The economy in the North was better because the South did not have a great economy at the time. The reason why the North’s economy was better than the South’s is because the north had more factories, food, soldiers, money, and rail road’s to help with the war. The South had only a few factories and rail road’s to transport their food and their soldiers. The South had a larger population and the North had a small population. Since the South had a larger population they had a bigger army.
The squeezed society’s neglecting of investment has put both the rich and the poor in a society with low quality infrastructure. Additionally, a recent research shows that throughout the U.S, areas with the highest income inequality have longer commute times, higher rates of divorce, bankruptcy and squandered talent. For example, nowadays, because of being unable to attain fundamental financial needs, several people from the less wealthy classes can hardly own a house but instead choose to rent it. Consequently, house borrowers have to loan houses at higher interest rates on account of subprime mortgage. In this mortgage
Despite this, there were some similarities to both economies. The main ones being that the south did actually have some industry, and that underneath the surface, both the north and the south were fundamentally rural. A fundamental difference between the economies of the north and the south was that the north was more urban. The north saw a much larger population of immigrants; this is because industrial expansion and urbanisation created jobs that attracted them to the north more than the south. Out of 5 million immigrants that arrived in America from 1815-1860, 1 in 6 chose to live in the north, compared to 1 in 30 in the south.
One reason for the widening gap between the rich and the poor is that since 1970, the government taxation policies have changed, these policies are more favorable to the wealthy people. This means that households within the higher tax bracket are paying less tax, this in turn then makes the rich people richer meaning the gap between the poor even greater. for example as item 3B shows in 1970 the share of total income taken by the top 1% of earners was only 7.1%this had risen by more than half in 2005 and the share of total income take by the top one percent of income was now 14.3%. A second reason for the widening gap between the rich and the poor in the UK is changes to the labour market, these changes have led to more relatively low paid jobs such as in the tertiary sector. With less people working in the higher paying primary and secondary sectors the gap between the rich and the poor will be widening as more people will begin to work within the substantially lower paying tertiary sector, this will widen the gap between the rich and the poor as it means there will be more people working in lower paid jobs.
Most of this overpopulation is taking place in poor countries where poverty is running rampant. Some countries are wealthy and overpopulated because they have a much bigger country and can function with the high population. When you have a small country that is already poor and u keep reproducing more and more children you will run out of necessities that are vital to living and success. 3. What does Hardin cite as the “tragedy of the commons”?
This was because the Conservatives were seen to have better policies for wealthier people. Their taxation policies meant wealthy people kept as much of their money as possible. Labour, on the other hand, had strong links with the workers unions and had good policies for the poorer people, with more social security. In the 2005 election, however, only 21% of the A and B social classes voted conservative and only slightly more of the lower classes voted Labour. This shows how, in modern times, social class is not as important a factor as it was in the past.
Debt is something else that is very hard to overcome. Due to the fact that poor people are poor, there is less trust between them and banks. Therefore they pay more interest than many other people. High interest rates prevent people from coming out of debt. They will always have to pay more than other people even though they are the one making less money than everyone else.
In South America there was much less unity among the people than there was in North America. This was probably caused by the fact that there was more poverty and class difference, especially in colonies like Haiti. This resulted in much more uprisings and violence among the people in Spanish colonies. However in Brazil there was a lot less violence and struggle to achieve independence. In Brazil, the independence movement was much more peaceful than it was in North
Government and Politics 14/9/14 Joe Miller ‘A link still exists between class and voting patterns’ discuss the extent to which social class still influences voting behaviour. This statement is still true to a certain extent. The pattern is nowhere near as clear as it was 70 years ago but there is still a definable link between who you vote for and your social class in most cases. In 2005 the conservatives were more popular in the South of England, full of traditionally richer areas such as London, than Labour who were more popular in the traditionally poorer north. If you look at the percentages of votes for the three major parties (Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem) in each social class for the 2010 election it can be seen that a pattern does still exist.
Therefore they have limited rights when it comes to employment and their desperate nature to support themselves or their families leads them to hazardous working conditions and wages much lower then the minimum wage. In Mexico city some workers earn 20% less then the minimum wage. The poorest workers are the pepenadores or the rubbish collectors. They earn a living from selling salvaged bits of metal and plastic. There is also a huge discrepancy in the distribution of income as the poorest 40% of the population control less then 12% of the country's personal income.