Economic Inequality Within The Global Economy - 801 Words

Economic inequality can be defined by the unequal access to economic resources, in the form of opportunities, wealth, capital, land, etc., which determine the individual’s or the group’s level of power. Generally speaking, individuals and groups with high access to resources have high levels of vertical and horizontal power, which in it turn generate more access to resources and power. The unequal access to economic resources is institutionalized within a society. Thus, economic inequality has far reaching effects and manifestations in other social and political institutions. In addition, with increasing role of global economy on national economies, and the increasing inequality in the global market, which is reflecting on increasing inequality in it turn increases inequality within nations. Thus, the interest among political economists has increased in an effort to understand stratification and to create policies which aim to elevate economic inequality globally and na tionally. I will argue that the capitalist economic system is inherently unequal. Farther more, it thrives on creating highly level of economic inequality, where resources and capital is concentrated in the hands of the economic elite, while the rest of the population service to provide cheap labor (specialized on non-specialized) which increase economic, social, and political inequality in a society. For that reason, I don’t believe that economic policies can end inequality globally or national (short fromShow MoreRelatedGlobalization Is Not A New Concept1465 Words   |  6 PagesIntroduction: In this rapidly changing world Globalization has become the way to describe changes in international economy and in world politics. Globalization is not a new concept. After world war II powerful countries tried to capture free market of developed and underdeveloped countries. That’s how that globalization starts. David Bigman says in his book called â€Å"Globalization and the Least Developed Countries: Potentials and Pitfalls† that Globalization has become one of the most emotional wordRead MoreImpact Of Trade Liberalization On African Countries Essay1627 Words   |  7 PagesThe scholarship examining the extent at which trade liberalization (henceforth refers to as economic globalization) impacts poverty levels is limited. This essay examines the relationships between economic globalization and poverty levels in African countries. For instance, a 2006 UNDP report illustrates that just 7.2 percent of Bayelsa and Rivers State (Nigeria) residents were poor in 1980, but in 2004, the poverty index figures rose exponentially to 44.3 percent; Nigeria’s national rural povertyRead MoreAnalysis Of Walzer, Pogge, And Sachs Approach On Global Economic And Social Justice Essay1317 Words   |  6 Pagesand Sachs approach on global economic and social justice In our modern age, the introduction of a global economy has led to a varying degree of achievements ranging from technological advances, higher life expectancies, and even the introduction of new world powers. Positive advances, they continue to reconstruct our world into an increasingly more connected and developed system of nations. However, this economic advancement is not equally distributed as continents’ economies, such as Africa’s, â€Å"haveRead MoreEssay about Marxs Theory of Alienation1087 Words   |  5 PagesMarxs theory of alienation has to do with the separation of things that logically belong together. According to Marx, alienation is a universal result of capitalism. Marxs theory of alienation is based upon his observation that, within the capitalist mode of production, workers consistently lose determination of their lives and fates by being deprived of the right to envision themselves as the administrator of their actions. Workers become autonomou s, self-realized people, but are lead and divertedRead MoreDependency Theory And Globalization Theory866 Words   |  4 Pagesrequirements for economic progress. However, they cant think beyond the State as the primary agent for economic development. They also consider links with multinational corporations as detrimental- This dependence precisely prevents developing countries from creating better institutions and infrastructure needed for a full transition to become developed nations. On the other hand, while the aim of the globalization theory is to transform state or regional markets into one and only global market, it hasRead MoreGlobal Inequality And Its Impact On The World s Population1429 Words   |  6 PagesThe world is undergoing a highly volatile atmosphere, both socially and politically. What is at the forefront of this volatility? Global inequality. For many decades, groups of the world’s population, particularly in the poorest areas, are continuing to get squeezed by the weight by the radically uneven distribution of income. When this problem extends to globalization, it is heavily ambiguous in terms of its long-term implications, socially and politically as well. When one explores the fascinatingRead MoreWe Can Not Succeed When Half Of Us Are Held Back879 Words   |  4 Pagesthe term globalization is recently used in â€Å"the New Economy† to study variations in world politics