Post a New Question | Current Questions | Live Experts | Download
Homework Help: Social Studies: World Issues: Poverty of Minorities
by Christopher Davis
Winner Take All Markets:
Justifiable from the Perspective of Poverty Stricken Minorities?
With poverty raging across the underbelly of America, the majority of its sufferers being minorities, is it possible to justify the increasing prevalence of winner take all markets in the States? Winner take all markets are the economic bouncers when it comes to poor minorities and yet their popularity is on the rise in America. With the growing gap between the rich and the poor, the rise of winner take all markets alongside the rising number of poor minorities is cause for serious alarm. Ehrenreich notices of a piece of the trend in her unofficial study of how low wage workers in America get by, or rather barely scrape enough money together to hover above poverty. Frank and Cook emphasize the alarming rise of winner take all markets, but do not recognize its greater impact on the growing populous of poor minorities. Hooks, as a member of the minority caste and someone who lived in poverty, highlights the festering problem of hiding behind pleasant definitions of impoverished minorities; he also realizes the culture of the poor minority is changing because of popular media images plastered over American society. Recognizing both the plight of the poor and the troubles of being a minority in America, Mantsios makes an important connection between the two. Only when all five author’s ideas and observations are placed under a global lens can the depth of the issue be grasped. America is in danger of losing an entire segment of its population to poverty and out of control winner take all markets.
Winner take all markets are high profile markets in which what is produced depends on "a small number of top performers." Competition is very fierce for the few spots available, thus the ones that get the spots tend to be the best and brightest at what they do, warranting the lucrative payment proffered them (Frank and Cook, 54). A mostly unknown "pool of contenders" fools many hopefuls into believing they can succeed at winning the prize when in fact they have nearly no chance; in addition the pools are so large that winning can be likened to the chances of winning the lottery (Frank and Cook 57). Competition is fierce and margins of victory are steadily shrinking. For instance an Olympic runner only wins by hundredths of a second, leading a pack of the world’s top 20 or so runners by mere seconds, yet the difference between winning and runner up means "millions of dollars in endorsements" as opposed to just "a place in the record books". People go to greater and more expensive lengths to achieve an advantage anyway they can because of the shrinking margins of victory. If everyone invests 3000 dollars in training, but one person cannot afford to do so then that person cannot compete in the market; however everyone who invested 3000 dollars is evenly matched. The only way to achieve that sought after advantage is to invest more. Everyone invests more, because everyone wants an edge, and so it goes with the price to play spiraling up faster and faster (Frank and Cook, 58). Among the participants in winner take all markets cannot be found the poverty stricken minorities in America.
The meaning of poverty has been long debated and disputed by officials and scholars, but it can be understood simply in terms of a standard of living. If someone chronically runs short of money despite competent management and is unable to cover the three basic needs of "shelter, food, and health service" without having to sacrifice one for the other then they are living in a state of poverty (Ehrenreich, 200). The number of people living in a state of or approaching that of poverty is increasing because of negative reforms in welfare and because of the steadily rising cost of shelter (Ehrenreich 196). The official definitions of poverty were never accurate in defining who was and who was not living in poverty and to this day the official definitions only serve to mask the truth of the problem and its spread (Mantsios 333). Poverty is a problem that feeds on itself as well as the fuel provided by the growing chasm between the rich and the poor. Once someone falls into poverty the cycle of bankruptcy cannot be readily broken without an intermediary stepping in to help break it or a stroke of extraordinary luck breaking it open. Because of poverties lofty definition many people who fall prey of poverty are not recognized as being poverty stricken so they are left to their own devices to find a way out without assistance, but rising out of poverty under their own power is virtually impossible because every cent they make goes toward the daily challenge of survival leaving nothing to invest, save, or put towards the re-accumulation of wealth (Ehrenreich 197). Not surprisingly, recent studies have shown the majority of poverties sufferers in the States to be minorities.
