Is social inequality necessary? Do we need the haves and have nots?

Answer 1

There will always be the label "haves and have nots" applied to different socio-economic groups. The question is how do we close the gap between the two. As long as education is looked at as an expense rather than an investment the gap won't close. As long as large corporations such as Wal-mart exploit and marginalize their employees to make obscene profits for their share holders the gap will continue to widen. Only citizens can change these priorities. By becoming active in changing government leadership to those who are willing to fight for the have nots we can narrow the gap.

Answer 2

We certainly don't need it (social inequality). Whether it materializes naturally is more complicated. (For the answer regarding nobody left cleaning toilets, I'd say, "Good. Maybe then people would start cleaning their own #$%* toilets and hopefully learn to stop soiling public toilets.")

Not everyone will be a good businessman. Certainly not everyone can be Mozart or Einstein. Unfortunately in this society we value certain professions and services over others. Tax consultants charge more than janitors, even though both of them basically are cleaning up our mess. So what you like or are good at doing may not match what's in demand in society. This leads to situations where some people will earn more and have more influence and power than others.

Artificially forcing equality has simply not been practical. So I think a certain degree of social inequality will happen naturally. Although in the ideal case, the so-called "have-nots" would know and understand exactly why they are such. For example, if your talents happen to lie in an occupation whose value is not that highly in demand (if you're a janitor), and you don't feel a need/incentive to change your career, then as they say--you reap what you sow.

What's happening now, however, is that even the "have-nots" that DO want to better themselves are in a position where they have to fight an uphill battle to do so. And in many cases, it's impossible to do so in one generation. Even the "middle class" are struggling to remain so or easily see themselves slip under into the "lower class." The "upper class" has the powers and influence to affect government and put in place policies such that they can remain in their class, if not get even more rich.

So in summary, social classes will materialize naturally given human nature. But things can be a lot better for the underclasses if the upper classes were not so inclined to widen the gap between them and everyone below them.

Answer 3

that's empty class conflict rhetoric. One isn't a slave in the event that they are able to decide on the direction for their destiny. Is there "prosperous fat cats" scuffling with a "have-nots" from reaching success, getting a greater perfect interest, getting a level, paying for a house, motor vehicle or huge demonstrate television? What does "triumphing" the conflict by applying the "have-nots" appear like? Do the "have-nots" swiftly stay in luxury? You appreciate swimming in this physique of suggestions of sophistication conflict, now define what victory for the "have-nots" is. this might show what you surely need out of this.

Answer 4

Inequality is unavoidable and ethical, but having have-nots is unnecessary; the right to quality for life is not the same as a right to be 'rich'.

Answer 5

i dont think its the job that should make people unequal, its more the level of pay. In britain accessing education is free so there is a chance of bettering ourselves, in many other countries if you are born in poverty you will never overcome it. That is a cause worth fighting for.

Answer 6

yes we need haves and have nots....how do you truly enjoy one without knowing of the other....

Answer 7

Things should be free and people should clean after themselves.

Answer 8

on a level, yes. what remains unjust is the gap between having and not.

Answer 9

If everybody was rich, nobody would clean toilets.

Answer 10

i need to talk with hillary clinton before i can answer this