Australian Social Class Essays

Australian Social Class Essays Australian Social Class Paper Australian Social Class Paper Life chances include access to resources such as lath, education, occupation, housing and health. An individuals opportunities to access such resources vary according to social classes. To illustrate the extent to which a persons social class impacts on his or her life chances in Australia, this paper will begin with an examination of social class, including the major theories behind the concept of class. Life chances will also be defined, as will inequality and social mobility within Australia. Finally, evidence on how social class (particularly socio-economic status) Impacts life chances will be considered. Social class can be described as the hierarchical grouping of Individuals based on their economic position. While Australia is often described as an egalitarian society that is free of class barriers, Holmes et al argues that The rhetoric of equality becomes incomprehensible when basic measurements of inequality are looked at in any detail (Holmes, Hughes, Julian 2006 p. 91). According to data gathered by the United Nations Development Program, Australia is the worlds fifth-most unequal developed nation. Between the mid sasss and mid sasss, incomes of the top 20% of earners grew four times faster than that of the bottom 20%. Mishmash 2009, The Age 16 Gauge 2009). A study by Andrew Leigh revealed that in the early 1 asss, a CEO In a top 50 company earned 27 times more than the national average; only a decade later it was 98 times more. While these figures represent significant inequality wealth Australia, Elegies study also revealed that the Inequality gap In accumulated wealth Is twice as wide as it is in take home pay (Mishmash 2009, The Age 1 6 Gauge 2009). The existence of class within Australia can be explained from various theoretical perspectives, most of which are based on the class theories of Marx and Weber. Marx identified a two-class model, including an upper / ruling class that own the means of production and a working class that provide the labor for the ruling class. Weber expanded on Mars theory with the addition of two middle classes and also identified other indicators of class from within the social order that are more transparent, such as status groups. ASPI defines status as a system in which people are ranked on the basis of the amount of honor, prestige or esteem they receive (ASPI 1996 pop) While status differences can Influence variations In lifestyle, ASPI argues that It Is class differences that Influence life chances. Socio-economic status refers to a combination of the dimensions of class and status, of which wealth Is a central determinant. Almost all class theories recognize the existence of a ruling class, middle class and working class in Australia, however there is now debate over the existence of an underclass, consisting of the permanently unemployed and low income earners. The upper class consists of the wealthiest 5-10% of the population, whose wealth comes from the control of property and capital. ASPI argues that those who own and intro the economic resources are in a position to make important decisions about their own lives and the lives of other people, and often therefore determine the life chances of others (ASPI 1996 p. 77). The middle class consists mainly of individuals with non manual occupations and can be broken down to include upper middle class (professions egg doctors, dentists, lawyers etc) and lower middle class (routine white collar Jobs). The working class has been distinguished by its non ownership of the means of production. According to Marx, their role is to provide labor power to the lulling class. Traditionally consisting of manual workers and consistent with low income, the inferior market situation of this class is reflected in life chances. According to Van Krieger et al, various studies have shown that manual workers are more likely to die younger, suffer from poor health, miss out on home ownership, be convicted of a criminal offence and have children that do not go on to higher education. Perhaps the key determinant of socio-economic status or social class is wealth. Referring to the total assets or property that a person possesses, ASPI argues that Wealth confers economic and social power; it provides security in times of unexpected expenditure and provides greater freedom of choice in everyday life (ASPI 1996, pop). It is wealth that enables the purchase of assets such as housing and allows access to educational and health facilities. Without these, life chances are inhibited. Evidence suggests that wealth is heavily concentrated in Australia. A 2002 HILLS survey revealed that the bottom half of the population own less than 10% of the total household net worth While the wealthiest 10% account for 45% of total household net worth (Headed, Marks, Wooden 2004 p. L). Wealth is strongly linked to inheritance, thus maintaining its concentration. Just as wealth is linked to inheritance, so too is poverty. According to Orgy Where persons starts in the income and wealth distribution curve has an important bearing on their life chances (Orgy 2006, Pl 7). A 2005 study by The Brotherhood of SST Laurence found that those born into poverty have far higher instances of infant mortality, poor immunization against disease, higher risk of mental health problems, low birth weight babies and youth suicide (Scuttles Smyth, 2005 p ). Within Australia, evidence suggests that an individuals life chances are redundantly determined by his or her ascribed inequalities, such as gender, race and family background. In an a society with equality of opportunity it would be the achieved inequalities such as education, occupation and skills that would determine life chances, however as argued by ASPI He ascribed attribute of family background has a major influence on the education an individual will receive and on ten occupation en/seen wall enter, regardless AT ten telltales AT ten Uninominal (Aspen 1996, pop). The ascribed attribute of family background is a key determinant of social class. Social mobility refers to the ease and frequency by which indiv iduals can move up the social hierarchy to a higher class. Social mobility can occur either within an individuals lifetime (intra-generational mobility) or between generations (inter- generational mobility), and cab be used as a tool to measure the degree of equality within a society. In an egalitarian society, social mobility would be fluid. An individual born into a low social class would not necessarily remain stagnant within that class. This is not the case in most developed countries, including Australia. ASPI argues hat While it is possible in theory to move up the hierarchy, rags to riches stories are very rare and mobility is fairly limited (ASPI 1996, p. 72), while Orgy argues that there is a high degree of inter-generational transmission of poor social and economic outcomes in Australia (Orgy 2006, pop). There are several barriers inhibiting social mobility in Australia, resulting in a cycle of disadvantage for many. Such barriers include income and assets, employment, education, health and housing. The 2005 study by The Brotherhood of SST Laurence revealed that educational opportunities have a significant impact on the lower class. Children born into the underprivileged areas are less likely to have access to pre- schools, less likely to achieve adequacy in literacy and innumeracy tests and more likely to begin and remain in lower paying vocations. Perhaps one of the more compelling examples originates from a study conducted in Victoria and New South Wales that states 25% of all early school leavers come from Just 5% of postcodes (Scuttles and Smyth 2005, p. 17). Limitations on the lower classes to achieve wealth impacts their ability to provide adequate housing for their children. Scuttles and Smyth argue that a child raised without a secure home faces barriers to higher educational achievement and later Job security, which may lead to homeless raising families who in turn become homeless (Scuttles and Smyth 2005, p. 5). There are significant inequalities within Australia, indicating the existence of a hierarchical class structure. Australian society consists of an upper class, a middle class and a working class, although there is also debate on the existence of an underclass. An individuals position within this class structure largely ultimately determines his or her life chances. Opportunities to achieve desirable life outc omes, including wealth, occupation, quality education, good health and housing differ between the social classes. A lack of social mobility in Australia means social class in Australia operates cyclically. Those born into economic disadvantage are not only likely to remain that way, but will also eventually pass on their economic circumstances to their offspring. Similarly, those born into higher socio-economic families are more likely to have access to quality education, achieve occupational success, acquire wealth, enjoy better health and produce offspring that will in turn share the same opportunities.

Legality Of Same Sex Marriages! Essays - LGBT History, Free Essays

Legality Of Same Sex Marriages! Essays - LGBT History, Free Essays Legality Of Same Sex Marriages! INTRODUCTION The proposed legalization of same sex marriage is one of the most significant issues in contemporary American family law. Presently, it is one of the most vigorously advocated reforms discussed in law reviews, one of the most provocative issues. It could be one of the most revolutionary policy decisions in the history of American family law. The potential consequences, positive or negative, for children, parents, same-sex couples, families, social, structure public health, and the status of women are enormous. Given the importance of the issue, the value of comprehensive debate may be obvious. Marriage is much more than a commitment to love one another. Aside from societal and religious conventions, marriage entails legally imposed financial responsibility and legally authorized financial benefits. Marriage instantly provides a automatic legal succession of a deceased spouse's property, as well as pension and law, as well as promise in the eyes of the Lord, and their as well as to enjoy its benefits, should the law prohibit their request merely because they are of the same gender? I intend to prove that because of Article IV of the United States Constitution. there is no reason why the federal government nor any state government should restrict marriage to a predefined homosexual relationship? Marriage laws have changed throughout the years. In Western law, wives are now equal rather than subordinate partners; interracial marriage is now widely accepted, both in the statue and in society; and marital failure itself, rather than the fault of one partner, may be grounds in some states for a divorce. Societal changes have been felt in marriages over the past twenty-five years as divorce rates have increased. Proposals to legalize same-sex marriages or to enact broad domestic partnership laws are currently being promoted by gay and lesbian activists, especially in Europe and North America. The trend in western European nations during the past decade has been to some same-sex couples. For example, with in the past six years, three Scandinavian countries have enacted domestic partnership laws allowing same-sex couples in which at least one partner is a citizen of the specified country. Therefore allowing that homosexual marriages are given. In the Netherlands, the Parliament is considered domestic partnership status for same-sex couples, all the major political parties favor recognizing same-sex relations, and more than a dozen towns have already done so. Finland provides governmental social benefits to same-sex partners. Belgium allows gay prisoners the right to have a conjugal visits from same-sex partners. An overwhelming majority of European nations have granted partial legal status to homosexual relationships. In the United States, efforts to legalize same-sex domestic partnership have had some, limited success. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. reported that by mid- 1995, thirty-six municipalities, eight countries, three states, five state agencies, and two federal agencies extended some benefits to, or registered for official purposes, same-sex partnerships. In 1994, the California legislature passed a domestic partnership bill that provided official state registration of same-sex couples and provided limited marital rights and privileges relating to hospital visitation, willis and estates, and powers of attorney. While California's Governor Wilson eventually vetoed the bill, its passage by the legislature represented a notable political achievement for advocates of the same-sex marriage have won a major judicial victory that could lead to the judicial legalization of the same-sex marriage or to legislation authorizing same-sex domestic partnership in that state. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court, in Baehr vs. Lewin, vacated a state circuit court judgment dismissing same-sex discrimination under the state constitution's Equal Protection Clause and Equal Rights Amendment. The above case began in 1991 when three same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses by the Hawaii Department of Health brought suit in state court against the director of the department. Hawaii law required couples wishing to marry to obtain a marriage license. While the marriage license law did not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage at the time, it used terms of gender that the Hawaii marriage license law is unconstitutional, as it prohibits same-sex marriage and allows state officials to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples in account of the heterosexuality requirement. Baehr and her attorney sought their objectives entirely through state law, not only by filing