Please write an discussion about Econ class

Anonymous
timer Asked: Dec 17th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $35

Question description

Please write a discussion to talk about this question. You should read some reading material. I will attach reading material and discussion rubric. You can just follow them. Make sure you follow the instruction please. And discussion should be a couple paragraphs.

Question: Plato wrote that in a just society, the richest person in a community would earn no more than five times what the ordinary worker in their community made. Contemporary US society is far from Plato's ideal. According to the Census Bureau, the average American worker made $30,099 in 2016. The top 1% of workers made at least $285,000 in 2016. In contrast, the worldwide average is around $10,000 per person.

Is this fair? Are the salaries of people at the top the result of efficient, hard work, or is this the result of unchecked greed and power from elites? Is the disparity between average earnings in the US and rest of the world the result of these same forces?

Chapter 1 – View of Inequality and Poverty 1. Introduction • This chapter sets the tone and themes for the book. While the U.S. (which will be the main country that we’ll be looking at) is a rich country, there are substantial variations in the distribution of income and a large number of people who are classified as poor. • There are three competing explanations for the existence of poverty in the U.S.: 1. Flawed Character ("it's their own fault") 2. Restricted Opportunity (weak economy, poor schools, discrimination), and 3. Big Brother ("the government, as usual, screwed it up") • If we wish to reduce poverty, the appropriate policies will depend on which of the three explanations one views as the cause. A brief history of competing theories and policy is provided in the textbook; please do make an effort to go over that section. • A big part of the first chapter is devoted to conceptual issues of defining inequality and poverty. With inequality, for example, income needs to be distinguished from wealth. The time frame of measurement (transitory/short run or permanent/long run) is also relevant. The amount of public goods and services provided and the concept of social equality are also involved. Inequality thus turns out to be a complex subject that is difficult to operationalize. • When going over the text, keep an eye out for the italicized terms above. Try to find out what they mean. 2. Key chapter takeaway – The Three General Causes of Poverty • Before you even begin reading the textbook, ask yourselves "why are people poor?" Spend at least 10-15 minutes trying to think about why some people are poor while some others are rich. Try to jot down what you think could be some reasons behind poverty – perhaps it’s simply a matter of luck i.e. you’re born to a poor family? Perhaps you’re born to a medium-income family but you end up not doing well for yourself? Why could that be? Then read the text. • As briefly mentioned above Schiller presents three theories of poverty: Flawed Character, Restricted Opportunity and Big Brother. Who is to blame for poverty depends on which view we accept; respectively: the poor themselves are responsible (under the flawed character view), a deficient opportunity structure of our society is responsible (under restricted opportunity view), and the government is responsible for creating poverty (under the big brother view). • Similarly, the policy cures for poverty will reflect one's choice of cause. Historically, society's views have ebbed and flowed between the different theories as well as the extent of poverty. On the one hand, Herbert Hoover in 1929 said:" We in America are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before." And just 8 years later, Franklin D. Roosevelt noted: "But here is the challenge to our democracy. In this nation, I see tens of millions of its citizens - a substantial part of its whole population - who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life." 3. For more on “Flawed Character” • Writers such as Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research seem to suggest flawed character is more the cause of poverty than restricted opportunity. One of his articles was titled “The truth about poverty: bad choices, not a bad economy, are to blame.” You can check it out if you are interested or have the time. • Other things to keep in mind: o Political Persuasion Our view of the "correct" cause of poverty may correlate with our politics. The flawed character argument is popular with the Republicans (conservatives).Restricted opportunities are often a concern of Democrats (liberals). Big brother would be the cause highlighted by libertarians. For the purpose of this course, try not to let your political biases affect your reasoning. Try to treat the topics that we are going to be learning about somewhat dispassionately for objectivity’s sake. Also remember that these causes are not necessarily mutually exclusive. • Financial Well-Being Try to think of what contributes to one’s financial well-being. Income is certainly one item. And we are definitely going to talk a lot more about income in the subsequent chapters. However, wealth and social/public goods would be others. Debt and other obligations might also be listed as factors vital for one’s financial well-being. Therefore, keep on thinking about these other factors and what role they play in perpetuating/ameliorating poverty. Web Links 1. The Manhattan Institute is a Conservative think tank focusing on the flawed character and big brother hypotheses. https://www.manhattan-institute.org 2. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank with a wide number of reports and articles on poverty, inequality, and policy outcomes related to them. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think-tank that tends to lean more on the Big Brother hypothesis than Heritage. https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality https://www.cato.org/research/poverty-social-welfare 3. The Roosevelt Institute is a progressive think-tank that leans more to the Left. http://rooseveltinstitute.org/ 4. Child Poverty and other course topics are considered at the National Center for Children in Poverty. http://www.nccp.org/ 5. A Gallup Poll on how Americans view the importance of poverty compared to other issues. http://news.gallup.com/poll/207521/worry-hunger-homelessness-lower-income.aspx
Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner
Discussion Rubric Rubric: I will be grading on four things: (1) citation of the readings and outside sources, (2) whether or not the questions were addressed, (3) originality in response, (4) if they are responding to another student, how did they respond to the original response instead of talking past them (1) Students will be expected to properly cite both the weekly reading and an outside source. This source can be a book, news article, or even a personal experience. I want to see evidence that they've at least engaged with the reading on some level, not only that they've read it, but thought about how they could connect what they've learned with something else in their experience. 0 points for no sources, 1 Citing both in a superficial manner. They might mention a statistic, but don't explain its significance with relation to the question, 2 Citing both sources properly and using facts presented to build and defend their point. (2) Students will have to answer the questions fully. By this I mean, they must address each part of the question, and not just address part of it. 0 Talks past the original post, posting something that isn't relevant, 0.5 Gives a lazy or nonsubstantive answer. An example would be, "I agree/disagree" without defending their argument in any substantive manner. Makes assertions without backing them up 1 Makes substantive point that address the question but don't dig that deeply into the question, the premises behind it, or show interest in the material 2 Makes substantive, insightful points that show a deep understanding of the material, effort on the poster's point. Shows that the student engaged with the weekly reading. (3) I don't want students to just repeat each other. I want them to dig for unique answers to the question 0-1 Largely regurgitates statements made by others or the main reading. Doesn't show much independent thought 2 Brings in differing, nuanced perspective to material, that others may not have considered. (4) Response Students will have to respond to other students, and their responses will largely be graded on the above points, and they'll be expected to actually respond to other students and not just talk past them. Students will have to respond to two other posts. They can respond to the original post in a thread or to responses to that post. The grade will be the average of the two responses.
