Under most circumstances, public opinion would associate inequality with its negative connotation. Social and economic inequality, by its very nature, necessitates an unfairness between distinct groups of people. A variety of researchers, however, argue that this is a limited point of view that overlooks the positive consequences of stratification. Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy suggest that inequality is a necessary and advantageous phenomenon that benefits all members of a society. In support of their claims, the economists cite economic improvements in China and India, in addition to educational gains in the United States. To explain the recent stratification of the American society, Becker and Murphy introduce a concept that they refer …show more content…
This sociological viewpoint is rooted in the belief that, because various occupations represent different values to a society, the occupations deserve varying compensations, with stratification being the unavoidable result. Similarly, in Becker and Murrphy’s argument, they reference the fact that certain occupations require greater investments in human capital, and therefore, should offer larger returns on investment. Because of their similarities, many of the critiques of the Fundamentalist school of thought would apply to Becker and Murphy’s article as well. One of the most well-known critics of Fundamentalism was Melvin Tumin. Dr. Tumin opposed the formula used to determine the importance of a given occupation. A commonly referenced example is that of a school teacher and a lawyer. According to fundamentalists, the lawyer is paid four times more than a schoolteacher because they hold a greater importance to a society. However, it would be near impossible to have lawyers without middle school teachers to teach them basic concepts. This begs the question: do lawyers truly deserve their $139,880 median salary while middle school teachers receive only $59,800 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics). In applying this to Becker and Murphy’s argument, it would seem that jobs in …show more content…
However, I strongly disagree with them when they state that there is now greater access for any American to advance to higher education. I would accept that this is the case for a subset of Americans: those who are either wealthy, extremely talented, or have parents or guardians who are educated. Growing up in Overland Park, I experienced this trend first-hand. Long before graduation, students began to be asked by family, teachers, and friends which university they planned on attending in the coming fall. I would presume that at least 90% of my graduating class went on to pursue higher education, leaving those who forwent college to be viewed as unordinary. Personally, I am guilty of this; when my friend told me that he planned on attending Park Ranger Training School, I was shocked. In Overland Park the only logical option in the mind of most high school graduates is to attend college. In other parts of the Kansas City metropolitan area, however, this college-culture has never and will never exist. Becker and Murphy seem to suggest that everyone has an increased opportunity to attend college, but, for those in the lower class, the opportunities are still so slim that it is unlikely they will be able to obtain an education. Investing in one’s human capital is