I thought this was a very interesting article. I don’t really know much about our economy or the technical workings of the government sponsored diversity programs Webb is talking about, but my gut reaction is to think that he is pretty off base. Webb writes that he is dedicated to bringing fairness to America’s economy and work force, but how can he do this if he is against the programs that are working towards that fairness? My basic understanding of his point of view is that he believes that today, government-directed diversity programs that favor people of color are unfair because they give an unnecessary and unfair advantage to certain groups, while ignoring whites who might need just as much help. I disagree; I think that these programs are necessary to balance out the unfair advantage whites automatically get just by being white.
Many may argue that the falling economy and the wealthy not wanting to share their shares is to blame for the raising rates of poverty here in the states. Poverty of course, has a lot to do with money and income but underneath that it is has a deeper story. Stories of how different people are suffering from it and how they are managing to live day by day. It almost seems as if it’s a foreign nation of its own and you only understand the concepts if you are in it. There is no doubt that here in America we are dealing with one of the greatest economic downfalls.
Modern Britain a Divided Society Britain a divided society? Definitely! Despite so-called progress in the last 50 years we remain a socially, economically, religiously, educationally and politically divided society. In our attempts to improve the lot of the poorest socially disadvantaged people in our society we have evolved a benefits and support system that has not helped them to become self-sufficient or promoted the values and qualities of determination, hard work and entrepreneurial spirit that exists throughout our population. The rich are penalized for their contribution to the economy through high tax.
Since the low class poor people are not usually educated, they often easily “pushed” into the crimes by the high class people. Usually the upper class people are invisible and at the end the poor is the ones who get blamed. Certainly the rich benefit more than the poor. That has always and will always be the case in every society the world has known. Very often the rich push the poor by removing workers rights, by limiting corporate liability, by instigating war.
What is the basic thesis of Hardin’s article? We simply should not provide aid to people in poor countries. His argument is consequentialist: he claims that the net result of doing so would be negative -- would in fact be courting large-scale disaster. 2. On of Hardin’s big concerns is the rate of reproduction – the fact that rich, first-world countries have a much lower birth rate than poor, third-world countries.
This gap has led to the decreasing of education’s quality, and the inequality in residents’ income. Income inequality has put the United States in bad shape. Because of this unfairness, the rich are getting richer whereas the rest are struggling to survive. According to Robert Frank, a New York Times writer, excessive spending by the wealthy has “made it even more expensive for middle-class families to achieve basic financial goals” (Frank; 582). The squeezed society’s neglecting of investment has put both the rich and the poor in a society with low quality infrastructure.
According to Gallup, the lack of good jobs in America is a greater problem than the inefficient healthcare costs, runaway government spending, and even global terrorism. The lack of good jobs is a poignant crisis in America today, and is making our nation bankrupt. When GDP is up, there are more jobs in a nation, resulting in better welfare. This is why GDP is so important to the welfare of its citizens. GDP is the sum of all goods and services produced in a country during a year (Ferrell).
It seems the further down the hierarchy of education and wealth, the poorer the individuals health and life expectancy are. Fifty years ago it is probable inequalities occurred because the more affluent could afford to have access to healthcare services. Even though in 2010 everyone has access to good healthcare services, we are still seeing these same inequalities highlighted in the 1980s Black report. When the Black report was published, it highlighted the major difference in health care accessibility, it stated that the poorer health experiences of the lower occupational groups applied to all stages of life, inequalities where increasing rather than decreasing. They were a considerable amount of factors relating to why people had poorer health
The country itself cannot sustain its own economy without the help of the rest of the world. So the low birth rate in this country is a really big problem if the water trade shuts down. With only 7.42 births per 1000 people, the population is still too big for this small country. Especially when its death rate is 6.93 deaths per 1000 people, and even more so when it’s entire population is urbanized? So why would the country want to make and enforce policies to increase its population, Granted they could make policies where the more children you have or adopt, the more tax breaks you get.
This could lead America to use fear and violence to “motivate” the American people. Simple things, such as buying a car or buying other foreign products would become a much more costly endeavor. The reason for this is that Communism has trouble spreading throughout the global economy, leading to increased prices on imports. The free healthcare also sounds like a great idea, but it has its disadvantages. The quality of the healthcare would be drastically lower than in a Capitalist country, as we can observe in modern day Cuba.