冲突理论认为社会的社会分层是贫困与不平等持续存在的根本原因之一。这一理论是合理的，因为根据人们的收入水平、经济地位、社会地位、社会地位等对他们进行分类，使他们被剥夺了非贫困和机会平等的应有地位(Kemper, 1976)。机会的权利是一个使穷人感到不平等的方面，因为他们被剥夺了利用机会取得进步的权利，因为机会是免费提供给较高的经济阶层的。这加剧了贫困和不平等。功能主义方法在接受社会中不同阶层的人的存在方面与冲突理论是一致的，但在这种情况下的影响是不同的。功能主义方法似乎表明，穷人阶级在某种程度上直接或间接地为富人服务。这不同于关于阶级制度功能失调和贫困与不平等根源的冲突理论(Bishop, 2010)。
The conflict theory ideates on the social stratification of society being one of the fundamental reasons of the consistent existence of poverty and inequality. This theory is legitimate as the classification of people based on their income level, economic status, social status, position in the society, etc. makes them to be denied from being given the rightful place of being non-poor and equal rights of opportunity (Kemper, 1976). The right of opportunity is one such aspect that makes the poor feel unequal as they are denied the right to avail the opportunity to progress, as it is provided freely to the higher economic class of people. This fuels more poverty and inequality. The functionalist approach agrees with the conflict theory in terms of the acceptance of the existence of different classes of people in society, but they differ in the impacts of such condition. The functionalist approach seems to show that poor class in a way serves the rich directly or indirectly. This is different to that of the conflict theory about the dysfunctional class system and the root of poverty and inequality (Bishop, 2010).
The postmodernist which considers the root cause of poverty and inequality as unequal distribution of resources, is different from the ideologies of the conflict and the functionalist approach because resource distribution is always varied in different parts of the world. The postmodernist approach agrees to the impacts of classification of society and this is almost similar to the conflict theory where the social classes are seen to be the origin of unequal distribution and giving rise to consistent poverty and inequality. The functionalist approach is more of a view of poverty and not defining the origins of poverty as it describes the use of the poor to fuel the growth of the rich in some way, where a worker indirectly works to support the manager who is at a higher position though not deserving (Creedy and Kalb, 2006). This approach is more similar to the labour market theory which speaks of the use of unemployment as a reason to keep the wages down to a level and supporting the rich owners of the corporation.
The labour market theory is about the unequal distribution of opportunities and it also believes in the purposeful continuation of unemployment as a reason of keeping the demand and supply of workers in check. This is because it can ultimately support the rise of the corporations’ owners’ and their demands can be easily met without any resistance. This theory relates to the postmodernist approach where the existence of poverty and inequality is pointed towards the use of the existent inequality of opportunity of employment which further fuels the inequality of worker employment. Postmodernist approach explains poverty through unequal distribution of resources which are easily available to the rich through their capital and power, whereas the labour market theory explains poverty and inequality through the usage of the advantage of the disparity between employed and unemployed labour, where unemployed labour plays a pivotal role in identifying and fixing the wage limit as per the desires of the corporation (Reis and Moore, 2005). The difference in these two theories lies in their outlook towards labour distribution. Postmodernists assert that the natural resource distribution disallows equality to thrive but the labour market theory asserts that it is the corporations and their capitalistic goals that create this rift in income disparity.