working poor and seem to be unclean people who have little education. 3. Nick is very judgmental, even though he states in the beginning that he is not. He also said that he was one of the few honest people that he knows, but he lies to Tom and does not ever say his true feelings. Nick is not a reliable narrator. 4. The first time Nick sees Gatsby is on the dock across from his house. Gatsby seems to be a little mysterious at first, but invites Nick to one of his parties. 1. Fitzgerald uses the words hope and dream a lot because, he wants to emphasize that the book deals with themes like the American Dream and how people in the story are trying to achieve this dream.
2. Nick has the advantage of being wealthy. He comes from a wealthy family and did not have to experience what most people are experiencing when it comes to hardships. He has a good education and a nice home in a wealthy area. I believe Nick does not reserve the right to judge people, because he has had so few hardships in his life. He also does not know what people are going through. 3. Pg. 223
1. The types of theft in the painting are: pick pocketing, begging, and one woman is slowly taking the chain off of the woman in the middle. The fortune teller is robbing the old woman because it is a hoax. 2. The woman in the middle because she is the one that everyone is robbing and she is also in the center of the painting. 3. It would of affected me somehow even if the author did not mention thievery, because it is kind of obvious that one of the women is pick pocketing the one in the middle. 4. She is about to lose all of her valuables because the women around her are going to rob her. It is her choice because she is not doing anything about it. Pg. 232 1. Buffet is saying that the super-rich make billions of dollars a year and only have to pay a very small percentage of it to taxes. More than both the lower and middle class pay. He is saying personally that he thinks that the rich should be paying a higher percentage. 2. Yes the excerpts help to show where Buffet is coming from philosophically because from them he shows that he is not a selfish person and does not take for granted the opportunities society has given him. He compares himself to more common professions and says that he does not believe he is any better than a teacher or nurse. 3. If I had as much money as Buffet, I would want to hold his views, because they are good-hearted non-selfish views. He shows that he cares about society and wants to give back his fair share in taxes. 4. Ovarian lottery would have something to do with ovaries and perhaps your genes are quite chosen at random. You don't choose what you want your genes to be. Pg. 243 1. The moral principle we all share that Peter Singer is trying to get across is that most people believe that killing or murdering another human is wrong. 2. Most people do not see allowing people to die is just as bad as murder. The motivation for allowing people to die is different than going out and killing people. It would be too hard for most people to save others. People are uncertain that not helping leads to death. People don't see themselves responsible for hunger. 3. Singer's rebuttal for the second reason is interesting because of the logic he uses and the example of the motorist. He does a good job to disprove it. The third rebuttal is also interesting when he writes "the idea that we are responsible only for our actions and not our emissions". 4. I would say personally, that it is not our responsibility to take care of third world countries and we need to worry more about the problems we are facing in the US. Third world countries have the highest populations, why help create more overpopulation. People starving to death is nature's way of balancing the planet's population and is necessary. Noah Narouz
Mr. Kufs English 115 27 October 2016 Economic Inequality: A Growing Divide Today, in the United States, many people understand that there is a growing divide between the rich and the poor, resulting in much economic and social inequalities. These economic and social inequalities are not only when it comes to finance, but also in the American education system and, ultimately, job opportunities and opportunities to increase one’s annual income and ascend in social class. In a capitalist American society and economy money is power and opportunity, those with money have nearly an boundless horizon of opportunity, those without money, have a very restricted lifestyle, being at the mercy of public welfare systems and entitlement programs. In the American society, there is the top 1% of people, with an annual income exceeding $555, 341, who live a very lavish lifestyle and there is the poorest 20%, with an annual income of less than $23, 000, who live day-to-day working exhausting manual labor jobs without any economic opportunity. Much of this economic inequality is very evident in the unfair tax system, which burdens the poor and barely affects the rich. The rich pay approximately 5.4% of their annual income to state and local taxes, while the poor pay 9.4% of their annual income. This system of taxing can be easily seen as “upside down”. If it were to be fair, the poor, who have a very low disposable income, should have to pay less in taxes, while the rich, who live lavishly, should pay more. This is the only way the American tax system and, ultimately, American society can be fair for both social classes. Because of the unfair tax system, the poor 20% have a very limited range of opportunities in American society, while the top 1% have nearly boundless opportunities. One of the many inequalities that poor families have, in a society that is dominated by those who are rich, is in obtaining a good and equal education. Students from low-income families, unfortunately, have a much lower percentage of finishing college and obtaining a bachelor’s degree, than students from high-income families do, Because of this, students from high income families have an unfair advantage in the educational system. However, students from low-income families have a strict disadvantage mainly because they usually do not have the funding and financial necessities for finishing college and obtaining a degree. And as a direct result, they have very