Do the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer? Most can speak about this myth only from personal or observational points of view. Most beliefs about this myth our encored through the media of today. Traditionally myths are what mold our judgments and impression of different situations.
A situation most familiar and congruous through society as being shunned upon is the rich getting richer. Look at Bill Gates for example. He started this mega billion dollar corporation and he has been feasting on not only the money but desire for more money and power. It’s a vicious cycle that won’t end because the want for more is always present. On the other more common hand of experience is the poor getting poorer. With the way our economy is and is considering the down slope of salaries with increasing prices from inflation; the poor actually are getting poorer not only because of decline in salaries but the original salary they made doesn’t mean as much with the high price of nominal goods. Is there a solution? Of course there is. Will we find one? We probably won’t soon enough.
The rich actually are getting richer. Some examples of why the rich get richer are they have started successful businesses because they have taken the entrepreneurial risk of starting that business so they make money then they sell it off and start another successful business and make even more money, they also receive greater tax breaks because all rich people are in the business world and the rich business people get better tax relief, the rich also get paid higher and higher salaries because of the capitalist society the professionals tend to get paid absurdly more then normal workers. The rich also tend to make their money work for them. They do this buy investing it in other businesses that they know are going to succeed, or by investing it in the stock market and buying low and selling high, or by buying investment properties. Finally the rich know how to take advantage of a business deal. No rich person would let someone hustle him or her out of what they worked so hard to get. Therefore whenever you make a business deal with a rich man or a good business person they will always try to make sure the one up on everyone.
The poor actually are getting poorer. Some reasons and examples of how and why this is happening in today’s world is partially due to the declining economy, and everyone knows when the economy goes into a recession like it has been in the past 6 months that not may are going to be able to have such things as job security because the rich want to keep there money they don’t want to give it out if they don’t have to, and low rank employees are the first out, not many will receive job promotions. Most certainly many that were thinking of starting a new business venture will definitely think two or three times before they are willing to front all that money and all that time before it gets lost to a dead market. Now that this has happen on top of the rising inflation rate of today’s global market the poor are actually getting poorer. If there making products at a more expensive product cost they have to sell it a higher selling price because businesses need to make there profit to stay afloat therefore people that have been making the same salary for the last five to ten years and everything else in the world has increased in price then really there not making nearly what they need to make to stay alive in such a cut throat world.
Some solution to this everlasting problem in today’s society is to become a communist country. Communism countries are run so that everything is equal. People cannot own anything; the government is in 100% total power over anything and everything of value and anything that has to do with business, but everyone is paid equally therefore there is so no war of the rich and the poor. There are pro’s and con’s to this type of economy so pro’s are that you don’t have to worry about money, the unemployment rate is 0%, the set standard is the same for everyone, the economic growth throughout the country grows rapidly. Some con’s of this solution would be lack of freedom to do as you please, the inability to own anything that you want, you cannot be who you want to be you have to be who they tell you to be. So is this the solution? Is there a definite solution? The answer to both of the questions can only be answered by one thing: The passing of time. A solution for this positive to negative inverse relationship can be found. Our country hasn’t found the answer but we and other countries facing the same economical demise will need to find a solution soon.
The new day economic topic that politicians are preaching on even both sides now is the “trickle down theory” where if the government feeds money into this “rich getting richer” scheme, then the side affects are soon to trickle down so to speak to the poor and make the middle class rise again. Bringing the average income back to abundance is crucial. Will this work is the question everyone is asking themselves but like it has been said before: A solution isn’t going to be proven beneficial without it’s stance against the long grueling affects of time. So politicians and anyone with the power to spark an idea into the veins of our nation will take a stab in the dark at some “plan” they think they have. Until we realize what is actually happening, sit down to evaluate the circumstances, and devise a solution as the people or a person in power; the rich will keep getting richer, and the poor will keep getting poorer.
Posts
1 comment:
You cover a lot of ground here, and dive into a topic that is very complex and for which the proof can be contradictory and hard to find. This is a complex issue, though, and engagement with some sort of data would probably help here. Data is readily available on things you refer to, such as inflation and wage stagnation. The historic increase in CEO salaries (at faster rates than workers' salaries) and benefits might help make your point about the advantage of already being rich. In such an essay, perhaps numbers are a good way to ground such myths.
You may want to separate the idea of how people first got rich from how they proceed to get richer. Surely, people get rich through various froms of entrepreneurism and hard work. But to what degree is their ability to continue getting richer dependent on hard work, or is it related more to things like tax breaks and the ability to invest. One might say that the rich don't have to work as hard to become richer as it took to become rich--it just comes with being rich. Is this the "vicious cycle"--that money begets more money?
One thing I think your text brings up but never addresses explicitly is the concept of work and whether rewarding people for work (rather than investment) is part of the solution you imagine at the end. You might think of this as helping people become "rich" rather than "richer."
Many of the things you claim about communism (such as 0% unemployment, equal pay, rapid economic growth, total lack of choice, people do not own anything) are not true of actual communist countries. Look at communist Cuba, for instance, and you'll find somewhere between 1 and 2% unemployment (admittedly low), variable but very equitable pay, periods of economic growth and decline, limited choice, people own stuff, and so on. China may be different, but I'd still urge you to look at something specific. It should also be clearer why you're introducing this idea of communism.
What you call the "new day economic topic" of trickle-down economics has been touted at least since the time of Ronald Reagan, so I'm not sure what is new about it. The question of whether it works can be answered somewhat by its performance over the last two decades.
To be fair to Bill and Melinda Gates, their foundation is one of the most generous in the world. There's plenty of many more "vicious" companies and CEOs seeking "more money and power" other than Microsoft (although perhaps this is becuase they have such money and power already).
One sentence-level issue: You have a sentence that does what we call mixing metaphors, where you take several images and mix them all together into one phrase: "to spark an idea into the veins of our nation will take a stab in the dark." Consider reducing this down to one image and some strong action verbs. Even changing "spark" to "inject" would help this make more sense.
I look forward to your revised essay.
Post a Comment