- Feb 2024
-
open.lib.umn.edu open.lib.umn.edu
-
The functionalist view further implies that if people are poor, it is because they do not have the ability to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary for the important, high-paying jobs.
I don't think that this is accurate. What about those who are released from prison? What if they have the skills but are unable to get the job due to their criminal background? What about people who have high paying careers but also have lots of debt? Those who are victims of natural disasters? People who are highly educated but suffer from mental illness? Etc...
-
- Jan 2024
-
open.lib.umn.edu open.lib.umn.edu
-
structural explanation, which is a blaming-the-system approach, US poverty stems from problems in American society that lead to a lack of equal opportunity and a lack of jobs.
This is the explanation that I agree with the most. How can the people be looked down upon for debt and poverty when our country itself is in so much debt?
-
Regardless of which version one might hold, the individualistic explanation is a blaming-the-victim approach
In society it is widely unacceptable to "blame the victim" so why do so for this topic? Most people with this view point seem to have a negative view on those with less than themselves.
-
In the past, the poor were thought to be biologically inferior, a view that has not entirely faded, but today the much more common belief is that they lack the ambition and motivation to work hard and to achieve success.
While this may be true in some instances (lack of ambition or motivation) it is certainly not the case for many. It is so much easier to find yourself struggling in the current economy than most people think!
-
“beliefs about the causes of poverty shape attitudes toward the poor.”
This is very true!
-
Some classic journalistic accounts by authors not trained in the social sciences also present eloquent descriptions of poor people’s lives
When you look at poverty from this view point is it ethical? Is it right to look past people struggling because it is "needed" for social order?
-
symbolic interactionism tries to understand stratification and thus poverty by looking at people’s interaction and understandings in their daily lives
*Important*
-
To reiterate an earlier point, several of the remaining chapters of this book discuss the various obstacles that make it difficult for the poor, women, and people of color in the United States to move up the socioeconomic ladder and to otherwise enjoy healthy and productive lives.
This is a huge problem! Poverty is becoming harder and harder to escape.
-
These functions include the following: (1) poor people do the work that other people do not want to do; (2) the programs that help poor people provide a lot of jobs for the people employed by the programs; (3) the poor purchase goods, such as day-old bread and used clothing, that other people do not wish to purchase, and thus extend the economic value of these goods; and (4) the poor provide jobs for doctors, lawyers, teachers, and other professionals who may not be competent enough to be employed in positions catering to wealthier patients, clients, students, and so forth (Gans, 1972)
This seems like the thinking of someone who does not believe in equality. I don't think that we need such severe levels of poverty to achieve a healthy social order. It should not be impossible to get out of poverty. Poverty should not be a life sentence.
-
Even if we do have to promise higher incomes to get enough people to become physicians, does that mean we also need the amount of poverty we have?
This is a great point! The amount of poverty in the USA seems to be getting larger and larger. The cost of living and the entry level wages aren't matching. The price of food, groceries, gas, and basic essentials is only rising.
-
lack of equal opportunity.
100% agree!
-
First, it is difficult to compare the importance of many types of jobs. For example, which is more important, doing brain surgery or mining coal? Although you might be tempted to answer with brain surgery, if no coal were mined then much of our society could not function.
Great point!
-
As this example suggests, many people might not choose to become brain surgeons unless considerable financial and other rewards awaited them.
Interesting point...but what about those who are just simply interested in that career field or those who choose a career based on what they enjoy rather than the money? Maybe more people would enjoy life if they didn't have to worry about the pay rate and could focus on the enjoyment aspect.
-
This explanation was developed more than sixty years ago by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (Davis & Moore, 1945) in the form of several logical assumptions that imply stratification is both necessary and inevitable
I find it interesting that this explanation was developed over 60 years ago. So many things were different back then not to mention how far society as a whole has come within that timeframe. In fact, this explanation is dated in a time period where segregation was still legalized. It makes you wonder if these theories are still relevant or if they should be redeveloped for our current societies standards.
-