Social Inequality In Australia

Social Stratification can be defined as “the study of whole societies, in comparative perspective, in an attempt to understand processes of social stability and change.” (Scott, Marshall, 2009:735). Nolan and Lenski (2004) stated that social organizations are a basic component of society; consequently, implying that societies are composed of different social classes that are defined by different roles, norms, ranks and values. Moreover, this assignment will Karl Marx’s theory of stratification and asses its usefulness in society today. Firstly, by briefly looking through Marx’s theory, secondly by looking at other theories of stratification:

Western women have traditionally been perceived as the inferior sex, or the domestic partner, subjected wholly to the private sphere, and stripped of legal rights and standing. Meanwhile, men are depicted as the breadwinner, the strong, masculine and dominant partner, who belongs primarily to the public sphere. These historic gender norms have been deeply imbedded within Australia’s social foundation, and although society has gradually shifted away from these roles, evidence suggests that this gender inequality still riddles the modern day workplace. Liberal feminist groups have embraced this issue, and have classified it as being a true barrier to achieving the ultimate gender equality goal. Consequently, these liberal feminists along

Social inequality is a problematic phenomenon that occurs all around the world and affects both the developed and developing nations. It is defined as “the unequal distribution of social, political and economic resources within a social collective” (van Krieken et al. 2013, p. 205). Inequality is closely connected with social stratification, a system of social hierarchy that positions individuals and groups into categories according to social variables such as class or ethnicity (van Krieken et al. 2013, p. 485). This stratification has a significant impact on the opportunity that an individual may have to move up the hierarchy of inequality (Gill 2017a).

Discussion of social inequality has been present in sociological works dating back as far as early 18th century in the works of Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. Centuries later, theoretical foundations of both Marx and Durkheim can be readily applied to social inequality in the context of present day Canada. Durkheim’s theory is founded in analyzing how societies function by focusing on the ideas of the division of labour, merit and functionalism. Marx on the other hand, views society as divided into social classes of bourgeoisie and proletariats, while stressing the importance the role of capital plays in society in relation to inequality. Both Marx and Durkheim’s theories of modern society can be used to critically discuss social inequality in Canada. However, this paper will demonstrate the strength of Marx’s theory when compared to that of Durkheim in terms of their applications to Canadian social inequality. Marx’s theory is stronger in application due to Marx’s view of society accounting for conflicts and frictions between classes, while Durkheim’s view is problematic in application to Canadian social inequality as it ignores inequalities such as gender and class, which produce conflicts that disrupt Durkheim’s idea of a social equilibrium in society.

Over the last two decades the Australian population has faced a number of economic instabilities that has seen the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ increase. To determine who the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ are an in-depth investigation will be performed examining the circumstances under which the gap can be manipulated. The economic wellbeing of individuals is largely determined by their command over economic resources (ABS, 2009). The wellbeing of individuals who are classified as ‘haves’ are usually people who are asset rich, contain bonds, shares and are fairly affluent. The wellbeing of individuals who are classified as ‘have nots’ are usually the working poor, who have little assets and little investments i.e. bonds. These

Analyse the economic and social costs and benefits of inequality in distribution of income in Australia.

First we must define what exactly income inequality really is and that is according to Definition of ‘Income Inequality’ (2015) said to be unequal income distributed to household or individual across the various participants in an economy. Income inequality is often presented as the percentage of income to a percentage of population. For example,

When the resources in a society are distributed unevenly it leads to social inequality. Often inequality is understood as being socio-economic and it is now closely associated with social inequality. “Social inequalities are differences in income, resources, power and status within and between societies. Such inequalities are maintained by those in powerful positions via institutions and social processes.” (Warwick-Booth, 2013 p.2)

Finally, age is another social inequality that is taking place in society. However, certain individuals in society has being restricted from certain opportunities based on their age. According to Nick Triggle from BBC News, he reported that thousands of older people are not getting their support from the state or private sector. However, according to the Age UK, they stated that 800,000 older people has being take off from the system and the figure is going to be increase in the future. Society has been unequal in relation to ageing population, the ministers are looking at making an increase in funding based on the ageing population of older people. However, they are looking at excluding older people whose savings are above £23,250. Beside

Fredrick Engels (1950) gives an example of the labourer’s exploitation with the worker selling their labour power for wages and the capitalist exploiting it, therefore undoubtedly dividing classes. Cited in Engels, (1950: p13):

This reveals that a relatively small proportion of households have high net worth and a large portion of households have low net worth, concluding with the simple statement that: The distribution of wealth is more unequal in Australia than the distribution of income.

Looking at this in an Australian context, there is a larger variation and fluctuation between class determinations compared to Karl Marx who believed social class was only determined by the factor of property (Henslin and Possami-Inesedy 2014). Analysing

Not only does income inequality appear in Indonesia, Adelaide is also experiencing inequality pay gaps. Statistics shows South Australia has quite high levels of inequality in wealth across Australia, with the ratio of 5.5. In Adelaide, household income is distributed to $878 per week. The level of income is considered high in South Australia compared to Jakarta, where Indonesians are earning as little as 233, 740 rupiah per month which is less than $24. Statistics agency data released information that 30 million Indonesians are classified as poor, whereas only 13.9% or 2.9 million Australians are living below the poverty

Economic inequality has been a long-debated issue within the social sciences. The origin of the most recent debate has roots in Karl Marx’s works during the 19th century. Since Marx, the equality of distribution has become a heated topic in a wide range of social science from economic to social and political. Marx saw the growing inequality and poor working conditions in the beginning of the 19th century as a never-ending process of infinite accumulation of capital. This literature subsided due to the improvement of working conditions

Traditionally Australians have believed in and conveyed the myth of Australia as a fair , egalitarian society without excess wealth or poverty, however we are definitely not a classless society. Australia's education system has been and remains one of the most unequally distributed social resources and could possibly be regarded as the main source of inequality in our society (Encel 1970; Anderson & Vervoorn 1983; as cited in Jamrozik, 2009). Now more than ever, Australia's education system is acting as a kind of 'sorting out' mechanism, allocating people to certain stations within