Economics of Race and Gender - Essay Example

Economics of Race and Gender Humans are known to make distinctions. These are often based on differences such as traits and background. Perhaps the most malignant of these is when humans delineate others based on ethnicity, cultural background, race, color, social class and gender. This simple impulse has caused some of the most horrid acts, events and phenomenon in the past century. According to its simplest definition, racial discrimination refers to unequal treatment of persons or groups on the basis of their race or ethnicity (Pager and Shepherd 182). To understand in some detail how discourse may contribute to racism. We first need to summarize our theory of racism. Whereas racism is often reduced to racist ideology, it is here understood as a complex societal system of ethnically or "racially" based domination and its resulting inequality (van Dijk 145). In the movies, Freedom Writers, Crash and The Life and Times of Rosie the Riveter, this is apparent. In all three films discrimination based on race, and gender is a social condition. It is even bordering on the realm of norms and public policy. All these films show that discrimination based on race and gender to be a product of social institutions and social interactions. The failure of social integration, the absence of acceptance and the disdain against specific sectors of society results to this. Discrimination based on race and gender may be alleviated by a paradigm shift in terms of mind set. The whole system of discrimination is built on mere distorted ideas, and perceptions made manifest. If this can be corrected via education, re – orientation and cultural understanding it would cease. These false distinctions can be proven to be inconsequential and irrelevant social constructions. 2 Social and cultural diversity is a common in modern society. However, the underlying negative aspect of diversity is marginalization. Often this is because of discrimination and the failure to integrate into mainstream society. Social integration is the process of creating unity, inclusion and participation at all levels of society within the diversity of personal attributes so that every person is free to be the person she wants to be. Personal attributes include socio-economic class, age, gender - sexual preference and expression, political ideas, ethnicity and cultural traits, religion, citizenship (national origin) and geographical region of origin and so on (Cruz-Saco 2). The failure of social integration is often the start of discrimination. Society tends to neglect at the least and persecute at the most sectors that are treated as incompatible and distanced from society. The public policy is that they have lesser rights. Their share in the community’s wealth is deemed lesser. They are treated as an undesirable part of society. Social exclusion is produced by systematic and institutional discrimination and other forms of rejection that leave out persons or groups from the mainstream system of economic, social, and political relationships (Cruz-Saco 2). This means that they have limited or highly restricted access to rights, economic opportunities and socio – cultural growth. Their inability to participate in the political process discriminates against them as citizens. Their exclusion turns them into a marginalized sector. This is the underlying reason why ethnic minorities are often marginalized and disenfranchised. 4A Self Employment is a multi – faceted phenomenon. It not just a purely economic choice but has many underlying implications. Moreover, many factors or forces motivate or discourage individuals to engage in it. Reported motivations for choosing self-employment are highly multi-dimensional, revealing very considerable heterogeneity within the self- employed as a group. In very broad terms the different motivational dimensions can be summarized as relating to the existence of opportunity to start of business, the nature of an individual’s profession (if they have one), the desire for a particular lifestyle and need to balance family commitment with working life, and finally the opportunity afforded by having resources available to support a new business venture (Dawson, Henley and Latreille 26-27). Among the given forces that influence individuals to go into self employment some are notable. Opportunity to enter entrepreneurship, one’s personal background and devoting attention to one’s family are distinct factors. Given the current state of economic instability and the failure of most establishments to retain employees it is better to be self employed. There is a significantly lower risk in entering self – employment. On the other hand, like any undertaking there is always the risk of low or no return on capital. The absence of a compatible job often persuades people to go into self employment. When the current job market does not meet the background of an individual latter is driven to self – employment. This is closely tied to the fact that work is not just about income but also about self – actualization. If a person seeks both but the status quo cannot provide such then this result to being self – employed. Concern for family such wanting to spend more time with them, providing for them and the like motivate or discourage individuals from going into self – employment. When their current job yields insufficient income then it is an alternative. However, given the lack of certainty in it in relation to the need to provide for the family some do not opt for this. 4B Non – standard employment can be significantly advantageous or disadvantageous. It is a boon or a bane based on the current state of the status quo as well as the forces that interplay with it. Like most economic phenomena it can be beneficial or detrimental. The delineation is in terms of the circumstances it is assessed. Some respondents explicitly identified with the idea of a ‘trade off’ between the stability and security of employee status, on the one hand, and the greater autonomy of self-employment. Freelance workers and the self-employed contrasted the ‘control’ to which they had had to submit when they were employees, with the greater freedom but also the responsibility which being self-employed entailed (Burchell, Deakin and Honey 82). This establishes the fact that in non – standard employment trade off is considered as well as cost – benefit analysis. In contrast to standard employment, it allows a significant degree of control. It is not as stable as most jobs but entails lesser responsibility. Furthermore, it accords greater degree of freedom but does not yield a constant amount of income. 