Assignment First

代写论文的网站:劳动力市场理论

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)。

后现代主义认为贫困和不平等的根源是资源分配的不平等,这与冲突的意识形态和功能主义的方法不同,因为世界不同地区的资源分配总是不同的。后现代主义的方法认同社会分类的影响,这几乎与冲突理论相似,社会阶级被认为是分配不平等的根源,导致持续的贫困和不平等。一个视图的功能主义方法更贫困,而不是定义贫困的起源,因为它描述了穷人的使用燃料的增长丰富的在某种程度上,间接工人工作的地方支持经理在更高的位置虽然不值得(有很多和卡尔布,2006)。这种方法更类似于劳动力市场理论,该理论认为,利用失业作为一个理由,将工资保持在一个水平,并支持富有的企业所有者。

劳动力市场理论是关于机会的不平等分配的,它还认为,有目的地继续失业是控制工人供求的一个原因。这是因为它最终能够支持企业“所有者”的崛起,他们的需求可以轻松地得到满足,而不受任何阻力。这一理论涉及到后现代主义的方法,其中贫困和不平等的存在指向利用现有的就业机会不平等,这进一步加剧了工人就业的不平等。后现代主义方法通过资源分配不均很容易解释贫困提供给富人通过他们的资本和权力,而劳动力市场理论解释了贫困和不平等的优势通过使用就业和失业的劳动力之间的差距,在失业劳动力扮演关键的角色识别和修复的工资限制按公司的欲望(里斯和摩尔,2005)。这两种理论的不同之处在于它们对劳动力分配的看法。后现代主义者认为,自然资源分配不允许平等繁荣,但劳动力市场理论认为,正是企业及其资本主义目标造成了收入差距的这种裂痕。


代写论文的网站 :劳动力市场理论

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.