and National Global Wealth Inequality
In modern society, the wealth distribution is centered around very few, while the rest get very few. The difference between rich and the poor, in both the United States and the Global community, is vast. The rich gain a great percentage of the world's wealth, while the poor gain next to nothing. Pro-capitalist sociologists argue that the present modern economy is positive and helps both national and global societies. Through a structural-functional approach that sees society promoting stability, sociologists express that the competitive market gives people more ambition and a personal drive. They believe in the modernization theory that advocates that a cultures openness to pursue change and to accept new technology will have a positive effect on global poverty. On the other hand, other sociologists believe that the inequalities in the wealth received in the United States and the rest of the world leads to an exploitation of the poor, which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. This social-conflict approach supports the dependency theory, which states that high-income countries and individuals are dependent on taking advantage of low-income countries and the poor. The structuralfunctional approach and social-conflict approach to poverty and wealth distribution are discussed in both the United States' economy and the global economy in similar ways. In the United States, the wealth distribution is great. In addition to gaining just over forty-seven percent of the income in the country, the richest twenty percent of America possess around eighty four percent of the wealth. Although the average income of each household has increased over the past few decades, sociologist Andrew Hacker points out that sixty percent of that increase fell into the hands of the top five percent of
society. The rich are getting even richer, while the poor remain poor. In fact, the poorest twenty percent are actually in debt. Poverty, which the U.S. government claims to be almost thirteen percent of Americans, can be blamed on either society or the poor. In a study, anthropologist Oscar Lewis noticed that children raised in poverty will accept their way life, instead of trying to change their social status. William Julius Joseph, however, counter this point and blames poverty on the lack of jobs. In 2004, Fifty-two percent of a poor household did not work and another twenty-nine percent only worked part time. While the lack of having a job could be blamed on the poor for their inability to hold or get a job, the problem can also be blamed on society for not offering enough jobs for the impoverished. The United States has many poor members of society with the rich gaining a great percentage of the wealth. In determining whether the American capitalist society is wrong for the difference in wealth distribution, Davis and Moore consider a classless society. In their thesis, Davis and Moore reject a society without class stratification. They claim the reason that some people are richer than others is because of the different levels of training and education needed to fill positions in society. They claim that it would be illogical to give a job that requires little training, such as a janitor the same reward as a job that requires years and years of training, such as a doctor or a lawyer. They believe that, if the jobs received the same reward, the more difficult jobs would not be filled. "If a position is easily filled, it need not be heavily rewarded, even though important. On the other hand, if it is important but hard to fill, the reward must be high enough to get filled anyway." Davis and Moore praise the capitalist American market. They express that, in a competitive system that produces inequality, positions are "filled by the most qualified persons." They explain the
values of having a meritocratic society in that it will award a job to the individual that is the most talented. Melvin Tumin, however, counters the Davis and Moore thesis. Tumin claims that, because of the inequality, only a limited number of individuals are able to compete for the jobs with the most rewards. He argues that stratification in society uses the unequal distribution of wealth to benefit the wealthy. Rejecting Davis and Moore, Tumin expresses how positions are not filled by few individuals that possess the skills necessary. With the need for many years of education, individuals can only gain certain talents through wealth. Tumin points out that this wealth is rarely earned. "Where, for instance, access to education depends the upon wealth of one's parents, and where wealth is differentially distributed, large segments of the population are likely to be deprived of the chance even to discover what are their talents." Unlike Davis and Moore, Tumin believes that social stratification hurts society from keeping individuals from discovering their talents. The differences in global stratification are much greater than the differences in the wealth distribution in the United States. The richest twenty percent of humanity enjoys eighty percent of the world's income, while the bottom twenty percent has only one percent. Countries are divided into high-income countries, middle-income countries, and low-income countries. The level of poverty is so great in low-income countries that, on average, when a dollar is earned in a low-income country; a high-income country gains fifty-three dollars. One way of explaining the difference in economy between different countries is the modernization theory. Throughout history up until the Middle Ages in Europe and the industrial revolution, the majority of humanity was poor. With new technology and cultures willing to change, poverty in some nations began to disappear.
Walt Whitman Rastow's stages of modernization explain the growth of countries and their economies. He describes countries as being under four different stages of development. The poorest countries are in the traditional stage of modernization. Those countries base their lives on traditional values, such as family, but do not focus on economic gain and, therefore, remain poor. The second, or take-off, stage is when countries begin to grow a market and focus on economic growth. The third stage, drive to technological maturity, gains the benefits of industrial technology and absolute poverty is greatly reduced. High-income countries are in the fourth stage, high mass consumption, of modernization. Mass production helps gain economic stability for these countries. Rastow also explains four roles for rich nations to help global poverty by modernizing rich nations. The rich nations help economic growth in developing countries by increasing food production, controlling the population growth, introducing industrial technology, and providing foreign aid. Modernization claims that rich nations help countries out of absolute poverty and through the different stages of development with the introduction of capitalism. Critics, however, state that global inequality is a direct result of the capitalist global economy. The dependency theory describes how high-income countries exploit poor countries. Beginning with colonialism and continuing with sweatshops and exporting raw goods, the dependency theory claims that rich nations are dependent on taking advantage of poorer nations to gain wealth. With poor countries lacking an industrial society, dependency theorists express how high-income nations take advantage of low-income countries by purchasing their raw material for cheap and then reselling them manufactured good from their material. Diana Stukuls Eglitis goes on to say that
global poverty helps other nations reduce prices and gain profits. She even states not only that global poverty helps medical advancements by using the poor as "guinea pigs," but that it provides areas for wealthy countries to get rid of dangerous waste. Dependency theorists blame global poverty on rich nations asserting that rich nations have overdeveloped themselves, while, at the same time, have underdeveloped the rest of the world. The goals of the structural-functional approach and the social-conflict approach on the United States economy are similar to their counterpart on global poverty. The structural-functional approach on poverty in the United States and the world both support capitalism. It expresses the importance of a free market economy and how stratification advances societies. On the other hand, people following the social-conflict approach claim that free markets exploit the poor. Taking a socialist stance on American and global societies, they state that only the rich benefit from a system that distributes wealth unequally. The critics of the structural-functional approach, however, fail to answer how one would be motivated to work hard or take a more strenuous occupation if all of the rewards were the same. Dependency theorists blame capitalist for global poverty, yet fail to explain why nations not in contact with foreign markets remain in poverty. The socialconflict approach seems to call for socialism even when rich socialist countries, such as the Soviet Union, have failed.