limited opportunities in finding well-paying jobs that could ascend them in social classes. The reason that the poor cannot obtain more money is because they never have the chance to because of unfair taxation that steals away all of their disposable income for obtaining higher education and skillful jobs. According to Christine Armario, a writer for the Daily American newspaper, “The percentage of students from the lowest-income families earning a bachelor's degree has inched up just 3 points since 1970, rising from 6 to 9 percent by 2013”. On the other hand, she also states that, “College completion for students from the wealthiest families has risen dramatically, climbing from 44 to 77 percent”, revealing that the advantage that students from high-income families have over students from low-income families is only continuing to grow. The tax burden on the poor definitely plays a significant role in determining if students from low-income families will be able to attend a good college and obtain a college degree, and ultimately, a well-paying job. Another disadvantage that low-income families have due to economic inequality in the United States is living a healthy lifestyle and access to hospitals and other medical centers. It is a well known fact that, people of low-income communities are less likely to live long and healthy lives. According to a study from researchers at the Wisconsin Population Health have discovered that high income inequality does not only affect the life expectancy of the members of the community, but, it is also directly bad for people’s overall health. Researchers from Wisconsin Population Health state that, “People in unequal communities were more likely to die before the age of 75 than people in more equal communities, even if the average incomes were the same”. Contributing factors to the life expectancy of people living in low-income communities being less than 75 years are high-smoking rates, high-violent crime rates, bad air quality, along with many others. Also high income inequality has a direct effect on the health of low-income community members. According to research of the Wisconsin Population published in the New York Times, “ ....effect of inequality was statistically significant, equivalent to a difference of about 11 days of life between high and low-inequality places. The differences were small, but for every increment that a community became more unequal, the proportion of residents dying before the age of 75 went up”. Overall, income inequality and living in an area with high income inequality has negative effects on one’s health. And it is a direct result of economic inequality and uneven tax distribution. On the other hand, some people may argue that income inequality is good for the economy of whole country and economic growth. The reason that economic inequality is good for the country is because when workers in China work and produce cheap apparel and appliances, it increases Americans’ disposable income, due to American workers getting raises. Economic inequality also can lead to monopolies, which are good for the economy and can create a decline in prices. According to the Washington Post, “when the wealth gap widens, the lifestyle gap shrinks”, because when prices fall because of monopolies and business competition, people can buy more goods and increase the quality of their lifestyle. This capitalist system may be good for the country’s economy, but it creates a large wealth gap, which is not good for the wellbeing of those with low-income. And those with low-income will continue to only get poorer because uneven tax distribution and the unfair capitalist system on which the entire economy relies upon. Economic inequality in the United States is a growing divide, with the rich continuing to only grow richer and the poor continuing to grow poorer. A significant contributor to this wealth gap in the country is the uneven tax distribution, with the poor paying a higher percentage of their annual income to to taxes than the rich pay. Overall, the economic inequality affects the education, productivity and health of low-income individuals. But having the poor pay more in taxes than the rich makes it very difficult for them to try to ascend social classes, condemning them to a life of poverty. We can fix the problem of economic inequality in our country, but only if we as American citizens and educated voters stand together and fight together against this inequality. In the eyes of the law, all men and women are equal. Why should it be any different in the eyes of the economy. Everyone should have equal opportunities. And as voters it is our responsibility to ensure that everyone does, for it is ultimately, the only way in this democratic nation. Voting for more liberal, left leaning policies that strengthen the welfare system and social safety net surely would mitigate the effects of income inequality. Throughout history, America has always feared “socialist” reforms, but we should be able to see that our great nation is becoming divided now more than ever and needs healing. But we must first stand together as voters, as fellow Americans, to heal our nation. Annotated Bibliography MaCurdy, Thomas. "The Minimum-Wage Stealth Tax on the Poor." Wall Street Journal. 23 Feb. 2015: A.17. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. The main purpose of MaCurdy’s article is to argue that the minimum wage system is flawed and that raising the minimum wage would only create more problems for low-income families. He also argues that raising the minimum wage would create a tax burden on low-income families. His research shows that one in five low-income families actually benefitted and all paid for the wage increase through higher prices and taxes. This article portrays how low-income families are not benefitting from high wages because the tax system is unbalanced, due to the rich paying a much smaller percentage of their income to taxes. However, MaCurdy’s article has shortcomings because he does not define high-income families and low-income families and how much money they make annually. It is, overall, a good and well written article. MaCurdy has a fair and objective opinion on the matter at hand and provides good statistics to back his claims. Leonhardt, David. "Since the Financial Crisis, a Little Less Inequality." New York Times. 