Minorities in America have been repressed for centuries and only in the past handful of decades have they been treated with any kind of equity (Conley 88). Minorities face a lower standard of living and shorter life expectancy than their majority counterparts, lower income and fewer opportunities for employment than their majority counterparts, and little if any class mobility (Conley 90). All of these issues, combined with the fact that women minorities also face sexism along with the racism, "greatly increase the chance" that a minority will slip into poverty in life practice and/or in definition. Where as the benefits of race or sex are "incremental", gaining one forward advantage for one attribute, the obstacles are "cumulative", gaining one obstacle for one unfavorable attribute, and two for the next one, and three for the next (Mantsios 347). The difficulties with being a minority always outweigh the benefits. In light of the massive offset to begin with how can it be any wonder that the majority of poverty-stricken Americans are minorities (Conley 89).
Poor and minority in America is becoming a death sentence for millions of people. The problems of being minorities are cumulative, so add in the problems of being impoverished and there is setup an engine of economic attrition. The difficulty of poverty comes from its ability to prevent the sufferer from repairing his situation on his own, but its power comes from the government’s reluctance to step in and help the sufferer better his condition (Mantsios 345). The difficulty of being a minority is a notable reduction in opportunities to better their standard of living, move through class barriers, and better their chances for extending their life expectancy through adequate health care. Being a minority more easily allows poverty to set in, but then being a minority also reduces the already scarce availability of help (Mantsios 337). Thanks to media and the bombardment of images of wealthy "self serving" life styles constantly beamed to the masses, people in poverty who receive these images no longer assist one another in rising out of poverty as studies once showed them to have done. They view it as acceptable to serve their own ends with aggressive single mindedness when a sense of communalism would better help them come up from the deep well of poverty (Conley 93). The fluidity and "revolving door of the workplace" only help to destroy the past sense of communalism by forcing every employee to look out for their job and their position and see every other face as competition in a kind of human capitalism (Ehrenreich 209). The disproportionate number of minorities in these fluid "labor job" slots has lead the strong sense of community that once bound minority family members, friends, and co-workers together, to its demise (Conley 90). The minority poor stay poor because they have reduced access to what little help there is available to them, because they no longer pool their resources and help one another, and because poverty cannot be beaten without assistance, assistance that does not come because poverty as a way of life is not poverty as it is defined (Hooks 170).
Being poor and minority in America is not an easy thing to deal with, so add in the fact that a growing fraction of America’s economy is becoming winner-take-all-markets and the problem becomes clearer. The poor minorities, already disadvantaged in so many ways are now faced with a market system that naturally favors the privileged, the wealthy, and those with access to the opportunities afforded in the main only to the majority. Winner take all markets destroy any chance of someone ridden by poverty to succeed. Let the markets price rise as competitors vie for position by any means necessary and quickly those minorities still able to participate on grounds of talent, ability, and intelligence are eliminated because they cannot afford to compete with more wealthy opponents. Minorities in the throes of poverty are increasing in number and are simultaneously being locked out of a growing portion of America’s markets because the markets are becoming winner take all markets.
Winner take all markets cannot be justified from the point of view of the poverty stricken minority. Winner take all markets encourage all kinds of fiscal waste and racism and are brushing people who may be just as, if not more, naturally skilled than the markets winners aside on the basis of their economic situation and class. The market benefits from the participation of these poor minorities by inflating the value of what it is to be won, though three-quarters may have no chance of winning to begin with, but the minorities do not at all benefit from participating in the market. Participation for the poverty ridden means investing money that truly needs to be committed elsewhere and sacrificing time and energy that they cannot afford to lose on something as futile as winner take all markets. Of course there are the exceptions that do succeed in the winner take all market, but because of the prevalent imagery of the way people are supposed to live once they make it big few victors turn around and assist their poverty stricken minority brethren in their struggle to rise. There is little, if any, trickle down effect. Poverty stricken minorities do not make significant gains in participating in the winner take all market and only further frustrate their financial problems in attempting to do so; the market, however, does benefit from the participation of the poor and minority contender, making the relationship between the market and the poor minority a purely parasitic one. Winner take all markets cannot be justified from the perspective of the poverty stricken minority and if it continues to prevail as a viable market in the States, while the numbers of impoverished minorities continue to grow, an entire segment of America’s talented, able, and contributing population will be locked out of the economy with no way back in; a huge loss to the nation and an inexcusable waste of human lives.
Homework Help: Social Studies: World Issues
For Further Reading
|