and economies, it has a broad interpretation. The most common meaning define Globalization as the tendency to reach a world dimension or sur pass national borders. In either case, the globalization has evolved thought the last 50 years and it has positives and negatives effects reflected on economy, environment and human rights. A Globalized Economy opens frontiers and generates free competition, sometimesRead MoreGlobalization and the Nation State Essay1633 Words   |  7 Pagesof the Nation-State and Issues of Equality Economic growth in globalization is often due to rapid technological advancements and changes in the gathering of information and communications. Globalization has always existed but todays globalization has been a much more rapid and intense process than in the past. The question here is whether todays globalization weakens the nation state and whether or not it undermines national control over the economy. We are trying to determine whether or not globalizationRead MoreGlobalization Has Severely Reduced The Barriers That Exist Between Countries1624 Words   |  7 Pagescreated an economic divide between countries and facilitated inequality throughout the globe. Global inequality refers to the disparity in wealth between countries, which creates an array of problems for low income countries; global inequality can be perceived from a World Systems Theory, which asserts inequality stems from countries exploiting one another, or from a Modernization Theory, which articulates low incom e countries need to adapt to modern values and institutions to escape inequality. GlobalRead MoreThe North American Free Trade Agreement897 Words   |  4 PagesDeveloping countries tend to be located in the global south wile developed countries are located in the global north. In the 1980s neoliberalism took full swing and focused on an open economic market, and the creation of institutions. It created the Bretton Woods institutions in order to spread American values and promote economic growth through privatization of state owned enterprises. â€Å"The last 25 years has seen the most rapid, and most broad-based, growth in developing countries, ever† (Dervis

Civil Unions and Same Sex Couples free essay sample

Another benefit that is denied to same-sex couples is the right to Social Security benefits upon the death of a spouse. Traditionally, the Social Security benefits go to the surviving spouse, but in same-sex unions, the benefits simply stop. Similar to Social Security benefits are employee benefits, which are provided to the partners of traditional unions, but denied to same-sex couples. In 2009, the federal government presented an act to the floor of Congress that would provide employee benefits to the spouses of same-sex unions employed by the government. Another point of contention is the right to adoption, a right that is denied to same-sex couples. The stability of same-sex relationships has also been called into question by opponents. One benefit that is often overlooked due to the fact that it does not pertain to same-sex couples is the benefit to the economy of same-sex unions through the accumulation of disposable income. Civil Unions in Arizona for Same Sex Couples Many people are confused on the differences between a civil union and marriage. The difference is the involvement of religion. Marriage is the traditional school of thought, where a man and a woman go through a ceremony in a church or other religious structure, where the ceremony is conducted by an ordained representative of the religion in question. Involved in the ceremony is the completion and signing of a marriage certificate, an official government document that goes on record with the state that allows for the distribution of any and all legal benefits as spelled out by law and tradition. A civil union, however, is devoid of the religious connotations f marriage, meaning no religious ceremony, no religious representative, and no church. Civil unions are conducted in a court room or other non-religious location by judge, or more commonly, a Justice of the Peace. During the non-religious ceremony of a civil union, a marriage certificate is completed by the couple. Most religious institutions deny a marriage ceremony to same-sex couples, and the majority of laws do not make allowances for same-sex couple to have a civil union. The focus of this paper is on civil unions for same-sex couples and what this entails. Several other states have chosen to go the route of civil unions for same sex couples over marriage. There are numerous reasons that this is necessary. One of the biggest arguments of people against same sex marriage is that it tries to redefine what marriage is. By giving same sex couples the title of civil union, it neutralizes this argument while giving the exact same benefits. Civil unions can also be viewed as a stepping stone towards marriage. By legally recognizing the relationship, it opens the door for acceptance in the general population (Sadler, 2008). Another argument is that same sex couples cannot provide the same kind of stable relationship that can come from traditional marriages. One state that has been able to provide ample information about the results of civil unions is Vermont. In 2000, civil