Another con is that after living with an excess of everything for so long, the people who are most prosperous might not be as willing to give it up. Their idea of necessary and a middle class family’s idea of necessary can be completely different, so where do we draw the line for how much money each family should have and how much each family should give away? I find Singer’s idea to be a good one, but perhaps a little unrealistic. I believe that a portion of the money that we do not spend on day to day necessities should be given to those in need of it. The reason I think that is because of the simple fact that the American people have been living with an excess of money for so long, to think that overnight we can become accustomed to a lower standard of living is
One of my main takeaways from this topic is that money isn’t the best motivator. According to Mayo’s Hawthorne effect, employees feel more motivated when their efforts are recognized, and this can be achieved through bonuses for example. However, this can increase individualism as employees will focus on outperforming their peers. Intrinsic motivation helps create loyal employees who are more satisfied on a personal level. An example of this could be social security benefits.
After the start of the industrial revolution, companies used man power in exchange for large profits. Business was booming and the rich kept getting richer, but they still wanted more. As companies became large and turned into corporations, they discovered if they shorten the supply; the demand will stay the same. This resulted in higher costs for the same products. Corporations could have saved the welfare of their employees but money was the only thing on their mind.
In particular, they want to be respected, powerful, viewed as successful and live and surround themselves in an elite social class. Therefore, the more material possessions they acquire, the more prestigious they feel or as some say: “I have made it”. Such as in the 17 century, a person’s obesity was a sign of their prosperity. However, as we know today, those views hold some opposition. According to an article in Slate On, the poor and low income people in our society are more overweight than the wealthy.
According to Spoors et al, Lane found that increased economic power did not lead to increased happiness. Once we have enough to meet their basic needs, happiness tends to lie in the quality of our relationships. In addition to having a strong family network, belonging to some kind of community or social group will also contribute to our happiness. We tend to gain self-esteem and a sense of belonging from being part of a group with whom there is a shared identity and common values. Most groups provide social support and depending on the type of group for example religious groups, will also encourage optimistic
The United States has enough wealth to guarantee a high standard of living for every citizen. In Los Angeles we see different amounts of wealth, we have Beverly Hills people, Hollywood actors and they have a different amount of wealth. The United States is one of the richest countries in the world, yet it has the highest rate of poverty. In order to alleviate poverty the government must stop outsourcing jobs, spending so much on the military, and must start taxing the rich. By changing these actions the United States will provide more Americans with jobs, and the country will have less
Some people are better at physical labour which usually means lower paid jobs rather than those who are academically minded which in our society means higher paid jobs. Finally, some people can gain wealth to inheritance and trust funds, and they have opportunity to build up their wealth through investing, unlike those who start off with nothing. There are two major social disadvantages of inequality. First one being that there is a class division which causes tension between people with different jobs and regions. This can lead to disputes between people, which will in turn bring about an instable society which can lead to an economic disruption.
As John Verdant introduces two families with similar economic conditions but completely different values, it is not difficult to find out that the family believes having more actually harms themselves (Verdant, 152-155). I believe people who are less obsessed with consumerism would have a better living standards if they were living in a society with scarce materials. However, those people who are obsessed with consumerism would be willing to conduct some unethical things in order to gain self-interested benefits. On the other hand, nowadays thrift is a way of showing a person is well-educated and money-conscious. In fact thrift is highly valued in many Asian countries’ value systems.
The wealthy have the means for making new technology accessible to themselves, and because of this it gives them, great knowledge and knowledge is the foundation of power, which leads to more wealth. On the contrary, the plunging descent of those individuals who are financially crippled and therefore, do not have a passage to power or wealth or technology. This inequality put the wealthiest people in a position to dominate and in some cases control the decision-making process while leaving the less fortunate under the eight ball with their needs being ignored and they not being fulfilled. The other area of concern is the moral and ethical dilemma that has come about as a result of the growth of new media technology. The main area of concern is the privacy issue.
The great thought of been wealthy and having luxurious objects excites oneself.This idea that materialistic things are going to make us happy can be a disappointing to those who have it all (money,cars,women ) and are still not happy .Media gives us a fake or rather an illusion of what we need ,what we desire ,what we love .We all want to be successful and have a life just like Jay Gatsby ,to be known as a hero and to be know as a wealthy successful person . But is that all we are in this world for ? is that all that our heart and body really wants? , or is that something that our mind has been forced with all this media .When we die would people come to our funeral because its in their heart or because it will benefit their pocket. I feel like the way the book was written was for the reader to really get a sense of the life that The Gatsby was living , the amount of people who knew him or off him .