Discussion Rubric Rubric: I will be grading on four things: (1) citation of the readings and outside sources, (2) whether or not the questions were addressed, (3) originality in response, (4) if they are responding to another student, how did they respond to the original response instead of talking past them (1) Students will be expected to properly cite both the weekly reading and an outside source. This source can be a book, news article, or even a personal experience. I want to see evidence that they've at least engaged with the reading on some level, not only that they've read it, but thought about how they could connect what they've learned with something else in their experience. 0 points for no sources, 1 Citing both in a superficial manner. They might mention a statistic, but don't explain its significance with relation to the question, 2 Citing both sources properly and using facts presented to build and defend their point. (2) Students will have to answer the questions fully. By this I mean, they must address each part of the question, and not just address part of it. 0 Talks past the original post, posting something that isn't relevant, 0.5 Gives a lazy or nonsubstantive answer. An example would be, "I agree/disagree" without defending their argument in any substantive manner. Makes assertions without backing them up 1 Makes substantive point that address the question but don't dig that deeply into the question, the premises behind it, or show interest in the material 2 Makes substantive, insightful points that show a deep understanding of the material, effort on the poster's point. Shows that the student engaged with the weekly reading. (3) I don't want students to just repeat each other. I want them to dig for unique answers to the question 0-1 Largely regurgitates statements made by others or the main reading. Doesn't show much independent thought 2 Brings in differing, nuanced perspective to material, that others may not have considered. (4) Response Students will have to respond to other students, and their responses will largely be graded on the above points, and they'll be expected to actually respond to other students and not just talk past them. Students will have to respond to two other posts. They can respond to the original post in a thread or to responses to that post. The grade will be the average of the two responses.
Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner
Chapter 1 – View of Inequality and Poverty 1. Introduction • This chapter sets the tone and themes for the book. While the U.S. (which will be the main country that we’ll be looking at) is a rich country, there are substantial variations in the distribution of income and a large number of people who are classified as poor. • There are three competing explanations for the existence of poverty in the U.S.: 1. Flawed Character ("it's their own fault") 2. Restricted Opportunity (weak economy, poor schools, discrimination), and 3. Big Brother ("the government, as usual, screwed it up") • If we wish to reduce poverty, the appropriate policies will depend on which of the three explanations one views as the cause. A brief history of competing theories and policy is provided in the textbook; please do make an effort to go over that section. • A big part of the first chapter is devoted to conceptual issues of defining inequality and poverty. With inequality, for example, income needs to be distinguished from wealth. The time frame of measurement (transitory/short run or permanent/long run) is also relevant. The amount of public goods and services provided and the concept of social equality are also involved. Inequality thus turns out to be a complex subject that is difficult to operationalize. • When going over the text, keep an eye out for the italicized terms above. Try to find out what they mean. 2. Key chapter takeaway – The Three General Causes of Poverty • Before you even begin reading the textbook, ask yourselves "why are people poor?" Spend at least 10-15 minutes trying to think about why some people are poor while some others are rich. Try to jot down what you think could be some reasons behind poverty – perhaps it’s simply a matter of luck i.e. you’re born to a poor family? Perhaps you’re born to a medium-income family but you end up not doing well for yourself? Why could that be? Then read the text. • As briefly mentioned above Schiller presents three theories of poverty: Flawed Character, Restricted Opportunity and Big Brother. Who is to blame for poverty depends on which view we accept; respectively: the poor themselves are responsible (under the flawed character view), a deficient opportunity structure of our society is responsible (under restricted opportunity view), and the government is responsible for creating poverty (under the big brother view). • Similarly, the policy cures for poverty will reflect one's choice of cause. Historically, society's views have ebbed and flowed between the different theories as well as the extent of poverty. On the one hand, Herbert Hoover in 1929 said:" We in America are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before." And just 8 years later, Franklin D. Roosevelt noted: "But here is the challenge to our democracy. In this nation, I see tens of millions of its citizens - a substantial part of its whole population - who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life." 3. For more on “Flawed Character” • Writers such as Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research seem to suggest flawed character is more the cause of poverty than restricted opportunity. One of his articles was titled “The truth about poverty: bad choices, not a bad economy, are to blame.” You can check it out if you are interested or have the time. • Other things to keep in mind: o Political Persuasion Our view of the "correct" cause of poverty may correlate with our politics. The flawed character argument is popular with the Republicans (conservatives).Restricted opportunities are often a concern of Democrats (liberals). Big brother would be the cause highlighted by libertarians. For the purpose of this course, try not to let your political biases affect your reasoning. Try to treat the topics that we are going to be learning about somewhat dispassionately for objectivity’s sake. Also remember that these causes are not necessarily mutually exclusive. • Financial Well-Being Try to think of what contributes to one’s financial well-being. Income is certainly one item. And we are definitely going to talk a lot more about income in the subsequent chapters. However, wealth and social/public goods would be others. Debt and other obligations might also be listed as factors vital for one’s financial well-being. Therefore, keep on thinking about these other factors and what role they play in perpetuating/ameliorating poverty. Web Links 1. The Manhattan Institute is a Conservative think tank focusing on the flawed character and big brother hypotheses. https://www.manhattan-institute.org 2. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank with a wide number of reports and articles on poverty, inequality, and policy outcomes related to them. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think-tank that tends to lean more on the Big Brother hypothesis than Heritage. https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality https://www.cato.org/research/poverty-social-welfare 3. The Roosevelt Institute is a progressive think-tank that leans more to the Left. http://rooseveltinstitute.org/ 4. Child Poverty and other course topics are considered at the National Center for Children in Poverty. http://www.nccp.org/ 5. A Gallup Poll on how Americans view the importance of poverty compared to other issues. http://news.gallup.com/poll/207521/worry-hunger-homelessness-lower-income.aspx

