Introduction
Inequality in the globe is a fact that cannot be disputed. The thing has both good and bad qualities. Inequalities will provide a community with a stronger incentive to strive hard. Inequality opens significant opportunities for better national savings and investment. Innovation peaks are typically preceded by times when inequality is manifested to its fullest extent. Even if there are many positive situations that come from inequality, several sociological factors suggest that inequality may not be without flaws. Reduced consumer pleasure among the underprivileged is equivalent to unequal resource availability. Sociological inequality affects politics and the country’s ability to choose leaders who will defend the rights of the people. The idea that people are naturally greedy is a major driving force behind the free market economy. Because human desires are unquestionably unquenchable, the capitalistic model will always advance as long as human avarice persists. The largest monopolies in history emerged as a result of the free market economy, which was mostly fueled by inequality. The dichotomous dimension of this social aspect demands a thorough exploration of the arguments for and against inequality. Therefore, the writ herein will begin by exploring the arguments for proposing the societal existence of inequality whereas the second part will outline the argument why social inequality should not exist.
Arguments for Inequality
The existence of inequality in the world is undeniable. Numerous individuals argue that all humans should have access to equal opportunities. However, the distribution of opportunities and resources is not symmetrical and as a result, inequality prevails. Regardless of the depth of inequality’s downside, the upside is still visible and reliable (Pettinger). Therefore, the proper comprehension of the arguments for inequality will reveal the advantageous dimensions of the same.
First and foremost, inequalities will provide a superior impetus for hard work within a locality. The dominion of the free-market economy culminates in a scarcity of resources and competition within the market. The hierarchy of income is inevitably developed and different individuals are ranked between low, middle, or high income (Sweeney et al.). The individuals in the lowest tier are inevitably motivated to work harder and ascend the income ladder (Pettinger). This state results in economic growth as national output increases and the standard of living increases. Therefore, the existence of inequality provides an impetus for individuals to work harder within the nation promoting national growth.
Furthermore, inequality provides avenues for superior savings and investment within the nation. The greater savings and investments arise from the extremely wealthy who have accumulated assets. The investment is then utilized for the capital generation and the projects with positive net present values can employ labor thus creating employment. Businesses can borrow funds from investors and finance their operations (Pettinger). Moreover, the generation of innovation and higher-quality products results from the inequality that arises. The stimulus from the investment is capable of providing superior quality products which will penetrate the market and provide variety for the consumers. Eventually, lower-income households would be able to access the products inevitably. A classic case could be the market inception of technological products. The initial prices are usually high however when production components are readily available the value of the products is maintained while prices reduce. Therefore, inequality stimulates investment and savings which provide capital reliable for innovation and National output.
The existence of inequality can therefore be approached from a dichotomous point of view. Periods of innovation are usually preceded by periods of extreme manifestations of inequality. The great depression was the precursor to great innovation that occurred in the world. Moreover, the free market causes a variation in income. This state of affairs provides room for innovation wherein the USA has been an emblematic indication of such innovation. Inequality is a foolproof system in that the reward of individuals is dependent on the input (Pettinger). If equality was the reality, then everyone would receive a similar amount of income regardless of the work conducted. The impetus would be demoralizing to the individuals who work extremely hard to attain the output. Inequality is a reliable metric for ensuring that people get what they deserve. Therefore, the upside of inequality which is the most outstanding is that it provides room for everyone to reap what they sow.
Arguments against Inequality
Despite the numerous advantageous states that are available as a result of inequality, some sociological aspects indicate that inequality could have some shortcomings. The principal indication is the misuse of natural resources. Inequality leads to the accumulation of natural resources in the hands of very few individuals who supposedly have the capital required to manage the resources. A classic case can be the discovery of oil in the modern states. The countries supposedly have high National output values due to the aggregate revenue gotten from the oil sales. However, the poverty rate in states with oil is high (Liferenko). The gap between the rich and the poor is continuously expanding and as a result inequality is increasing. The less conspicuous rates of consumption that is as a result of varying standards of living and consumption. Moreover, natural resources will continue to be used less and less especially if it is associated with consumption when there is not adequate market size to generate revenue from purchases (Liferenko). Therefore, the first disadvantage of inequality is the less utilization of natural resources alongside the disproportionate distribution of the resources in the hands of the few.
Reduced consumer satisfaction among the poor is tantamount to unequal availability of resources. The lack of properly distributed incomes and wealth culminates in reduced consumer satisfaction among the poor as compared to the fiscally endowed. The latter is capable of getting more options because they have financial resources that allow them to have diversity and variety in options (Pettinger). Moreover, the poor have few options and the lack of availability of options for them renders them to have lower utility. The proponents of socialism and Marxist philosophies advocate for a sociological model that will be able to redistribute income from the rich to the poor who are within the nation (Sweeney et al.). These models propose the taking of a dollar from the extremely wealthy and award it to those who have none of their own. Despite the elimination of Inequality, the long run outcome of the event would be the depreciation of the average standards of living as the wealthy were extremely wealthy and moderation would reduce the average. Therefore, the level of consumer satisfaction reduces significantly due to a huge number of less fortunate in an unequal society and can be solved by income distribution albeit at the opportunity cost of the long run average standard of living.
