Wealth Inequality is real
Yesterday's edition of the daily comic Retail by Norm Feuti highlighted a very poignant issue: wealth inequality. I posted this to my G+ account, and this prompted me to peruse other posts on G+ concerning the issue of wages and wealth inequality.
A few of the entries really pissed me off.
For example: someone by the name of Winona Corbin posted this image which reads:Don't like the minimum wage? If you've got minimum skills, minimum education, show minimum motivation, and provide a minimum contribution to the workplace, why the hell should someone be forced to pay you more?
She adds her own sentiment on the matter by saying: Minimum wage jobs are meant to be transition jobs not careers. [sic]
This shows a gross lack of knowledge concerning the realities of minimum wage employees. Yes, for the most part, minimum wage jobs are meant to be 'transition jobs.' Nobody wants to make a career out of it. Nobody, when they are young, says, 'I want to be a crew member at McDonald's when I grow up.' Or, 'When I get older, I want to run the cash register at Wal-Mart.'
But what many people don't realise is that sometimes, people are forced to make a career out of these low-level retail positions. It's not that they don't have any motivation, it's that they have no channel by which to turn their motivation into opportunities. In today's economy, it's virtually impossible to get a so-called 'white-collar job' without at least a bachelor's degree. Once, a hard worker would be rewarded with promotion; my father is an example. Back in the 70s, he was working as a manager at a restaurant, and in the early 80s (possibly even the year 1980, if my memory serves), he was given a job as the assistant marketing manager for the restaurant's Area V. He continued receiving promotions until he was made vice-president of marketing in the mid 90s. But it wasn't until the mid 90s that he received his bachelor's degree.
That won't really happen any more. It seems to me that the highest you can go without that elusive degree is district manager. And even if it does happen, it's the exception. Not the rule.
Now, you can complain all you want about how lack of education is a self-inflicted problem, but the fact remains that in order to get a degree, you need certain resources. It costs money to attend a university (unless you get a scholarship, and by far the most common scholarships require a certain minimum high school GPA, which is effectively out of reach of the poorest citizens). Success in university requires study skills which are often lacking in the poorest students (it's hard to learn to focus when you're always worried about whether you'll have food to eat, a home in which to sleep, electricity with which to light and heat your home, clothes to wear, etc). And perhaps most overlooked is the need to feel valued and appreciated, which seldom happens with the poorest individuals, as a result of the way they are demonized by the richest portion of this nation.
I once was involved in a debate over the American education system. The issue being discussed was, in essence: Do we need to find a way to ensure that our schools are more adequately funded, with schools in poverty-stricken areas receiving a more equitable share of money? My thoughts on the matter are: those who live in poverty already have enough to deal with. They need an advantage for once. So the schools in poorer areas should receive more funding than those in wealthy areas. Let the rich kids go to school in buildings without adequate heating, with broken windows, insufficient books, teachers receiving below-average salaries, overcrowding, and all the other problems inherent in lack of funding. That ought to make the playing field a little more even.
But one of my opponents in this debate was of the opinion that education was not necessary to be successful. I responded by saying, 'You're right. Football players are some of the most overpaid people on the planet.' He answered with, 'Hey! Don't knock football.' Which shows the heart of the issue: he doesn't care about the plight of other human beings, so long as he has his entertainment, nice house, and decent job.
And this attitude pervades the American elite. 'I have everything I could want,' is their attitude, 'who cares what anyone else wants or needs?' Is it any wonder that the American poor are disillusioned? Why should they participate in a system which disenfranchises them? They have every obstacle to overcome, and everything they hear and see from the upper classes indicates that it is our culture's desire that they stay that way.
Now, there's an article I read by David Brooks that talks about certain issues in this topic. I want to address his topics, but it's a lengthy article, and my response will be likewise lengthy. However, I know that this entry has been pretty long already, so I will hold off on that for now. I'll address his article later.
A few of the entries really pissed me off.
For example: someone by the name of Winona Corbin posted this image which reads:Don't like the minimum wage? If you've got minimum skills, minimum education, show minimum motivation, and provide a minimum contribution to the workplace, why the hell should someone be forced to pay you more?
She adds her own sentiment on the matter by saying: Minimum wage jobs are meant to be transition jobs not careers. [sic]
This shows a gross lack of knowledge concerning the realities of minimum wage employees. Yes, for the most part, minimum wage jobs are meant to be 'transition jobs.' Nobody wants to make a career out of it. Nobody, when they are young, says, 'I want to be a crew member at McDonald's when I grow up.' Or, 'When I get older, I want to run the cash register at Wal-Mart.'
But what many people don't realise is that sometimes, people are forced to make a career out of these low-level retail positions. It's not that they don't have any motivation, it's that they have no channel by which to turn their motivation into opportunities. In today's economy, it's virtually impossible to get a so-called 'white-collar job' without at least a bachelor's degree. Once, a hard worker would be rewarded with promotion; my father is an example. Back in the 70s, he was working as a manager at a restaurant, and in the early 80s (possibly even the year 1980, if my memory serves), he was given a job as the assistant marketing manager for the restaurant's Area V. He continued receiving promotions until he was made vice-president of marketing in the mid 90s. But it wasn't until the mid 90s that he received his bachelor's degree.
That won't really happen any more. It seems to me that the highest you can go without that elusive degree is district manager. And even if it does happen, it's the exception. Not the rule.
Now, you can complain all you want about how lack of education is a self-inflicted problem, but the fact remains that in order to get a degree, you need certain resources. It costs money to attend a university (unless you get a scholarship, and by far the most common scholarships require a certain minimum high school GPA, which is effectively out of reach of the poorest citizens). Success in university requires study skills which are often lacking in the poorest students (it's hard to learn to focus when you're always worried about whether you'll have food to eat, a home in which to sleep, electricity with which to light and heat your home, clothes to wear, etc). And perhaps most overlooked is the need to feel valued and appreciated, which seldom happens with the poorest individuals, as a result of the way they are demonized by the richest portion of this nation.
I once was involved in a debate over the American education system. The issue being discussed was, in essence: Do we need to find a way to ensure that our schools are more adequately funded, with schools in poverty-stricken areas receiving a more equitable share of money? My thoughts on the matter are: those who live in poverty already have enough to deal with. They need an advantage for once. So the schools in poorer areas should receive more funding than those in wealthy areas. Let the rich kids go to school in buildings without adequate heating, with broken windows, insufficient books, teachers receiving below-average salaries, overcrowding, and all the other problems inherent in lack of funding. That ought to make the playing field a little more even.
But one of my opponents in this debate was of the opinion that education was not necessary to be successful. I responded by saying, 'You're right. Football players are some of the most overpaid people on the planet.' He answered with, 'Hey! Don't knock football.' Which shows the heart of the issue: he doesn't care about the plight of other human beings, so long as he has his entertainment, nice house, and decent job.
And this attitude pervades the American elite. 'I have everything I could want,' is their attitude, 'who cares what anyone else wants or needs?' Is it any wonder that the American poor are disillusioned? Why should they participate in a system which disenfranchises them? They have every obstacle to overcome, and everything they hear and see from the upper classes indicates that it is our culture's desire that they stay that way.
Now, there's an article I read by David Brooks that talks about certain issues in this topic. I want to address his topics, but it's a lengthy article, and my response will be likewise lengthy. However, I know that this entry has been pretty long already, so I will hold off on that for now. I'll address his article later.