Tutor Answer

henryprofessor
School: New York University

Attached.

Running head: POVERTY AND DISCRIMINATION

Poverty and Discrimination
Name
Institution

1

POVERTY AND DISCRIMINATION

2

Poverty and Discrimination
The analysis of the fairness in the society according to Plato is difficult as the gap
between the poor and the rich continues to widen. The assessment of the ratio of payment is
important as this helps in focusing on the economic factors that continue to widen the gap. There
is need to focus on the role of the private sector in widening the gap and this means there is focus
on the comparability of the elitist in the society and the effect that the gap has on the increasing
changes in the society. The fairness aspect as reviewed from the Plato experience is not evident
and this means there is need to focus on the roles that the labor participation plays in the
economy and the different factors that shape the demand and supply of labor.
The corporate culture that is created in the economy and especially in the private has
continued to widen the gap. In the private sector, the focus is on incentives that the employees
receive and this means the constant assessment of the metrics that increase the sustainability in
the changes in the environment (Schiller, 1972). The focus on the Enron case for example is an
example of the greed that exists in the private sector and the compensation unfairness that
continues to increase resulting to the widening of the gap. It is important to assess the rates of
poverty as this means there is adjustment of the structures in payment helping to focus on the
fairness that is expected in the economy and t...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Thanks for the help.

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors