You need more money; you need a living wage. This problem plagues people everywhere. there is a huge difference between living wage and minimum wage. The question is not should we raise minimum wages t’s when we will raise minimum wage. But some people believe that the minimum wage is fine.
In 1776, the Declaration of Independence, in founding America, laid the foundation of the American Dream with the principles of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Jefferson 77). Jefferson believed that life should be better and richer for every man. He did not, however, necessarily mean that money is needed for life to be “richer.” As the American economy, society and culture have advanced, the interpretation of the American Dream has changed drastically. Nowadays, the American Dream values money and materialism over happiness. While material success is still a part that defines the dream, the most important foundation of the dream lies in self-satisfaction.
Both of these stories are rags to riches, where they get wealthy through minimal dedication. This is a major theme in both works, which reinforces the notion that the dream in the 1920s was more focused around the idea of becoming exorbitantly wealthy rather than working hard to be better off financially than your parents. The vast wealth desired in this generation was something that made people work harder, because everybody thought they could become wealthy. This motivation kept the American Dream alive, along with any people achieving this dream, and helped people to believe that they were meant for success. These people knew that hard work may allow them to be the best they could be, and even amass great wealth during the process, and if they didn’t become very successful that it was very possible that their children could.
Although the term “living wage” is not clearly defined by advocates, it is loosely a wage sufficient to satisfy one’s basic needs including housing, education, food, and healthcare. The main arguments for this living wage are that it is our moral duty to stop the exploitation of workers by their employers who can force them to work long hours in horrible conditions for little pay, and that society will reap benefits if the poor are better able to take care of themselves due to their higher wages. The arguments against (increasing) the minimum wage are that as things get more expensive we demand less
Carnegie, Conwell, and Alger Advocates of Wealth for All During the late nineteenth century, a form of Social Darwinism emerged called the Gospel of Wealth also known as the Success Gospel. Social Darwinism is “Herbert Spencer’s adaptation of Charles Darwin’s concepts of natural selection and “survival of the fittest” as it applies to human society” (Nash p. 417). Social Darwinists believed that the social order was the product of the natural selection of the individuals that were best suited for the existing living conditions. These individuals were white, Anglo-Saxon, wealthy men. This theory, Social Darwinism, was applied to the monopolistic efforts of businessmen as John D. Rockefeller, Jr. so eloquently stated: “The growth of a large business is merely the survival of the fittest” (Nash p. 417).
Minimum Wage Low-skilled workers are steadily pressing to raise the minimum wage, but this would be a disastrous idea. There are many people giving input on why the pay should be raised and saying they cannot live on such a low wage, but the minimum wage is not for someone 's career, it is for people with low skills to get eased into the workforce like teenagers. They do not realize how detrimental a hike in the minimum wage would be on them in the long haul. The people need to be informed on what they are asking for before they get an even worse outcome than before. The people who make minimum wage very clearly express their theory that higher pay will benefit them and show many valid points on why it should be increased.
Social Darwinism and the Gilded Age The concept of Social Darwinism and the Gilded Age period are interrelated because they determine the same time in the history of the United States. At the end of XIX century, the great popularity acquired the theory of Charles Darwin's natural selection. This theory justified social inequality by "survival of the fittest". The ideas of social Darwinism were combined with the notions of a free market and Laissez-faire policy. Although the theory of social Darwinism was not accepted in America by everybody, it became hugely popular.
Without a doubt, industrialization was one of the biggest factors in how the United States developed. It gave us the means of mass production, better transportation, and eventually the consumerist society that the United States is today. Industrialization did drastically change American society, but did it change America for the better? Did it do more good than bad? While industrialization did lead to multiple social and economic problems, the advantages significantly outweigh the disadvantages.
Social Darwinism is all about the survival of the fittest. The ideas of Social Darwinism were all about maximum working hours and that wealth would go to the people who were most capable of creating it. I think the ideas of Social Darwinism influence foreign policy in the late 1800s and early 1900s by making the U.S. think that they were better than everywhere else in the world. It helped people believe that because of the United States development of cities and our influence in the machine age that we were better and stronger than the rest of the world. I also think that Social Darwinism affected foreign policy in believing that because the U.S. was an “exceptional nation” that it could control other places and other people groups.
This is not only restricting the poor to the lower class, but is simply not true. It is easy to see that, “with increasing education, people are rearranging their ideas about what’s important and about what they want from life (Shaw, 172).” Therefore, restricting the poor to a post-secondary education not only limits their understanding of the world around them, but limits their quality of
Low income families should not be receiving EBT because there are people who are in worse situations than them who deserve the EBT but cannot receive them while they haves jobs which at least give them money to support their family. If people do receive EBT then they would be abusing the system and reforms need to be made and we intend to regulate the increase on the wealthy and the way it would be decided is by searching their background in government help and decided whether they need it or not and it will go on by then. Those that need EBT are not allowed to receive them while, those that do not need them get to have it and benefit from them as shown in the EBT graphs. There are families out there who continue to have children knowing they do not have enough money to support their family but rely on the government thinking they are willing to help them out. Although, these families would take full advantage of EBT and housing when all they should do is stop having more children until they can support themselves without having anyone assist them or government provided aid.
With that they also add in ages that you are allowed to work for minimum wage, and what age you 're allowed to work the spot that you want or desire. To me where it is now is where it needs to stay because if it goes up anymore it could be a disaster and we want to be lower that way the less skilled can get a job easier and allow their to be more jobs available that way we can keep the employment rate up. There are a lot of things that company owners or bosses are going to do if the minimum wage is to go up. The biggest thing already happening and that will get worse is people