why are there still inequalities in democracy (as far as income, wealth, and social status)?

Question

& how can we solve it?

Answer 1

This is one the best questions I have seen on here. Unfortunately some of these inequalities are a product of capitalism (in the US at least.)
I don't think it can be solved since not all democracies embrace socialist elements. They are equated with communism and viewed as a threat. For example access to health insurance a lot of times is directly related to ones income from their career which in turn is also related to their social status. People don't want to help those in the lower jobs because of the stigma and the belief that some holding these jobs are "lazy" and could do "better" if they wanted to. The rich get richer and the poor stay poor with less access to many opportunities. Hey I can hear it now, NO I am not anti-American or a communist just think it wouldn't hurt for a redistribution of wealth particularly in some areas such as health and education. I mean one man makes $100,000 to support his family and another is supposed to support his on $6.00 an hour. In the name of American Capitalism. And yes I know people are able to escape this and "move up" the socioeconomic scale but what about those who cannot. Do they deserve to be subjected to a life of inequality. I don't care who agrees with me but the country will not improve continuing to keep certain segments of the population down.

Answer 2

There are still inequities in our democracy because the Declaration of Independence states that all men are CREATED equal. That doesn't mean all men will end up equal, so the problem will never be solved. Not everyone will be able to create an operating system for computers that a vast majority of people will use, thus becoming the richest man in the world. Everyone will, however, have the opportunity to do so (under the framework of the Declaration.) Read: certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No mention of happiness or equity, just the chance to achieve your goals and dreams, so long as they don't interfere with anyone else's unalienable rights.

Answer 3

The first thing to understand about democracy and inequality is that they are not equivalent terms. Even as an ideal, democracy is not based on any kind of quantitative equality. Constitutional democracies are based on the rule of law, so they require that everyone is equal under the law. This term can be understood narrowly or widely. For example, a constitutional system may grant everyone accused of a crime the equal right to be represented by a lawyer . But it may or may not provide a court-appointed, free, lawyer for the poor. Or it might do that but not provide agressive legal education for the poor so that they know and exercise their legal rights effectively.

No democracy promises equality of material wealth or income. And no democracy could deliver on such a promise without mass violence. A state that can establish equality of income and wealth needs dictatorial powers, and even then would meet with mass resistance. The result would resemble Cambodia under Pol Pot.

But some democracies have promised, and to some extent even delivered, full access to basic needs required for dignified life. The 'social contract' in the US and England from WW 2 until the late 1970s was a large step in that direction which has unfortunately eroded since that time. Under so-called conservative rule, the social and economic promises of democracy have been curtailed. Labor unions have declining memberships as manufacturing jobs have been outsourced to anti-union states or to the third world. New immigrants from poor countries are vulnerable and happy to get any jobs they can. There is thus no way to mobilize workers to press for broader economic rights, and even the democratic party and its counterparts in Western Europe and Canada have more or less stopped trying to advance equality of even basic economic rights.

It is helpful to consider the 19th century origins of modern democracy. The left-leaning democratic movements consistently failed to obtain the rights they sought. It was right wing or conservative governments, like those of Louis Napolean in France and Bismarck in Prussia, that pressed for democratic plebisites to support government policies. These conservatives realized that the inherent stability-seeking of small farmers and artisans and merchants would always move them to support strong government and the suppression of radical demands of the landless and poor. So historically, democracy as a form of government whose legitimacy depended on elections and plebisites, grew at least as much from the desire to suppress the poor and marginal as to provide them with influence in governmental affairs.

In societies such as Germany and the Scandanavian countries, where historically policy has rested on some form of social consensus, it may be possible today to increase equalities within the democratic state.

But in neo-liberal, do-your-own-thing states such as Britain and the US, it will be very hard to mobilize the electorate to advance the interests of the less influential and less advantaged. Inequality has been growing steadily since 1980, and I see very little chance that this process will end any time soon.

Answer 4

Democracy lays the foundation of equal opportunity, but does not ensure it.

Some people have advantages in where and when the are living, family inheritance, native skills or intelligence and don't forget the most important element, the ability to supply a good or service other people are willing to pay for.

you can be bright or beautiful or talented, but you must get off the couch to realize wealth.

Democracy does not equal ambition, it merely eliminates most forms of gross inequality.

Answer 5

Because there is no such thing as the perfect magical answer for everything, Democracy is given more credit, or more responsibilities (Depending on how you look at it!) than it can handle.
We solve it with ethics,kind hearts, a good clean will and a little bit of common sense!

Answer 6

we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic! govt. has no right to demote, reduce wealth or income down to a level to the lowest comman denomanator. unless u want america to become a third world nation because everyone is poor and weak

Answer 7

Yep. working occasion: take a glance on the bankers' physique of ideas in direction of the taxpayer's bailout. They nonetheless commute around the rustic in company jets, and assume all and sundry else to get to Washington on the Greyhound. the very comparable those that saved their sorry, pinstriped a**es are using to to the protests in Toyotas. that's what you call "class."

Answer 8

Because democracy requires freedom and freedom and equality are polar opposites. People that are free will NEVER be equal and people that are equal will never be free.

Answer 9

Some people observe, take notes, learn and make it. Other people just observe and go on their way. some other pleople observe, take notes and live out of the other stupid people and that is the best answer to your question.

Answer 10

democracy does not provide economic equality.