Brainstorm
- The main point of the letter to the editor. The core aspect of society discussed in the letter.
The letter I have chosen to respond to concerns the topic of capitalism. The letter’s author argues that capitalism is the most efficient and successful economic system, giving people resources and profit in proportion to their hard work. From the man’s point of view, the capitalist society does not have imperfections or inconsistencies, instead putting the blame on the individuals.
- What social groups will be the target audience for the op-ed
The main group I will be targeting are the baby boomer generation and more older, conservative people in general, who are unable to recognize some of the primary systemic issues plaguing capitalist countries.
- What the target audience need to understand?
I want my audience to understand that capitalism, as many others, is an inherently flawed system. While notions of equal opportunity and ability can be inspiring, the majority of the people will be unable to achieve the success of the 1%. Many factors influence this trait, including the history of systematic discrimination of certain groups, the consolidation of wealth and the need of an underclass for a capitalist society to function. Instead of blaming people for their perceived inadequacies, more individuals should strive to correct the present problems of our society.
- What new concepts do you want your audience to understand? How will these concepts help them better understand the social problem addressed?
The core concepts I want to bring up are systematic injustice, meritocracy, social stratification, the working class and the 1%.
- How the argument sociologically will be back up?
I will support my arguments by bringing up the evidence of systemic injustices permeating the capitalist system, the ways in which it can be favorable to people of particular backgrounds. Furthermore, I will talk about the distribution of wealth among the populace, the likelihood of success in a competitive environment and the general trends of the current time. Including the lack of workplace mobility and the increasing economic issues the population faces.
- How the key concepts will be incorporated into the main points?
The terms I will be using are directly connected with the message I am trying to convey. By bringing up the systematic issues found in the capitalist landscape, the ways in which it differs from the idealistic perception of many, and how the poor people are denied an opportunity for a better life.
Letter Response
The author of the letter Michalis seems to be an avid supporter of capitalism as an economic system, citing it as inherently fair and meritocratic, capable of reasonably rewarding people for their effort. He admits that he does not understand the problem of the current population, and their inability to find financial success and stability in life. For the letter’s author, laziness is the main suspect for other people’s struggles in life. I find this outlook to be ignorant to the real state of capitalist society, lacking in retrospection, and deeply ignorant to other people’s trouble. It is important to note, however, that this outlook is rather common among certain demographics and can be found permeating older communities. Properly addressing the challenges and failures of a capitalist market economy, explaining the underlying reasons behind people’s inability to reach high positions as well as the most obvious emerging trends of the system is necessary to better educate people, as well as to help society develop in a more fruitful manner. In this response, I am planning on discussing the current wealth inequalities permeating capitalist systems, going into more detail to point out the existence of social stratification and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite minority. My main argument for this discussion is that capitalism is an inherently unequal system built upon relationships between groups with contrasting needs and goals. The need for an underclass that has to perform a variety of tasks for those above them by its existence denies equal opportunity to all members of society. By properly examining the structure and main failings of this system, we can collectively come to a better understanding of the surrounding world and improve the lives of more people.
The first rebuttal to the idea of people having equal opportunity would be the existence of bias and discrimination on a structural and historic level. Many members of particular demographics, especially people of color, women, and other minorities have been historically subjected to worse treatment than their majority counterparts (McNally). The impact of historic injustice is individual to each country, but in most cases, the native population and people of color have faced various types of discrimination. While the society of today has become much more tolerant, accepting, and inclusive to all kinds of people, that does not mean that the events of the past have fully ceased to affect society. A historic inability to occupy certain positions, unequal wealth distribution among demographics, and restrictions placed upon certain parts of society influence the average status of people of today. This effectively means that people that could be described as poor in previous generations are much more likely to either be poor today or have severely limited access to resources. The unequal distribution of wealth and privilege then makes it harder for people of specific backgrounds to succeed in life. The fact that some people are always at a disadvantage regardless of their efforts or personal qualities means that the capitalist society cannot be equally rewarding and fair to all its members.
A rebuttal to the earlier point could be made thinking that, regardless of a person’s background, they are able to find success if they work hard enough. This, however, is also untrue. The concept of meritocracy often appears when discussing capitalism and essentially means that each person is able to receive compensation in accordance with the amount of effort and hard work they produce. While the idea can be appealing on paper, it is far from the real state of events in the world. In capitalism, the systems of production and operation are mostly reliant on a large workforce being directed by the management and a leader or owner of some sort. The owner in this case possesses the means of production and the resources necessary for creating a good or a service, and their workers utilize these resources for a wage (Johnson). This inequality in opportunity creates a division between the classes of the worker and the bourgeoisie. The need for having a workforce with a restricted amount of access to the means of production and the need to produce profit creates an underclass that is inseparable from the system itself. Profitable production cannot be accomplished without employing workers that receive compensation lower than the price of their work, and do not have the ability for effective vertical mobility. The existence of the underclass is essential for the owner-worker relationship, therefore making people unable to receive compensation for their work that matches their efforts and passion.
The third argument that can be presented against the fairness of the capitalist system, is that hard work is increasingly unable to lead to promotions or better mobility for people. While it is generally believed by many people of older generations that moving up the corporate ladder and getting a promotion is just a matter of experience and hard work, recent investigations and research show that the notion is somewhat incorrect. The general trends of the past decade indicate that the vertical mobility of the population has decreased, meaning that people no longer get promotions or advance in their field, instead of occupying the same job for prolonged periods of time. Even the positions usually regarded as transitional jobs, such as fast-food workers, are becoming more permanent. The decline of the economy and the stratification of society is in large part to blame, as most of the higher positions and the majority of the world’s wealth is being used up by a small minority. For the economy, that means that fewer funds are in circulation, leading to the inability of many to earn a good living. The social mobility of people has significantly decreased over the years, and many are unable to be as successful in their careers as their predecessors.
In conclusion to this response, I would like to say that the current system under which the majority of developed countries operate has severe drawbacks that hold it back from being capable of helping many people, and instead earning profits only for a small minority. The late-stage capitalism and the existence of giant corporations, billionaires with an insurmountable amounts of money, and a wide margin of people that cannot make ends meet are inexcusable. While some have enough money and resources to last them multiple lifetimes over, others have to struggle each and every day just to make their lives less miserable. The difference between the two is rarely connected with hard work or skills, as most companies rely on their workers, and not on the leadership to create value. Those that have to earn a living each and every day are much more capable and hardworking than those sitting at the top seeing their investments multiply. The reasons behind the discrepancy between the two are rooted in discrimination, historic lack of opportunity, lack of support, and the social stratification of society.
Works Cited
McNally, David. Global Slump: The Economics and Politics of Crisis and Resistance. Oakland, CA: PM, 2011. Print.
Johnson, Allan G. “Forest and the Trees: Sociology as Life, Practice, and Promise”. 2014. Print.