Why you SHOULD have some fucks to give:

Inequality, in the most basic terms, is an imbalance of something; it could be anything. When considering the various implications of these inequalities, it is important to evaluate the distinction between natural and unnatural inequalities. A natural inequality refers to a quality or aptitude that individuals are born with and the latter is basically everything else: social, political, economic, and structural relationships of power are defined by the random assignment of birth (Surowiecki, 2014). These qualities and relationships interact inextricably resulting in the various dynamics that manifest in a given society. The tricky part is trying to figure out which inequalities are acceptable by our contemporary (and ever changing) standard of living and which are pernicious in the everyday lives of individuals. Luckily, we are advanced enough to understand how to modify our rules and codes to manage or eliminate many of these unnatural inequalities.

The question then stands: what responsibility do we have to others? To what extent do we consider ourselves connected to the suffering of another human being? Moral arguments for such imbalances abound, but even when we look at the problem in strict economic terms, different kinds of inequality have different effects on a society in real ways. The persistence of poverty examined by Raj Chetty, for example, demonstrates the concentration and intergenerational effect of economic inequalities that manifest in higher rates of child malnutrition, high school drop outs, crime, etc. that create concentrations of poverty (Reich, 2015). Economic inequalities are perhaps one of the more complex dimensions of inequality in that they function as a product of a structural system upon which our ability to survive is dependent, but the structure requires our participation to function.

It has been demonstrated time and again that the median wage in the United States is stagnant, productivity is up, and the minimum wage simply does not cover the cost of the basic necessities to participate fully in American society (Casselman, 2014; Brooks, 2014). Even Republicans are beginning to take notice as we move towards the 2016 Presidential race watching Mitt Romney’s attempts to re-envision himself an anti-poverty advocate; ironic in light of the consistent voting record on raising the minimum wage - spoiler alert: they said no. (Bobic, 2015; Lowrey, 2014). It is with the wage, primarily, that concerns over inequality take particularly troublesome forms. There was once an understanding between employers and employees that the exchange should be fair to both parties, but unionized jobs are hard to come by now and many service sectors actively try to dissuade their employees from such collective effort (Pyke, 2014). Without the incentive of profit, there is no reason for a businessperson to go into business, but unless the employee is afforded the opportunity to earn enough money to survive, he or she is not a consumer in the full sense – which is, of course, exactly what the businessperson needs the employee to be in order for his or her business to thrive. In order to be consumers, the wages of individuals must rise above subsistence levels.

Fortunately, humans like stuff – we are masters at creating, collecting, and coveting. The problems of economic inequalities arise only in absolute terms of food, housing, and clothes (because, let’s be honest, people can’t be running around naked). Access to education and medical care are more complicated, but have rightly come to be seen as human rights in most developed and in many developing countries. If our wage is a reflection of the value of our labor, as it allows us to maintain our existence, then these absolute terms must be treated as an extension of that wage. If social mobility is our primary concern as a meritocratic democracy, as suggested by the intense debate over inequality, then equality of opportunity must include the opportunity of full-time employment to escape poverty, not working full-time to live in it (Surowiecki, 2014).

 

Bibliography

Bobic, I. (2015, January 17). Mitt Romney's Re-Invention As Anti-Poverty Warrior. Retrieved February 4, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/17/mitt-romney-poverty-2016_n_6492894.html

Brooks, D. (2014, January 17). The Inequality Problem. The NY Times. Retrieved February 4, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/opinion/brooks‐the‐inequality‐problem.html?rref=collection/column/david‐brooks

Casselman, B. (2014, September 22). The American Middle Class Hasn't Gotten A Raise In 15 Years. Retrieved February 4, 2015, from http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-american-middle-class-hasnt-gotten-a-raise-in-15-years/

Lowrey, W. (2014, April 30). Senate Republicans block minimum wage increase bill. Retrieved February 4, 2015, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/30/senate-republicans-block-minimum-wage-increase-bill/

Pyke, A. (2014, January 16). Here’s Walmart’s Internal Guide To Fighting Unions And Monitoring Workers. Retrieved February 5, 2015, from http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/16/3171251/walmart-leaked-powerpoint-unions/

Reich, R. (Director) (2015, January 30). Wealth and Poverty Week 2: Why Should We Care?. PP103. Lecture conducted from UC Berkeley, Berkeley.

Surowiecki, J. (2014, March 3). The Mobility Myth. The New Yorker.