5 Affirmative action has been the foremost response to discrimination and societal disparity. In modern society, it is institutionalized. It is manifested in laws and public policy. However, does it command support from the politic as a whole? It has been argued that affirmative action benefits people of color who are already well-off or have middle class advantages, not the poor and working class people of color who most need it. A more careful analysis reveals that affirmative action programs have benefited substantial numbers of poor and working class people of color (Kivel 4). Despite this substantial contention in favor of affirmative action there are those who strongly oppose it. Many people are opposed to affirmative action because they believe it violates a sense of fairness (Rosado 4). However there are thousands of examples of situations where people of color, white women, and working class women and men of all races who were previously excluded from jobs or educational opportunities, or were denied opportunities once admitted, have gained access through affirmative action (Kivel 1). Some people object, however, that affirmative action has not really worked. Yes it has, and some of us minorities would not be where we are today if it were not for affirmative action. Yet, it could be more effective if it were not attacked at every step (Rosado 7). In modern society those who are opposed to affirmative action are those who are most vocal. They are not necessarily the majority society. If society does not favor it then why are there laws that embody it? The simple fact is that when affirmative action found its way into public policy it became, in effect, the will of the body politic. 9 Wages have been a significant part of human economies since the beginning of human civilization. Today it is a standard by which sectors in society are gauged economically. Wages are the most tangible means of assessing the economic well – being of societies. Inequality in this aspect is a modern day problem. One of the major puzzles about the behavior of the wage structure during the 1980s is why the return to observed skill (education and experience) rose while the labor force was becoming more educated and older. In terms of a conventional market-clearing model of the labor market, the observation of a rise in the relative price of skill in the face of an increase in its relative supply means that the relative demand function must have shifted to the right during the 1980s ( Bound and Johnson 11). This establishes that the wage disparity is a product of the actual capacities of those who receive them. This in relation to the current economic state plays a significant role in shaping wage levels. The state of the market also determines wages and inequalities of such. Wages are responsive to the cost of skills and services and thus are related the supply and demand for them. Another aspect that has to be noted but is often not considered is government policy. Governments ultimately have the power to set wages and control it to an extent. Disparity in wages is either a product of poor government controls or was allowed to occur. The fact is certain economic necessities are detrimental but essential. Lastly, another factor in wage inequality is the global economy. Since the advent of globalization and wages became more and more subject to the forces in the global economy. 12 The universal fact is that the family is the most basic unit of society. Over the course of human history, it has undergone significant shifts and changes. The family is extensively influenced by the forces of society. In the US context, the family as a unit has been in the state of flux for the past years. About fifty years ago, American law and policy largely centered on a single vision of the “ideal” family, comprised of a married man, who worked in the paid labor force, and his wife, who spent most of her time in their home caring for their biological children. Americans were strongly encouraged to conform to that norm. Other groupings of adults and children – even if they were considered as families in some quarters – were generally disfavored by the predominant social values (and by the public programs) of the time (Sugarman and Traynor 1). This is part of the framework of the family in society. Furthermore, this was considered the blueprint and standard of the family. However, like any communal construct it has been substantially changed. The interplay of modernization, evolution of values, government policies and social development has continued to remake this framework. Today, things are very different. Certainly, many Americans who self-identify with what is termed the “family values” crowd still idealize the stable nuclear family in which dad works for wages and mom stays at home and care for the children. On the other hand, many have challenged this narrow vision of who counts as a family, disputing the notion that this sort of family is morally superior or necessarily best for children and for society in general. Nowadays, there seems to be much more social acceptance of many other types of families (Sugarman and Traynor 3). This modern view is not an exclusive social occurrence. It is a product several factors. Government policy about the family has been evolving as seen in the allowance of taboo like same sex marriages. Society diversification has created a more flexible and open society. This kind does not hold on to rigid norms. The economics of the status quo has redistributed resources radically. This has reordered the family to better work in a modern economy. These conditions together have reshaped what it is to be a family and to be part of one. References Pager, Devah and Shepherd, Hana. “The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets.” March 17, 2008. Web. 12 Dec. 2010. http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/annualreview_discrimination.pdf>. van Dijk, Teun A.. “Discourse and Racism.” n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2010. < http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Discourse%20and%20racism.pdf>. Cruz-Saco , Maria Amparo. Promoting Social Integration: Economic, Social and Political Dimensions with a focus on Latin America. “Promoting Social Integration,” 8-10 July, 2008, Helsinki, Finland. Web. 11 Dec. 2010. . Dawson, Christopher, Henley, Andrew and Latreille, Paul. Why Do Individuals Choose Self-Employment?. Discussion Paper Series Discussion Paper No. 3974. 2009. Web 11 Dec. 2010. . Sugarman ,Stephen D. and Traynor . Roger J. “Who Counts as an American Family?” n. d. Web. 12 Dec. 2010. http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/sugarmans/Who%20Counts%20as%20an%20American%20Family%2042704%20Ono%20submitted%20version%20by%20Sugarman.pdf>. Bound, John and Johnson, George. What Are the Causes of Rising Wage Inequality in the United States?. FRBNY ECONOMIC POLICY REVIEW / JANUARY 1995. Web. 12 Dec. 2010. . Kivel, Paul. “Affirmative Action Works!.” 2001. www.paulkivel.com. Web. 11 Dec. 2010. < http://www.paulkivel.com/articles/affirmativeactionworks.pdf> Rosado, Caleb. Affirmative Action: A Time for Change?. Latinos Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, Fall 1997. Web. 11 Dec. 2010. < http://www.rosado.net/pdf/Affirmative_Action.pdf>. Burchell, Burchell, Deakin, Simon and Honey, Honey. “The Employment Status of Individuals in Non-standard Employment.” 1999. Web. 12 Dec. 2010. < http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file11628.pdf> Read More