unions were legally recognized under Vermont state law (Elder, Rothblum, amp; Solomon, 2010). This gave way to the ability to conduct studies on the effect of same sex couples being able to union. By following several gay and lesbian couples that undertook these unions, we can see that over several years few differences arose. One study followed dozens of both male and female same-sex couples that received civil unions shortly after the law went into effect in Vermont. These couples were then compared to a number of same-sex couples not in civil unions and a number of heterosexual married couples. The test was taken three years after the beginning of the Vermont state law and discovered many surprising findings. One shocking result refuted a long held stereotype that gay men are only capable of flings, or short relationships. The result of these tests showed that gay men in longer relationships were less likely to have separated at the 3 year mark than women in this situation. Another shocking result of this study was that same-sex couples where not only capable of maintaining monogamous relationships, they can even report higher relationship quality. â€Å"Compared with heterosexual married participants, both types of same-sex couples reported greater relationship quality, compatibility, and intimacy and lower levels of conflict. Longitudinal predictors of relationship quality at Time 2 included less conflict, greater level of outness, and a shorter relationship length for men in same-sex relationships and included less conflict and more frequent sex for women in same-sex relationships at Time 1† (Balsam, beauchaine, rothblum, amp; Solomon, 2008). What needs to happen for civil unions is a change in the understanding of what it means to be married. What was done to the word queer, to make it represent relationships based on love, rather than orientation, needs to be applied to the term civil union. Many in the â€Å"queer community† see a fundamental flaw with what marriage is. They believe it portrays feelings of ownership and possession over one’s partner. Many believe that gay marriage is only accepted because it changes what gay people are. It assumes that they are ready to conform and be a â€Å"normal† couple. The article â€Å"Queer Kids of Queer Parents Against Gay Marriage! † proposes that this idea of gay marriage exists only to put scared conservatives at ease. The kids in this article argue that marriage was created as a goal for gay couples to get them to settle down. Once married, these couples will buy houses and try to raise children and conform to what is considered proper behavior. (queerkidssaynomarriage, 2009) Civil unions could be a new kind of marriage that provides the same legal benefits but is something more meaningful all together. One such version of this idea comes from â€Å"The Case for Civil Unions for All Couples. † This article by Alan Dershowitz, proposes that civil unions be required for all couples. Whether or not a person is a same sex couple they would register for a civil union with your state and accept the â€Å"rights and responsibilities† associated. Marriage would still exist, but only as an option for those inclined. This would separate the religious institution of marriage from the state recognition of being a couple. Marriage would remain a sacrament as ordained by the Bible and couples that felt marriage was unnecessary would not be pressured into the title (Dershowitz, 2010). Same sex couples are able to raise children just as well as heterosexual couples. Children in foster homes looking to get adopted into a family simply want to live a normal life. Adopting them can transform their lives around. Not allowing same-sex couples to adopt children is a mistake. Adoption homes are already overcrowded and not allowing someone who wants to raise an individual that opportunity is just wrong. Only four states allow same-sex couples to adopt children. These states are Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California. Yet, because it is illegal to marry a lot of couples have a very hard time adopting children. (Belge, 2010). â€Å"Scientific studies have shown that children who grow up in one or two-parent gay or lesbian households fare just as well emotionally and socially as children whose parents are heterosexual. Studies have shown that children are more influenced by their interactions with their parents, than by their sexual orientation. † (Belge, 2010). â€Å"An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent (in the United States). † (Craft, 2009). A long-time friend of a member of our group was raised by lesbian parents and he could not be more grateful for them. He was adopted by one of them so only one mom is considered his â€Å"legal† parent, but he and his two sisters consider both to be their moms, They their parents and love them very much, and could not imagine any other life. When a same-sex couple uses artificial insemination to give birth to a child, only one care giver is considered to be the legal guardian. If same-sex couples were able to adopt children, then both partners would be considered legal guardians and if anything were to happen to either of the parents, the other would be able to take full custody. (Belge, 