Wealth of the United States There is a problem in the United States that is growing and is causing issues in our country, but not everybody knows about it. The problem is the distribution of wealth in our society and the world as a whole, and how it is getting worse. Some people would say that it is an inequality due to the needs of the society, while others would say it is to the needs or individuals. This causes even more problems because of there being more than one supposed reason for the issue at hand. The problem is that the distribution of power is possibly starting to be lopsided, and for many reasons. There are two main views of why this is happening, the functionalist perspective and the conflict perspective, and they differ in many ways on what is wrong, why it is wrong and what to do about it.
One of these groups, the functionalists, view that the uneven distribution of wealth is due to the fact that the cream rises to the top and the people who have money and prestigious positions are the ones who are capable of getting the job done. Functionalists see that there are 3 things that are intertwined with each other; wealth, power, and prestige. These three things are rewards for people who are of good character, eg: people with advanced knowledge, hard workers, and people who can take on responsibility. This whole perspective is more merit based than anything and tells people in the society that they get what they earn and jobs and money are not just going to be given to them because they want those things.
The Essay on Functionalist Perspective Poverty Society Conflict
1. The Functionalist Perspective: The structural functionalist perspective sees society as a system. Functionalists identify the structural characteristics and functions and dysfunctions of institutions, and distinguish between manifest functions and latent functions, where manifest functions are those consequences that are intended and recognized by the participants in a system, and latent ...
This theory tells that poor people are poor because they do not work hard enough or even at all and that if they work harder, they will be rewarded with more resources or money. It also says that rich people have worked very hard to get where they are and it is not just because of their desire to get what they have, they had to work also. This contributes to society due to the fact that everyone is in a different class and this states that the classes are earned and not just given, so it tells everyone that almost all positions are given do to merit and other factors that are earned. Society as a whole is the basis of where people get, it is not because the people have needs and desires that need to be satisfied. On the other side of the spectrum, are the conflict theorists, who believe that the inequality of the resources trying to be attained is caused directly because of the wants and desires of the people who are trying to attain them. This theory is all based on a group of people in power making the other groups think that they are the best to be in power and create a false consciousness for the masses.
The main group stays in power because they make all sorts of promises to the masses and deceive them at the same time. The group in power takes everything that they can from the people and tell them that this is due to another cause. A basic example is how Enron worked and how the executives spent lavishly and even got severance packages when the company went under because they were only watching out for themselves, and everyone else in the company got nothing, which was planned, but were lied to and told that they had pensions and other things to help them out. Another great example of this is many middle eastern countries that are ruled by parties that have fought their way into power. They keep the masses in the dark on what is going on and keep most everything, like aid, to themselves.
The Term Paper on European Powers Countries Economic Imperialism
Up until World War II, Imperialism had been a major part of civilization throughout the world. The conquering and occupying of other lands had been prominent in all of the major world empires. The Romans, Ottoman Turks, Egyptians, Mongols, Syrians, Greecians, Babylonians, Muslims, Persians, and others had all thrived on the occupation of other territories. However, as the advancement of military ...
They hoard everything they can and make the masses to poor to be able to make an uprising, so that they have less of a power struggle with those masses. Then, they call for aid from other countries to help out their poor masses and keep a large majority for themselves, disperse a small amount to the people, and say that the money all went to the people. This deception helps them get more power and more wealth while keeping the masses ignorant of what is going on. This is a theory that is played out in many third world countries, and is not based on what people deserve but what they want, making great hardships for many other people. The functionalist perspective on wealth is not really at conflict here, what you earn is what you get, which is fair.
The problem here is what the conflict perspective views, which are greed and power hungry people. This is what should be looked into. The problem with this is that it may be hard to see in companies and may require war for countries in this situation. If the problem was to be addressed so that less people would think this is a problem, there would have to be laws checking up on companies, making sure that they are fallowing the laws on how their company is run. These would have to be greatly enforced to make sure that everything is working correctly. For solutions to the power in other countries, it is a lot more complicated and may have a cost in life.
There are no real easy ways to correct the problem of greed in ruling forces over a country except for war and then restructuring to prevent the issue in the future. The ruling party needs to be taken down and another form of government, like democracy needs to be implemented. The real question with the problem of wealth and power in other countries, is if it is really worth it in costs of capital and life for us to get into the issue, or would it be better for us to just deal with the situation at hand.