Inequality in the sociological dimension permeates into the political arena and the nation’s ability to elect leaders who will champion the people’s rights. The majority of democratic states have a triune government composed of the legislature, executive, and judiciary. The first is composed of elected officials who make the laws and amend prevailing ones. The executive makes the decisions for the highest office in the land and on behalf of the nation-state. The judiciary decides on cases and conflicts that have been brought forward to prevent the societal descent into anarchy. Collectively these three arms have been sustainable so far in democratic states (Donovan and Karp). However, the model being juxtaposed with the free-market economy has perpetuated inequality which has culminated in a small sect of resource-endowed individuals influencing the electoral process. Therefore, there have been several claims of undue influence in the institution of Presidents which is correlated with the setup of the legislature (Donovan and Karp). The control of two-thirds of the government leaves an easy game of chance within the judiciary which is usually in the favor of the rich. The oversight by the poor in such situations is scarce as they are merely pawns in the game of the rich. The amount of policy they get to influence is the comparison of breadcrumbs from the table as compared to what the rich influence. Thus, the political divide as a result of inequality is undeniably high and as a result, the inequality is manifested in the political decisions and policies in the country.
The free-market economy is driven largely by the hypothesis concerning human greed. Human wants are definitively insatiable and as a result, the capitalistic model will be perpetually progressive provided human greed is a constant. The model is tantamount to corruption especially when the system is biased and skewed towards the fiscally enabled. The poor, to balance the sides, might engage in social evils, crimes, and even corruption for financial gain (Pettinger). Furthermore, this behavior is not exclusive to the desperate but also those who have means but are greedy and want more. The insatiability of the human heart is therefore a precursor for inequality and as a result, culminates in crime and corruption. The downside of innovation is the resultant social corrosion of the fabric of society (Pettinger). Furthermore, the imposition of a model for income equalization would be tantamount to the reduced propensity of an individual to opt to break the law. The likelihood of crime reduces significantly and this is also a fiscal gain in the reduced budget needed for law enforcement in a free market. Therefore, inequality leads to the inclination to commit crimes to satisfy perpetual human wants whether out of despair or greed.
The oil empire of Rockefeller and the steel estate of Carnegie were built to their gigantic sizes due to the dominion of inequality. The free market economy largely fueled by inequality led to the rise of the largest monopolies in history (Liferenko). The absolute market dominion from the monopolies leads to the employment of cheap labor where the laborers have no option but to accept the sub-par conditions (Poole). The relative growth of Rockefeller’s and Carnegie’s wealth was multiple times greater than the aggregate wages they administered to their laborers (Liferenko). The monopolies grew to levels of undue influence on the government’s decisions (Poole). In the early twentieth century, an executive order was given in the USA, which broke down the oil empire into smaller corporations for easier government oversight. Inequality was corrosive, and the government realized the detrimental side of its existence.
Conclusion
The beneficial aspects of the same will be shown by properly understanding the arguments for inequality. The presence of disparity encourages people to work harder within the country, encouraging national development. Inequality encourages savings and investment, which supply stable capital for national output and innovation. The most notable benefit of inequality is that it allows everyone to reap the rewards of their labor. However, there are also a lot of drawbacks. The first drawback of inequality is the unequal distribution of resources among many people and the underutilization of natural resources. Due to the vast majority of less fortunate people living in an unequal society, the degree of consumer happiness drastically decreases. Undoubtedly, there is a widening political chasm in any country as a result of inequality, which is reflected in political choices and policies. Inequality increases the propensity to conduct crimes to satiate insatiable human desires, whether motivated by greed or despair. The monopolies’ complete market dominance results in the use of cheap labor, where the workers are forced to put up with subpar working conditions. Therefore, inequality can stimulate innovation but increase crime and corruption, it enables people to reap what they sow albeit the bias in the exposure of opportunities is significant, the consideration of inequality as a social, economic, and political variable presents a potent problem for future research.
Works Cited
DONOVAN, TODD, and JEFFREY KARP. “Electoral Rules, Corruption, Inequality and Evaluations of Democracy.” European Journal of Political Research, vol. 56, no. 3, Jan. 2017, pp. 469–86, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12188.
Drake, Kimberly. Inequality. Salem Press, A Division Of Ebsco Information Services, Inc. ; Amenia, Ny, 2018.
Liferenko, Yu. V. “The Role of Monopolies in the Formation of Regional Inequality.” Regional Economics: Theory and Practice, vol. 17, no. 2, Feb. 2019, pp. 220–33, https://doi.org/10.24891/re.17.2.220. Accessed 8 June 2022.
Pettinger, Tejvan. “Pros and Cons of Inequality – Economics Help.” Economics Help, 18 Jan. 2017, www.economicshelp.org/blog/3586/economics/pros-and-cons-of-inequality/.
Poole, Keith. “Biography: John D. Rockefeller, Senior | American Experience | PBS.” Pbs.org, 2019, www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/rockefellers-john/.
Sweeney, Robert, et al. Cherishing All Equally 2019 : Inequality in Europe and Ireland. Tasc, 2019.
write