17 Feb. 2015: A.3. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. The main purpose of Leonhardt’s article is to argue that since the financial crisis income inequality is not getting worse, but actually that it is slowly growing more fair for low-income and high-income families, even though throughout history it has always been significantly high. He argues that the notion of income inequality has become part of the decade’s conventional wisdom and that people have the idea that the divide in income is constantly growing, when it is actually closing. Leonhardt’s research supports that the notion of income inequality is a common, but a very inaccurate assumption. However, the article does have the shortcoming that it does not address how much high-income and low-income families make annually. It is a good article because, it brings the new idea of that income inequality is not growing like many people believe, but in fact becoming more fair. It is also good because it contains no biased opinions, and many statistics to support claims that were made. Armario, Christine. "Study: Finishing College a Growing Divide Between Rich, Poor." Daily American. 03 Feb. 2015: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher.Web. 20 Oct. 2016. Amario’s article portrays the difference between students from high-income families and students from low-income families trying to obtain a bachelor’s degree in college. She shows how the percentage of students from high-income families that obtain bachelor’s degrees is much higher that students from low-income families. She discusses how students from high-income families have an unfair advantage in college over students from low-income families. Amario claims that this is because of the fact that students from low-income families do not have the money that they need in order to finish college and obtain a bachelor’s degree. The article is good because it provides many statistics to back up the claims that were made. Amario also defines low-income stating how much money they make in a year. "Income Inequality | Inequality.org." Inequality.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2016. Gives the statistics of income inequality and a brief description about what it is. The author posts several graphs to show the differences between the rich and the poor in the United States. Definitely useful for statistics within the United States. Fitz, Nicholas. "Economic Inequality: It's Far Worse Than You Think." Scientific American. N.p., 27 Mar. 2015. Web. 31 Oct. 2016. Nicholas Fitz, a writer for the Scientific American, describes how economic inequality is a much larger of a problem than people think. He writes about the top percentage of rich people in the country and how much more money they make than the poor. He tries to bring attention to how large the problem is to educate American citizens and convince them to take action. Overall, it was a well written article and has some useful points in it.. Noah Narouz
Mr. Kufs English 115 10 October 2016 Economic Inequality: A Growing Divide Today, in the United States, many people understand that there is a growing divide between the rich and the poor, resulting in much economic and social inequalities. These economic and social inequalities are not only when it comes to finance, but also in the American education system and, ultimately, job opportunities and opportunities to increase one’s annual income and ascend in social class. In a capitalist American society and economy money is power and opportunity, those with money have nearly an boundless horizon of opportunity, those without money, have a very restricted lifestyle, being at the mercy of public welfare systems and entitlement programs. In the American society, there is the top 1% of people, with an annual income exceeding $555, 341, who live a very lavish lifestyle and there is the poorest 20%, with an annual income of less than $23, 000, who live day-to-day working exhausting manual labor jobs without any economic opportunity. Much of this economic inequality is very evident in the unfair tax system, which burdens the poor and barely affects the rich. The rich pay approximately 5.4% of their annual income to state and local taxes, while the poor pay 9.4% of their annual income. This system of taxing can be easily seen as “upside down”. If it were to be fair, the poor, who have a very low disposable income, should have to pay less in taxes, while the rich, who live lavishly, should pay more. This is the only way the American tax system and, ultimately, American society can be fair for both social classes. Because of the unfair tax system, the poor 20% have a very limited range of opportunities in American society, while the top 1% have nearly boundless opportunities. One of the many inequalities that poor families have, in a society that is dominated by those who are rich, is in obtaining a good and equal education. Students from low-income families, unfortunately, have a much lower percentage of finishing college and obtaining a bachelor’s degree, than students from high-income families do, Because of this, students from high income families have an unfair advantage in the educational system. However, students from low-income families have a strict disadvantage mainly because they usually do not have the funding and financial necessities for finishing college and obtaining a degree. And as a direct result, they have very limited opportunities in finding well-paying jobs that could ascend them in social classes. The reason that the poor cannot obtain more money is because they never have the chance to because of unfair taxation that steals away all of their disposable income for obtaining higher education and skillful jobs. According to Christine Armario, a writer for the Daily American newspaper, “The percentage of students from the lowest-income families earning a bachelor's degree has inched up just 3 points since 1970, rising from 6 to 9 percent by 2013”. On the other hand, she also states that, “College completion for students from the wealthiest families has risen dramatically, climbing from 44 to 77 percent”, revealing that the advantage