2010). Currently the general way for same-sex couples to adopt is for one partner to do the adoption, and once the child is in custody of the adopted parent, the other partner applies to be a second parent or co-parent. This method is the most common because it has been granted by the courts in twenty-one states. (Craft, 2009). The National Adoption Center, whose motto is â€Å"There are no unwanted children, just unfound families† Encourage LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender) community members to adopt. They believe that all prospective adoptive parents should be given the opportunity to raise and nurture a child. (Vogel, 2010). The National Adoption Center has also started a program encouraging LGBT members to apply for adoption. Funded by the Wachovia Foundation, the program wants to expand the amount of potential permanent families in the LGBT community and develop services for prospective families. (Vogel, 2010). If the National Adoption Center encourages same-sex couples to apply for adoption, then It is obvious that they make suitable guardians. If same-sex couples were allowed to adopt children, foster children would be placed in more loving family homes. All in all, same- sex couples are denied some 1,138 federal rights. (Friedrichs, 2010) In addition to the issue of adoption that same-sex couples face. There are numerous rights in medical emergency situations that same-sex couples do not receive. One of these rights is, the right to make decisions on the partners behalf. In this situation, because a gay man or lesbian woman’s partner is not recognized as a full spouse, the rights to make these decisions go to the next of kin. (Rights and Protections, 2010) This can result in someone with a distant relationship making life-critical decisions in a medical emergency. In addition to the ability to make decisions, same-sex couples do not have the same visitation rights either. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) couples do not in fact have any legal right to visitation and can therefore be denied entrance to the room. . (Friedrichs, 2010) Medical rights are not the only rights denied to same-sex couples. There are also numerous other benefits heterosexual couples enjoy that same-sex couples do not. Same-sex couples do not have the same social security rights as others. Under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996, marriage is defined as a legal union between one man and one woman. Defense of Marriage Act, 2010) As a result of DOMA, same-sex couples are denied many federal rights because they do not meet these criteria. For example, when a married person’s spouse passes away they are entitled to the social security pension of their spouse. (McGough, 2010) A same-sex couple does not receive this benefit and the social security pension is simply terminated. United States Representative â€Å"Linda Sanchez† is proposing that the soc ial security benefits received by heterosexual married couples be extended to members of same-sex partnerships as well. McGough, 2010) This could be a substantial step in the right direction for same-sex couples around the country. With the passing of this bill, these couples could be one step closer to receiving the benefits and equality that they strive for on a daily basis. However, with the current economic position of the United States, it is unlikely that such a bill will in fact pass. This would mean more money being paid out by the United States government for Social Security, a system that is already shaky and its future uncertain. Work related benefits are also a strong dividing line between the rights that heterosexual couples receive and the rights that same-sex couples receive. The military is also a battleground for gay rights. With the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell laws passed in the nineties, openly gay, lesbian, or transgender individuals have not been able to serve in the United States Military. (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, 2010) DADT, as it is known, states that members of the military do not disclose their sexual orientation to other members of the military. If a person is open about their sexuality they are forbidden from serving. This has sparked a lot of debate over the effectiveness of the law and its effect on the gay community and the military itself. Recent court hearings and polls regarding the subject show improvement for the gay community on the issue. In 2010, a federal judge declared that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was unconstitutional and that the armed services need to suspend the law immediately. However, the injunction was stayed meaning that DADT continued. Recently, a poll conducted by CNN determined that 78% of Americans support repealing DADT. This marks a huge win for LGBT members as there is now little credible defense of the law. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell supports the belief that gay people are somehow different on a human basis. Since sexuality has nothing to do with a soldier’s effectiveness in the field, the law is discriminating against gay, lesbian, and transgender people. As a result, the gay community is hurt by this rule set forth by the United States military. Not only does it prevent members of our country that want to serve in the military from serving, it also sets back gays on all fronts. If LGBT people were permitted to serve openly in the U. S. military it would be a huge step forward for the community and ultimately begin to reshape the country’s perception of what is â€Å"normal†. With this victory, LGBT people would be closer to realizing greater goals of Civil Unions and total integration with the United States public. Providing benefits to employee’s partners has long been a practice of many businesses and government institutions. Unfortunately, homosexual partners do not receive this right and are denied many of the work-related benefits that heterosexual couples take for granted. While many advocates of same-sex couple’s rights would argue that this is a basic right for workers, a large issue is the cost of implementing such a plan. In 2009 the Domestic Partnership and Obligations Act was brought to the floor. This act would provide health insurance, survivor annuities, compensation for work-related injuries, and travel and relocation for partners of same-sex federal workers. (Ballenstedt, 2010) To implement this plan for government employees alone would cost almost $900 million over the next ten years. Extending Federal Benefits, 2009) Couple this with the already high amounts of spending of the United States government and the fact that same-sex benefits are such a controversial subject and there is a lot going against this act. A sometimes unrecognized benefit of the legalization of civil unions in Arizona is the benefit to the economy. As we all know, the current economy is not as strong as it once was. Currently homosexual couples are taxed as sin gle people even if they are in a civil union. According to MSN (Microsoft Network), 58% of all couples allowed to file jointly saved an average of $1300. 0 dollars a year (Weston). GALLUP poll states, 10% of the Arizona population is gay or lesbian. This was taken with a 95% confidence interval +- 5% (Robison). If we take the low end, 5% of 6,595,778 people, times the 58% who saved money by having joint filing rights and times it by $1300. 00, it is close (30 million off) to a whopping 5 billion dollars! By doing the math, there is a huge benefit to the economy if homosexuals couples can civil union since this would put money back in the pockets of gays and lesbians who could spend this money at local retail stores. Also, the tax loss to the government would not be significant because money would still be generated through sales taxes. This new spending would create more jobs in Arizona and an overall better standard of living. This would benefit the business as well as the people filing jointly. One example is with the current economic financial crisis and the current state of the economy. The $1300. 00 dollars could be the difference between foreclosing on homes as well as being able to afford other basic needs such as food and water. There is a value added here that cannot be justified in pure numbers and that is he self-confidence this will give homosexual people. They will be able to feel that their government is taxing them fairly and not penalizing them for being gay or lesbian. It will also help support the principles to which our country was founded upon which is equal rights for all. The most important social benefit of the legalization of civil unions is that it will increase toleranc e and understanding among others especially those who are younger. It will also pave the way for gay marriage and allow a starting ground for politicians to get behind. Currently there are no laws regarding decimation against gays. As Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), only prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This means it is currently completely legal to refuse someone a job based solely on the fact that they are lesbian or gay. Having a bill like this become a law will make it easier to amend the current laws we have based on antidiscrimination. This will also add protection for homosexuals couples. It will also allow for less teasing and harassment in schools. When a law is passed that permits homosexual civil unions more lesbian and gay couples will come out of the wood work and use this option to get recognized by the great state of Arizona. This will make the public face of homosexuals more common and will make the child of two same sex parents less likely to be teased at school or anywhere else, as it would not be uncommon anymore. It would also contribute to the above point of helping the economy as it would prevent discrimination in the work place. Due to current discrimination, homosexuals are unable to get jobs based on their sexual preference which prevents them from contributing to the workforce and therefore generate spendable income. Conclusion Same-sex couples should not be denied the same rights that are afforded to traditional couples like rights that can have emotional consequences, such as being allowed visitation in a hospital or to make critical decisions in event of a medical emergency. The foster care system is currently overloaded with un-adopted children, because there aren’t enough families to adopt.