that students from high-income families have over students from low-income families is only continuing to grow. The tax burden on the poor definitely plays a significant role in determining if students from low-income families will be able to attend a good college and obtain a college degree, and ultimately, a well-paying job. Another disadvantage that low-income families have due to economic inequality in the United States is living a healthy lifestyle and access to hospitals and other medical centers. It is a well known fact that, people of low-income communities are less likely to live long and healthy lives. According to a study from researchers at the Wisconsin Population Health have discovered that high income inequality does not only affect the life expectancy of the members of the community, but, it is also directly bad for people’s overall health. Researchers from Wisconsin Population Health state that, “People in unequal communities were more likely to die before the age of 75 than people in more equal communities, even if the average incomes were the same”. Contributing factors to the life expectancy of people living in low-income communities being less than 75 years are high-smoking rates, high-violent crime rates, bad air quality, along with many others. Also high income inequality has a direct effect on the health of low-income community members. According to research of the Wisconsin Population published in the New York Times, “ ....effect of inequality was statistically significant, equivalent to a difference of about 11 days of life between high and low-inequality places. The differences were small, but for every increment that a community became more unequal, the proportion of residents dying before the age of 75 went up”. Overall, income inequality and living in an area with high income inequality has negative effects on one’s health. And it is a direct result of economic inequality and uneven tax distribution. On the other hand, some people may argue that income inequality is good for the economy of whole country and economic growth. The reason that economic inequality is good for the country is because when workers in China work and produce cheap apparel and appliances, it increases Americans’ disposable income, due to American workers getting raises. Economic inequality also can lead to monopolies, which are good for the economy and can create a decline in prices. According to the Washington Post, “when the wealth gap widens, the lifestyle gap shrinks”, because when prices fall because of monopolies and business competition, people can buy more goods and increase the quality of their lifestyle. This capitalist system may be good for the country’s economy, but it creates a large wealth gap, which is not good for the well-being of those with low-income. And those with low-income will continue to only get poorer because uneven tax distribution and the unfair capitalist system on which the entire economy relies upon. Economic inequality in the United States is a growing divide, with the rich continuing to only grow richer and the poor continuing to grow poorer. A significant contributor to this wealth gap in the country is the uneven tax distribution, with the poor paying a higher percentage of their annual income to to taxes than the rich pay. Overall, the economic inequality affects the education, productivity and health of low-income individuals. But having the poor pay more in taxes than the rich makes it very difficult for them to try to ascend social classes, condemning them to a life of poverty. Pg. 156
1. The $200 000 dollar amount for a human life was determined because Ford thought it was too expensive to make safety improvements. The money represented how much a life was worth because all Ford was seeing was the money and not actual people. To that person's family the $200 000 dollars is good money, but they probably care more for the person they lost. 2. Ford rushed their car into production because they did not want to take the extra money to make the car more safe and because of this more people died in car accidents each year. Ford was merely trying to be economic and save themselves money instead of saving lives. 3. I do not really share this astonishment because I already know that most companies care more for money than they do about people. They would do anything to save themselves money. And that is just the way it is in a capitalist economy, people care more about money than each other. 4. Knowing that the article was published in a left-leaning magazine can make me kind of hesitant to believe everything that is written because it could be exaggerated to make the company seem more capitalistic. The article could just be totally a political agenda trying to get people to hate capitalists because they don't care about people and only money. 5. One could verify the information in the article by looking at various online sources and ones that are not biased because of a political opinion. Also one could look at other magazines that are written by other authors or go to government sources and websites. 6. In both articles, there is cheating going on. With Ford it is about their manufacturing process and cutting corners because they want to produce the car faster. With the lawyers and mechanics it was about over charging customers to get more money. However, the cheating going on with Ford is more dangerous because people were literally dying in car accidents because of it instead of just getting cheated of money. Pg. 164 1. The title of the article is exactly what it is about. The writer does however go on to talk about how it is the responsibilities of the businesses to create the competition in a capitalist society and allow the economy to grow. But by reading the title one does not know exactly what the article is going to be about. 4. I can somewhat agree with the writer because in a capitalist society it is the responsibility of companies to create competition which leads to the growth of the economy. If the economy had more socialist aspects as it does in most European countries, I would have to disagree with the writer because I believe that the government should have more control over the economy. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |