Category: Money

Success Is Not Measured by Money Essay

How is success related to money? It is a question one can get millions of answers to if asked. Different people have different perceptions of success and money. In the eyes of society, money is the ultimate measure of success. We as students work hard in our studies to achieve what? Everybody’s goal is to get good marks or be a top scorer in their class. Why do our parents send us to school? They send us to school so that we can study to become successful and earn lots of money. Society revolves around money and the people who have more are considered more successful and vice-versa. This draft talks about how is success related to money and how various people view it in society

A few people think money can buy them everything they need and protect them from every problem. However, fewer people know the true value of money and do not spend lavishly. In this world, every being that exists faces problems in one form or the other. Money may not be able to protect people rather it can help them. Success is related to one’s health and well-being. Success can affect a person’s life immensely. Money should be used to buy commodities and should not be abused for one’s happiness, as there are many people in this world who stand below the absolute poverty line and hence do not even meet the basic living requirements. People who have a lot of money generally change. Success should not be a factor that affects one’s personality. Success should not be a factor that affects the people you hang around and your outlook towards life and the environment around you. Happiness is a feeling one person achieves so it cannot be related to success. It can never be considered as an external endeavor rather it’s an outward expression of one’s inner emotions.

Research indicates that one of the reasons people with greater salaries often seem happier than their peers is the outcome of their success rather than the money they earn. According to Horton, J. (2018, June 28). Can money buy happiness? Retrieved from https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/can-money-buy-happiness1.htm. In general, people who make more money also tend to be more successful at what they do: It is the success that makes them feel good, not the money itself. The money is a mere sideshow of the real happiness booster. Successful people are also usually more productive and satisfied with their jobs, thus creating positive feelings of self-worth, pride, and contentment. The extra money the hard work creates is simply an added benefit. Another reason for success in stimulating feelings of happiness is because of the challenges involved. People get a thrill out of pushing their mental and physical capacities to the limit, and when they do something that fully captures their interest and attention, time passes by imperceptibly. Not only is the hard-earned outcome rewarding, but so is the sweat put into making it happen. Scientists have nicknamed this phenomenon flow. Results of one study indicate workers would happily take a 20 percent pay cut if it meant their job would involve more variety or require more skill. According to the article people with greater salaries are happier than people with lower salaries not because of the money but the outcome of success over their peers. Success acts as a major factor to motivate one to strive to become a greater person. People find a thrill in facing adversaries and overcoming challenges and love the reward they achieve once the work has been completed.

Success is ‘the fact of getting or achieving wealth, respect, or fame.’ But according to a new survey conducted by Smith, J. (2014, October 3) suggests an update in the definition of success. The school recently released findings from its national ‘Success Project Survey,’ which was conducted to determine what success means to Americans today. A whopping 90% believe that success is more about happiness than power, possessions, or prestige. ‘This indicates a clear change in the way Americans are thinking about their journey,’ says Dr. Michael Plater, president of Strayer University. ‘It’s no longer about the car or the house. Instead, people are focused on leading a fulfilling life, whether that means finding a better career, achieving personal goals, or spending more time with their families. ‘The survey, which was conducted by Ipsos on behalf of Strayer, interviewed 2,011 Americans ages 18 and up and found that 67% of surveyed Americans associate success with achieving personal goals; 66% cited ‘good relationships with friends and family’; and 60% said ‘loving what you do for a living.’ Meanwhile, just one in five respondents said monetary wealth is what defines success. ‘I think people will be surprised to hear that the vast majority of this country no longer views traditional wealth- and fame-based notions of success as having ‘made it,” says Plater. He explains his team’s goal in conducting this survey was to spark a much-needed national conversation about success and how there’s no ‘one size fits all’ definition. According to the article, Americans have changed their perspective toward success and find it more linked to happiness than to fame and money. Americans are focused on a more fulfilling life with emotions and values than a life with money and fame(comment)

The survey data gives us a view of what success means, on average, and how close people are to making it. According to Desjardins, J. (2018, February 1). How do Americans quantify success? Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/heres-how-americans-quantify-success. Respondents viewed $147,104 of income as “successful”, and this is the area people were furthest away from their ideal. The average income of respondents was $57,426 – and 67% of respondents said that money was the major missing part of their equation for success. Respondents viewed 31 hours of work per week, a 10-minute commute, 5.3 weeks of time off, and working more from home as their ideal situation. However, respondents were a little doubtful about most of these measures and were completely against vacation time. The average person is working 34 hours per week, commuting 17 minutes, taking 2.8 weeks of time off, and working more from the office. Notably, for 22% of people, a dream job was the missing part of their success equation. Respondents viewed marriage and kids, as well as four best friends, as ideal. On average, respondents fell slightly short here, though. How much would your home and vehicle be worth, if you “made it”? About $461,000 and $41,986 respectively. Respondents fell short here, with $248,000 and $15,789 values for their home and vehicle.

Why it matters: Our measures of personal success are highly individualized, but tend to follow some patterns for women and men, liberals and conservatives, and different levels of income, the survey found the findings are vital for politicians, the entertainment industry, and technology executives seeking to tap into less romanticized measures of success.

‘Being famous’ was the top answer for what respondents thought mattered according to society’s view of success.

But that was the last answer for what individuals felt was important to achieve to be successful in their own lives.

Parenthood was the most common achievement for individuals’ standards of success but ranked 33 out of 76 when people were asked about things society considers important for success.

‘Very conservative” Americans tend to consider being a parent twice as important as those who self-identified as ‘very liberal.’

Having an advanced degree was something respondents valued both in terms of how society judged them and how they judged themselves.

Having a purpose in life, a couple of close friends and regularly seeing family were all important components to how people judged their success — but so was not having to worry about money.

Women were more likely than men to view fame and having a large social media following as important to society’s view of success — something that may correlate to other trends like women being overrepresented on Instagram, Rose said.

Between the lines: Milestones and traits related to status, education, and finances were at the top of the list for what most people believe others consider markers of success. But people said success in their own lives has more to do with educational achievement, relationships, and personal character.

‘We can do something with that if we can just realize that this silent majority exists and that it crosses political and ideological and other demographic bounds,’ Rose said. According to the citation, a survey of the Americans has been taken and various people were asked to express their point of view on how he/she comprehends success. People generally consider being famous, parenthood, and having an advanced degree as being successful

India has a contrasting definition of success in society. According to What Defines Success in Indian Culture? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://onlineessays.com/essays/geography/india/what-defines-success-in-the-indian-culture.php. Indian culture is an amalgam of numerous traditions, beliefs, and practices. It is based on a strict social hierarchy. Indian society mainly circulates family. Indians are generally considered successful if they can strike the right balance between their career and their home. Regardless of gender these two are the main metrics of success Money and property may define one’s success in Indian society, but they are not the only things that make an Indian successful. It is considered important for Indian men to have a prestigious job, with a good salary and a respectable status in society. For Indian women, it is more important to be married at the right age, to the right person, and the right family. With changing times and the increasing importance of education amongst Indians, having a great career is becoming more and more important for Indian women.

The Indian society can be further classified into the urban and the rural communities. Among the rural people, the definition of success is different from that of the urban people. In most rural families the concept of individual success is not very popular. The head of the family is the main earning member and his position in the society indicates how successful his family is, as a whole. While the success of the male member of the family is rated by his ability to provide for his kin, the success of a woman is measured by how well she runs the house and takes care of her children.

In the Urban Indian society, the emphasis on career progression is catching up fast. But the essence of the Indian traditions and cultural values has not lost its significance among the modern Indians as well. Like in most other societies, the Indian people believe in getting the best of both worlds. Their idea of a great life is to have a perfect family and a perfect career. Both Indian men are women are venturing into creative career fields matching their interests and capabilities. Having a satisfying career, that pays well and earns them a good reputation in society, defines success for urban Indians. In India, various types of society have different views of success but in an overall scenario, an Indian is considered to be successful if he/she makes a lot of money and if he/she surrounds themselves with family.

In the broadest perspective, success is co-related to money. A person is considered successful depending upon the amount he/she makes over their career or how they are doing in their respective fields. Success should be dependent on one’s contribution to society and family. Success should not be materialistic rather it should be something one earns. Success is understanding the difference between need and want and also knowing when your life is filled with abundance 

Essay on What Does New Money Mean

‘Whenever you feel like criticizing anyone, just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had’ (Shmoop Editorial Team). ​The Great Gatsby revolved around the essence of money and wealth. As noted in the quote above, some are fortunate to be born into such wealth, whereas, others may have labored and fought their way to the top. Throughout the novel, multiple characters undergo their turmoils regarding wealth and all it may entail. The portrayal of wealth in this novel is displayed through two subcategories: old money and new money. The differentiation between the two is the level of intensity that the wealth is displayed and the actual worth it carries about life itself.

Generally speaking, money plays a role emotionally and mentally. “And I hope she’ll be a fool – that’s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.” (LitCharts). Daisy attempts to make the point that naivety is the preferred option for women. Although Daisy was in love with Gatsby, she married Tom Buchanan. There was a necessity during this period for women to be married. Often that was their source of income and security. As for Daisy, a state of being unaware and rather flexible with dealing with love would make it easier in life, is an accurate opinion to have. If women were simply oblivious during that time and went with the flow of tradition, then it would be an easy transition if all emotion was set aside. In the same thought, old money plays a huge role in this mindset, by marrying into family money and having wealth passed down was the way of life in the perception of this pair.

When discussing old money, this ideal is portrayed through Tom and Daisy. They carried subtle traits of wealth. Having good taste, appearing sincere, and level head categorized them as old money. Although stability can with the old money ideals, there were a few aspects that would just not be enough. People seemed generally settled in their lives and looked for consistency. Tom had a calm demeanor regarding his wealth, there was not an urge to prove to anyone how rich or well-off he was. Similarly, Daisy had a kind-hearted demeanor and a friendly, elegant aura about herself. However, the connection between the two was not strong and true.”​They weren’t happy, and neither of them had touched the chicken or the ale – and yet they weren’t unhappy either” (Shmoop Editorial Team).​ Although the old money provided a stable life and security, it could not buy love. Daisy was indeed a calm individual, however, the risk and adventure still twirled in the back of her mind. She was in a sense not “the fool” she wished girls to have, therefore placing herself in a compromising position of love and desires.

In contrast, when discussing new money, this ideal is portrayed through Gatsby. He displayed elaborate acts of wealth through parties, housing, clothing, and outlandish tastes. Having huge celebrations, appearing to be the life of the party, and risk categorized him as “new money”. Gatsby had an overall anxious demeanor regarding his wealth, there was always an urge to prove to any and everyone, especially Daisy, how rich he was and the life he could provide for her. ​’She’s not leaving me!’ Tom’s words suddenly leaned down over Gatsby. ‘Certainly not for a common swindler who’d have to steal the ring he put on her finger’ (Shmoop Editorial Team).

No matter what it cost him; stealing, lying, or cheating his way into wealth, he had to do it to get Daisy. Similarly, Daisy admired the lengths he went through to capture her heart. She had a relaxed aura about herself around Tom, but around Gatsby, she blossomed. However, the connection between the two would never be allowed to be fulfilled, because she was a married woman. In this period, divorce was frowned upon, therefore they could never truly be together unless they completely relocated. Although, the new money provided adventure, laughs, fun, and entertainment; it could not buy the security and freedom for Gatsby to love Daisy.

Connecting the two worlds had their differences and characteristics. The portrayal of wealth in this novel is displayed through two subcategories: “old money” and “new money”. The differentiation between the two is the level of intensity that the wealth is displayed and the actual worth it carries about life itself. “Old money” was portrayed by providing a relaxed and stable sense regarding wealth, while new money possessed opposite characteristics. The new money came through the displays of elaborate acts of wealth such as; celebrations with vast numbers of celebrities or strangers, the mansion, and Gatsby’s different fabric shirts. It was filled with a sense of risk, adventure, and passion. Old money was reserved or closeted even. There was no need to portray wealth, it was carried about humbly. There were stronger connections made and maintained through old money, whereas with new money Gatsby was virtually alone and surrounded by strangers. In addition to the statement made previously, we can further argue that the new money with all of the importance of materialism, could not buy happiness. No matter the elaborate decor or number of people, the amount of money and how it is portrayed can not buy true happiness. This further supports the reasoning behind Gatsby’s one-man funeral and continuous longing to maintain a connection with Nick. Therefore, Fitzgerald makes the point that no matter the amount or where the money or wealth stems from, it cannot produce everything.

Works Cited

1. Shmoop Editorial Team. “The Great Gatsby Quotes.” ​Shmoop​, Shmoop University, 11 Nov. 2008, www.shmoop.com/study-guides/literature/great-gatsby/quotes.
2. LitCharts. “Class (Old Money, New Money, No Money) Theme Analysis.” ​LitCharts​, www.litcharts.com/lit/the-great-gatsby/themes/class-old-money-new-money-no-money​.

Why Money Is Important Essay

When we hear about money, we ask ourselves many questions like, what is money? Was it very old? What did the old people use without it? What are its uses? How can it be harmful or its disadvantages?

So I chose this topic to speak about money, which represents the major source of force in the world. Money is the thing that people use to pay for goods, and services and to pay for other people. We see that money is an important part of our life.

I will start to speak about it, by answering the questions that are in our minds about money and, how it is a double-edged weapon!

We heard many times that money is a double-edged weapon and try a lot to understand these words. These words mean that money has to face one is harmful and hurts us and another face is very useful for us.

I understand that money is very important for our joy, which God has gifted us. It depends on people’s how they use money as some people think that that there is nothing is better than love and some other people think that money is everything, And to understand the useful of money we must try to imagine a world without money, how would people treat with each other? And what would be the shape of the world? In the old world, they were a barter system: it was trading one good or serving another so it was inefficient in the modern advanced economy, so when someone wants to buy something like shoes, he first searches for someone who makes or has the wanted shoes wanted size. So the trade was very difficult, another problem, was it doesn’t allow people to enter into contracts. So money solves the problem made by the barter system, it is considered to be the intermediary between the seller and buyer. Money is considered as a measure of value instead of a batter system. So it helps both trader and seller to know the real value.

Money has many uses; the simplest one is that is used to provide the basic needs of daily life, it uses to buy food, and clothes, to get a high level of education, so you have to save a lot of money(pay for books and fee).he can by money do anything, and buy anything. He can enjoy all means of comfort (house, air-conditioning cars … etc..). He can be a busy servant to keep your house.

Money has a great effect on individual life as it improves living standards helps man to have a comfortable life for him and his family, provides him with a good chance to achieve his aims in life, becomes able to travel anywhere, and visit other countries and learn about different culture and peoples. It manages to help his family and other people. it preserves human dignity and provides requirements. it helps in providing good health care to all family members. Money is a blessing to a man if he uses good and strengthens human relations in society such as giving alms to poor people and strengthening social relations with relatives and friends. When money is used for charity, it increases and doesn’t diminish.

It solves the problem of storing wealth.

Essay on Poems about Money and Happiness

Many of the poems we have read in class discuss the struggle to find true happiness. Though they explore different elements of it, they all return to two common themes – that happiness is subjective and that it is often hard to achieve. Lyrical poems are a great medium for themes like these since they can express many emotions through purposeful phrasing. A major difficulty in finding happiness is the obstacles presented by our often grim world, which are especially relevant today, as Covid-19 changes our lives. Furthermore, there is a certain perspective of happiness in American society that is imposed on us, even though happiness is in the eye of the beholder. This clouded view contributes to unhappiness that is often expressed and questioned through poetry like what we have read in class. Since the concept of happiness is so vague, it is easily forgotten, especially with all of the complexities in daily life.

In a seemingly nonstop world, it is easy to get distracted from what truly matters – finding happiness. Many people will claim or imply that money is happiness or conversely, that it means nothing at all. Neither side is right or wrong since happiness is a subjective feeling that can mean a lot of different things. One underlying struggle in many people’s lives is deciding what makes them happy. The poem A Center by Ha Jin claims the proper way to find happiness is to be yourself, regardless of what the world tells you. He argues “As long as you stay put year after year, / eventually you will find a world / beginning to revolve around you.” (12-14) In this, he asserts that if you do what makes you happy, the world will begin to grow around you and stop holding you back. However, this perspective is sometimes too optimistic. One drawback of Jin’s ideas is his disregard for opposing views. He encourages, “If others call you a maniac or a fool, just let them wag their tongues. / If some praise your perseverance, / don’t feel too happy about it—” (3-6). Ignoring all outside opinions is certainly not the way to achieve happiness. Besides, often the problem arises that the world does seem to hold you back.

Another major problem in the search for happiness is that sometimes, the world or one’s culture prevents them from living their happiest life. In American society, for example, there is a certain set of values that are almost assumed for those living here. For instance, there are clear stigmas against those who don’t go to traditional colleges or hold traditional jobs, regardless of whether it makes them happy or not. The poem Try to Praise the Mutilated World by Adam Zagajewski confronts our misplaced values. One striking passage opposes them, “You watched the stylish yachts and ships; / one of them had a long trip ahead of it, / while salty oblivion awaited others.” (7-9) These lines patronize American society for focusing on money and fame rather than helping those without it. The poem continues, “You’ve seen the refugees going nowhere, / you’ve heard the executioners sing joyfully. / You should praise the mutilated world.” (10-12) These powerful lines expose horrific truths of how we avert our eyes to injustices to people all over the world and how we nonetheless “should praise the mutilated world.” Our unjust attitudes create an inflexible system without regard for outliers, which causes them to become alienated.

Another poem, Self-Help by Charles Bernstein analyzes the misplaced optimism and ignorance present in our culture, which contribute to alienation within our society. Often, American culture pushes us to look on the bright side rather than focusing on the negatives. This mindset can be good in moderation, but often we are implored to ignore significant problems. Self-Help examines the numerous examples of misplaced idealism in our culture by contradicting several negative situations with ridiculous (and sadly familiar) solutions. For example, one line says, “Quadruple bypass. –Hold the bacon on that next cheeseburger.” (2) This quote exemplifies American culture because it not only touches on a horrifyingly real stereotype of unhealthiness but also demonstrates the ridiculousness and stubbornness of our culture. Most everyone knows that cheeseburgers are unhealthy, especially if you have underlying heart conditions, so the idea that omitting the bacon will somehow negate the unhealthiness shows the irony of our unwarranted optimism. This misplaced optimism can be especially damaging to the most vulnerable among us.

Sadly, many people struggle to find happiness in their lives due to mental illness, which is furthered by a general American insensitivity toward those difficult issues. The poem Preface to a Twenty-Volume Suicide Note by Amiri Baraka explores relevant topics surrounding depression through his use of in-depth imagery. A few lines that stood out to me describe the struggle to function, “Lately, I’ve become accustomed to the way / The ground opens up and envelopes me / Each time I go out to walk the dog.” (1-3) Baraka uses the powerful metaphor of the ground swallowing him to describe how depression affects him. He continues to reflect saying, “And now, each night I count the stars, / And each night I get the same number. / And when they will not come to be counted, / I count the holes they leave.” (7-10) He counts the people that bring brightness to his life and he remembers those who leave. It is common for patients with depression to feel alone and sad and remembering those who bring joy is a great way to dispel unwanted thoughts. Especially now, it is important to remember those closest to us, even if they are physically distant.

Amid a worldwide pandemic and quarantine, it is easy to feel lost and lose a sense of happiness. Since we have a seemingly endless amount of time to reflect, emotional expression is important; one great tool for this is poetry. Although it is easy to feel alone and sad, we must remember that we are alone together. Everybody is staying home so that we can soon return to the real world. Many of the themes of these poems explore the idea of perseverance, even in dark times which are crucial now, more than ever. Even though none of these poems were written during the Covid-19 outbreak, they contain many relevant themes about achieving happiness. Many of the poems explore ideas of imprisonment within one’s own culture, while others describe imprisonment within one’s mind, but they all establish happiness as an elusive ideal that is impossible to completely achieve.

Though absolute happiness is unachievable, it might not even be necessary or desirable. One story that we read in class this year, “The Happy Man” by Naguib Mahfouz exemplifies this idea. The main character wakes up one day, unable to feel any emotion besides manic happiness. Through this, the story explores happiness without hardship. In the end, the main character describes his unconditional happiness as debilitating since he begins to lose touch with reality and eventually becomes unable to function. This story helps remind us to value our lives as they are, happiness is more than feeling good; a more apt word for what we desire is contentment. This idea of contentment is constant in many poems, they often acknowledge the struggles in finding life satisfaction, whether they be distractions, divergence from the norm, or mental health issues. Many poems establish the idea that throughout all of life’s difficulties, happiness can be achieved despite almost anything if you have the right outlook.

The seemingly limitless number of struggles in finding happiness contribute to richer contentment once it is achieved. Without a taste of defeat, there is no joy in victory; Life’s obstacles flesh out our perspectives of happiness and give it meaning. Through poetry, we can express these struggles to find contentment in today’s world or to figure out where to go next. Many poems have a call to action and bring awareness to problems within our culture so that one day we can move forward and be truly content. One who is stagnant, without goals, simply accepting defeat cannot be content. Whereas those who even try can be satisfied with what they achieved, even if they were unsuccessful in their goals, their effort represents something more. Happiness is a confusing and ambiguous concept, but luckily, it can take many forms so contentment is achievable to anyone through a driven and flexible mindset.  

Essay on Paid Organ Donation Pros and Cons

Money for your organs

What would it take for you to donate an organ to a stranger? Would you if money was involved? These questions have come to mind when thinking about changing the altruistic nature of the organ donation system to one that could benefit both donors and recipients even more. If there was a system that could pay donors for their organs, perhaps more people would be more inclined to give a part of them away to save a life. There would, of course, be some drawbacks that would arise from putting a completely new system to donating but there are compromises and other countries whose example we can follow. One thing for sure is that there are too many patients waitlisted in the system compared to the number of available donors.

There has been a significant increase in the amount of donors compared to 1991, but despite the increase, it is still not enough due to the immense gap between donors and those being waitlisted. In 2017, Organ Donation Statistics, reports that there were 115,000 people on the waitlist while only 16,473 donors were available and that gap is only getting bigger with every year. Amy L Friedman even voiced this issue to the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health by stating “The demand for life-saving organ transplantation has so outpaced supply that waiting patients and transplant teams are desperate.” Not only is the current system failing, it is being outpaced and there is a need for a new system to be put in place.

Pros:

• It can save lives – Having an increased number of people waiting for organ donations, one organ donor can save many lives as these organs can match those who are in need.
• Extending the family’s grievance – For a donation to be successful, the donor may need to extend their life support, which could prolong the grieving stage.
• You give someone a second chance – Because of transplantation, this treatment helps them extend and live a longer life.
• Restriction of being an eligible donor – Not everybody is eligible to donate specific organs, sometimes are age restrictions.
• Contribution to medical research opportunities – Sometimes donated organs cannot be helpful to someone in an instance. It can also be used for research to understand disease or illness.

Cons:

• Organ donation may lead to health issues – After surgery, it will change the lifestyle of the donor and if not followed it can cause health problems.
• A family consolation – When someone dies in a tragedy and becomes a donor it could be a closure to the family that if they donate a part of them to someone else there is a memory that their life was not wasted. This also connects them to the new person who has been saved because of their lost family members.
• There are limited organs that could be accepted – The body can also reject organs.
• Helping someone right now – Being an exact match for somebody on the list can help them straight away. If you are alive you can donate kidneys, pancreas, portions of lungs, and intestine tissue.
• Companies do not always have donor policies – If you consider donating organs discretion of paid and unpaid leaves will be challenging since being a donor is expensive. There are no rules for organ donors.

One would think donors would not spend money when spending time at the hospital for donating. However, what about their travels? People who donate have to spend money on transportation, stay in a hotel, and just stay on standby ready for the transplant. Susan Kreimer said to Leafmag, “Meanwhile, from a financial standpoint, estimates have found it costs a kidney donor in the United States an average of $3,000 to navigate through the entire transplant process, which may include time off from work, travels to and from the hospital, accommodations, food, and childcare expenses.” Even kind people just wanting to help another stranger may put themselves into a bit of debt when just trying to make the visits and check-ups. If they could get paid in compensation for donating their organs, this may also encourage people since it would cover most of the unseen expenses. Some people would consider this to be morally wrong when considering using this system which we would have to take into account.

We wouldn’t know how our society would react to the new system if it were to be implemented but what will come up are the moral issues behind it. The National Kidney Foundation said, “Offering direct or indirect economic benefits in exchange for organ donation is inconsistent with our values as a society. Any attempt to assign a monetary value to the human body, or body parts, either arbitrarily, or through market forces, diminishes human dignity.” Just knowing there is a price for our organs looks morally wrong and just makes it look like there is a price to human life. Even though putting a price on organs will look wrong it will be protecting people from the underground market of illegally selling and buying organs. Also, comments made by Anya Adair and Stephen J Wigmore in the National Center for Biotechnology Information said “Such systems are proposed to attempt to remove the need for an underground and illegal black market in organs. We would argue that however a paid donation is dressed up, the buying and selling of human organs and tissues can never be made ethical because it will always penalize the weakest.” What we learn from this is that people will be taken advantage of through this system but there could be compromises that can happen for these people not to suffer or even fall into more debt.

There are several benefits to implementing a system that compensates donors, such as gradually removing the sales of organs in the black market and increasing the number of donors. Increasing the number of donors could save the lives of those in desperate need. Jonel Aleccia from NBC News commented, “In the U.S., for instance, more than 98,000 people are waiting for kidneys, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, or OPTN. Last year, more than 4,500 people in the U.S. died waiting for kidneys.” It is hard to predict how fast an organ will become available, but patients can wait up to five years before finding a match. The sad reality is that thousands of people die waiting on the list for a donor to become a match.

Donate Life Midwest, an organization that helps register donors, wrote a story about a fourteen-year-old girl, Alexa, from North Dakota who unfortunately died waiting for a lung transplant. They stated how brave, courageous, and hopeful she was about her situation and how “She talked about all the things she was going to do when she received her transplant; dancing, earn her black belt in tae kwon do, learn to drive.” The possibility of her being alive could have increased if the system we have in place would have been different in a way that would increase the number of donors registering to save a life.

Losing people when it can be prevented with the possibility to benefit both sides it wouldn’t hurt to give this new system a chance. There are a few ways we could try to copy or at least evolve other versions of this system from current ideas to other countries that are doing it like the United Kingdom.

There are many ways our government can approach this system that have the potential to increase the number of donors by increasing their incentive with the offer of money. Friedman mentions, “To protect potential donors, regulation and payment must be governed by a balanced, objective, and multidisciplinary body. Organ donation should be limited to the country’s legal residents, but family members should not necessarily be excluded from donations solely because of a lack of residency. The exclusion of other non-resident donors will limit the exploitation of people from low-income countries.” This type of system would keep people from also taking advantage of those that could also benefit but cause a greater loss to them. There is more information in her journal but even with this, there can always be an adjustment the idea of at least changing the system is better than a system that we know is already starting to fail more than 100,000 recipients. Now put yourself in these people’s position would YOU want to be on a waiting list that could end your life if just one person was nice enough to have been a donor? You wouldn’t care if they did it for free or if they got paid as long as you got to stay out of the hospital. People are not getting more heartless but as a matter, they fact getting more generous and donors are increasing but not at a rate that can change some of these people’s lives for them to leave these hospitals.

In conclusion, the change in the current system of strangers shelling out a couple thousand just to be able to give you one of their organs is still currently not working. Yes some good people do this and we could educate the public more and how and the journey of giving your organs away for free but there are more benefits to trying out a new system that would potentially change the way people want to donate their organs. Any person can donate eight of their organs upon death and even with just one organ from a live patient is enough to get people on this registry to help others. Just doing one small little thing for someone can finally help you too if this system were to be put in place. Finally, if you were to put yourself in these people’s situations and struggles you would want a donor to show up quickly, so do you want the system to change or stay the same? 

Essay on Money Motivation Theory

Motivation has been defined as an internal drive that leads individuals to achieve their goals or organizational objectives (Certo, 2000). Several organizations these days attempt to find the best way to motivate and increase their workers’ efforts and performances as when workers are motivated, it contributes to the actual productivity of the organization. There are several factors which influence employee motivation and one of the most significant factors is money. Since money can be used to fulfill their basic needs such as food, water, and clothes many companies might still motivate their employees by using money or financial incentives. However, much theoretical literature does not use this financial reward as being the thing that leads to motivation.

Everyone seems to have different motivators in working. Money therefore can be viewed differently depending on each individual’s perspectives. Some workers might see it as an important thing in their working lives, while others might value other things such as power, achievement, or relationships at the workplace. Thus, motivation can be described in two ways which are extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation relates to external things because workers will be motivated by money, bonus, or other kind of rewards. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation contrasts with intrinsic motivation which workers will focus on the actual motivation, passion, and interest in the work itself. They will be happy and enjoy doing the actual tasks without any concern about getting money or rewards. As a result, it seems that workers are not only motivated by money but also motivated by other different factors. Money is only one of the various motivators and some workers may see it as less attractive for them as there are theories that represent other factors regarding intrinsic motivation. Therefore, this essay will illustrate the reasons why money could not be used to motivate any workers in the workplace with relevant theories and examples.

According to, Frederick Winslow Taylor’s theory, Scientific Management (SM), this theory places money as a primary motivation for employees. They have to work hard to earn as much money as they can. If they work less, they will be paid less. Relationship in the workplace is also eroded due to high competition to produce and complete their tasks. A worker will focus only on their work without helping or caring for each other. They will be paid through their performances or piece rates to ensure that the economic rewards of work are tied to actual productivity (Knights, 2017; Willmott, 2017). Thus, money seems to be the main motivation for workers to work harder. They will not be concerned that they are happy or enjoy the work. They will ignore their interest and passions since they focus merely on money. Workers’ motivation tends to change from being autonomous or driven by internal factors to being controlled and driven by external factors like financial incentives (Krug & Braver, 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2000). It could be linked to what is known as the overjustification effect. When workers receive lots of rewards for doing something, they will finally lose interest in what they are doing and are just interested in getting a reward for it. The work will gradually become meaningless for them. Consequently, this monetary rewards or money could eventually decrease worker’s motivation. They might be finally tired and bored with the work since they have lost their interest or their internal drive to work.

In addition, Herzberg’s two-factor theory, his idea is involved in motivation at work which can be determined by two separated factors: job satisfaction which is considered as motivation factor, and job dissatisfaction which is a hygiene factor. These are associated with satisfaction with the job and dissatisfaction when something is annoying the workers. Motivators or satisfaction primarily consist of achievement, advancement, personal growth, recognition, responsibility, and work itself. Whereas dissatisfaction or hygiene includes company policy, relationship with boss, relationship with colleagues, salary, supervision, and working conditions. It is noticeable that salary or money is considered dissatisfier. “In the theory, the salary was mentioned more often as a hygiene factor than a motivator, that is, Herzberg claimed that money adds little to job satisfaction” (Weisberg &Dent, 2016) It might be low pay or low salary that makes employees feel dissatisfied. Nonetheless, money alone could not motivate or satisfy workers. It seems that money could not satisfy any worker in the workplace as someone might prefer their work achievement, opportunity for advancement and growth, recognition from others, and the meaningful, interesting, and challenging work itself. Workers may value these motivators instead of money. Therefore, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is seen as an important key to job satisfaction (Auerbach et al, 2010), only money or extrinsic motivation can motivate all employees.

In conclusion, although money is one of the main factors to motivate workers, it cannot motivate and encourage everybody in the workplace in the long run. Workers also need to have intrinsic motivation to know their actual interest and passion in work. They will always be happy and enjoy working which will result in more productivity or effective work performance. Accordingly, using money or any kind of financial reward could not be an efficient method to motivate any worker. If organizations need to motivate their workers by using money, they should come along with some intrinsic motivation to ensure that everybody is motivated and happy.

Bibliography

1. Conrad, D., Ghosh, Amit., & Isaacson, M. (2015). Employee motivation factors. International Journal of Public Leadership; Bingley Volume. 11, Issue. 2, 92-106. 
2. Damij, N., Levnajić, Zoran, R., & Suklan, J. (2015). What Motivates Us for Work? Intricate Web of Factors beyond Money and Prestige. PLoS One; San Francisco Vol. 10, Issue. 7.
3. David, K & Hugh, W. (2017). Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management. Third Edition. 41-42.
4. Melinda, W., & Eric, D. (2016). Meaning or money? Non-profit employee satisfaction. Voluntary Sector Review; Manchester Volume. 7, Issue. 3, 293-313.
5. Thibault, A., Gagné, M., Forest, J., Guerrero, S., Séguin, M., & Papachristopoulos, K. (2016). The Relation Between Financial Incentives, Motivation, and Performance: An Integrative SDT-Based Investigation. Journal of Personnel Psychology. Issue, Volume 16(2), 61–76.

Essay on Pros and Cons of Giving Money to Homeless

 ‘A Practical Way to Help The Homeless Find Work and Safety’ TED Talk Analysis ‘A Practical Way to Help The Homeless Find Work and Safety’ is a TED talk by Mayor Richard J. Perry, who decided to make a change in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Perry created an inspiring speech for his TED talk that can catch the audience’s attention in a heartbeat. Mr. Berry begins by questioning if the homeless meant what the sign had written on it. He shares with the audience that there is a better way than panhandling. Also, shares facts about how helping the homeless find jobs can help them become successful. The point he is trying to come across is that helping panhandlers look for jobs can make a change instead of handing money. Especially when people see the homeless asking for money and giving it to them at no cost.

His way of helping is by approaching homelessness, as Ellie Anzilotti states in her article, ‘Since it launched, “There is A Better Way” it has provided 932 day-long shifts to 302 homeless individuals.’ That is 302 homeless individuals who did not have a home or food to eat, but now they do. Since then, that has given him the motivation to keep going with his foundation to be able to help more individuals. To begin with, people tend to see the homeless and ask why is it that they do not have a job, or how they got there. In reality, no one is helping them to get a job or trying to help. When Perry talks about how the foundation all began, he explains in detail how he saw a man holding a sign. He begins his TED talk by holding a sign and asking the audience if they have seen someone hold one. This illustrates how Perry came up with the idea to help the panhandlers. It shows what type of person Perry is, such as caring, loving, and helpful.

This TED talk is credible because it shows how there are good people in this world, just like Mayor Richard J. Perry’s story. Perry builds a strong argument by talking about a real issue of panhandlers and what they go through in their lives; he chose people that he encountered and a plot that the audience could relate to. As a final point in the TED talk ‘A Practical Way to Help The Homeless Find Work and Safety,’ Perry gives motivation to others to end homelessness. When Perry begins his TED talk, he shares a story on how there is a better way to help others. The mayor explains how he had thirty signs up in thirty intersections with these words, ‘If help or shelter needed call 311’ and how a man was holding a sign below his sign with the words, ‘Will work for food.’ This led him to do something rare for his community and to create a better solution. He explained how he took into consideration what the words said on the sign and took the man’s word.

Perry gave that man a job and helped him get shelter, and the homeless man became successful. Ever since Perry wanted to prove that there is a solution to help the homeless by not just giving money but by helping them get jobs. The hotline of his foundation rang every day for people who needed jobs and were living on the streets. It all began because he considered the man’s words and used material he did not use. For example, Perry’s old van was not being used and picked up homeless people who had called the hotline. This proves that taking someone’s word or trying to help can become a successful plan. Giving these points, Perry made sure that in his Ted Talk, he could engage the audience to at least consider what he was trying to come across. It is easy to judge someone from the streets and not ask for help. When giving panhandlers money at no cost, is not helping that is feeding their addiction. The argument of Richard J. Perry’s TED talk is to inform people that a change can happen. A great example is Mayor Perry’s foundation which all started because he cared for his community. He believed that the homeless to put effort into working to have a better life. It became successful and now fewer homeless are seen in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  

Compensation for Organ Donation Essay

Introduction

Organ donation can be described as the act of giving away an organ to save or improve the life of someone who needs a transplant. Organs like the kidney and part of the liver can be donated while you are alive, but most tissue or organ donations will come from people who are dead. Although this is a nice concept, the reality is that, due to a shortage of organ donors, there are hundreds of thousands of people on waiting lists worldwide (with the U.S. alone amounting to 107,000 people ). This issue is not helped by the fact that in most jurisdictions (e.g., and USA ), the outright buying and selling of human organs remains a criminal offence. A commonly suggested solution is to simply provide a legalized market for organs so that more potential donors can be encouraged by financial rewards. However, due to the nature of where the organs will come from (human bodies), this area of applied ethics is particularly polarising. This essay seeks to first analyze common ethical arguments against compensated organ donation (commodification and exploitation) before analyzing common arguments in favor of compensated organ donation (organ trafficking and assistance of the poor) while providing input on why I lean more towards the side of legalization of organ sales.

Commodification and Human Dignity

This is one of the more noteworthy arguments against giving compensation to organ donors which is based on the first principle of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. This states that human dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms should be fully respected. It refers to the Kantian idea that every human has an inherent value that makes us intrinsically valuable. Therefore, humans should be treated as valuable individuals, and never just as a means towards some other end. Challengers of compensated donations then argue that the simple act of collecting monetary compensation for donating an organ means that you are being treated merely as a means, a collection of useful parts, and not a valuable individual that should be wholly respected, therefore making it an unethical action. Also, it is argued that the process of compensated donation turns humans into ‘things’ by objectifying their parts as commodities, i.e., goods that can be sold on the market. Furthermore, Sandel argues that this process of commodification is a corruption of the human person since it promotes an objectifying and degrading view of the human person. He claims that this is corruption because of the act of adding market value to a non-market product, so placing a human body in the market is akin to corrupting the very integrity of the human person.

On the other hand, it can be argued that receiving monetary compensation for an organ does not deny the dignity and worth of human beings because there are other situations whereby money is given to others without the narrative that the monetary exchange causes a loss of dignity (e.g., when you give a friend money as a birthday gift or when you give money as a baptismal gift). Also, de Castro claims that the argument is not grounded in reality, since the ‘commodification’ of human organs is something that already happens in the world, drawing attention to the black market for human organs which already exists. I agree with him, and it is clear that donors and recipients have always negotiated organ transfer terms, with or without legal sanction.

Exploitation and Consent

The argument for exploitation is based on the global ethical principles of consent and respect for human vulnerability. It requires consent to be gathered from patients of any medical intervention while taking into account, human vulnerability, especially when dealing with traditionally vulnerable populations of society. Throughout history, a particularly vulnerable population that has consistently been taken advantage of is the poor, and they are the focus of the exploitation argument. This argument is usually also broken into two parts, which are exploiting the poor and doubting the voluntariness of organ sales.

About the exploitation of the poor, it is argued that if there is a compensated donation, the relationship between the recipient and the donor will pit the rich against the poor, thereby making it unethical. This is because the donors would most likely be vulnerable (poor) people who are more in need of money than an organ, which leads to a situation whereby the rich recipients exploit them. Therefore, for challengers of compensated donation, inequality would be a defining part of the organ market, and a market based on that concept cannot be ethically justifiable.

About consent, it is argued that compensated donation would force poor individuals into an almost impossible situation i.e., either they keep an integral part of their body, or they sell it to pay bills. Therefore, informed consent cannot be achieved since the voluntariness of the decision (the third step in the process of informed consent) is missing. According to Sandel, ‘market exchanges are not always as voluntary as market enthusiasts suggest. A peasant may agree to sell his kidney or cornea to feed his starving family, but his agreement may not be voluntary. He may be unfairly coerced, in effect, by the necessities of his situation. This act of coercion therefore makes compensated donation unethical and unjustifiable.

However, while I do agree that compensated donation could lead to the exploitation of the poor, the disadvantages do not outweigh the benefits and these disadvantages can be minimized by implementing safeguards. Some of these safeguards can be seen in jurisdictions where compensated donation is legal, like in Iran. In Iran, recipients are first put on a waiting list with the hopes of receiving an organ from a dead donor and if the organ does not become available, a team of doctors screen potential donors to find the right candidate. Lastly, as de Castro argues, the prevailing system of uncompensated donation fosters even greater exploitation of the donors and I agree with him. This is because the prevailing system rewards everybody but the donor; ‘the surgeons and medical team are paid, the transplant coordinator does not go unremunerated, and the recipient receives an important benefit in kind. Only the unfortunate and heroic donor is supposed to put up with the insult of no reward, to add to the insult of the operation’.

Organ Trafficking

While a global shortage of organs is usually used as the main argument for supporters of compensated donation, the existence of an organ black market and its organ trafficking system should be considered a close second. According to the Declaration of Istanbul, Organ trafficking is defined as the use of force, abuse, deception, or coercion to recruit, harbor, and transfer humans or their organs. This means that it either takes the form of trafficking humans so their organs can be transplanted or trafficking the already removed organ. It is estimated that illegal organ trade generates around 1.5 billion dollars annually from roughly 12,000 illegal transplants and the fact that this number grows yearly means that organ trafficking is a real problem that must be addressed. Organ trafficking thrives in jurisdictions where organ trade is illegal because provides incentives for a black market of organs to be created. This has led to supporters of compensated donation arguing that the best way to remove these incentives is to decriminalize compensated donation.

It could be argued that this will be achieved once a highly regulated, globally agreed upon, and nationally run system of compensated donation is created to enact regulations and penalties so that hospitals and transplant centers are restricted from receiving organs outside of regulated trade. Therefore, if organs are only accepted from approved agencies, the practice of organ trafficking could be greatly decreased. Lastly, regulations and processes can be enacted to ensure patients can provide informed consent. This could include steps of disclosure of information, assurance of adequate understanding, and the attainment of express, formal consent since these are all essential in the process of informed consent.

However, some common arguments against legalization are that organ trafficking will still exist and regulations wouldn’t necessarily tackle the problem of exploitation. Firstly, while I do agree that organ trafficking will still exist, it should be noted that proponents of compensated donation do not claim that legalization would completely stop all cases of organ trafficking because, frankly, wherever there are laws, there will always be people who break those laws. Therefore, a legally regulated system would, at the very least, reduce the amount of organ trafficking cases. Also, I agree that issues of exploitation will persist, however, vulnerable populations are even more at risk of exploitation and abuse in jurisdictions where there are no regulations. Lastly, in a regulated system, issues of exploitation can be officially addressed, and there can be attempts made to lessen the problem.

Assistance of the Poor

The potential financial benefits compensated donation offers to the poor cannot be understated. Proponents of compensated donation argue that every individual should be able to exercise their autonomy and situation in life by selling their organs for economic relief. Also, while objections to the idea of poor members of society receiving monetary rewards for donated organs are usually focused on factors like protecting them from evil practices and exploitation, supporters of compensated donation argue that these objections limit the poorer populations’ ability to better their situations unnecessarily. This ultimately leads to them getting harmed in an unjustifiable way, which then ties in with the principle of non-maleficence. According to the principle of non-maleficence, humans should avoid harm when possible and only the least amount of harm should be performed when necessary. This principle can be broken up into two parts to be used when arguing in favor of compensated donation. Firstly, similar to the pro-compensation argument of human trafficking, the principle of non-maleficence obligates that we act in ways that produce the least amount of harm when possible, and since it has been shown that organ trafficking thrives where organ trading is prohibited, the principle obligates us to legalize and regulate the organ market to produce the least amount of harm possible. Therefore, according to the principle of non-maleficence, a compensated donation system can be forged ethically to reduce the harm from organ trafficking and the black market.

The second way this principle can be used to justify compensated donation is by claiming that the prohibition of compensated donation harms the poorer population because it takes away an option for them to better themselves financially. Lastly, according to Veatch, it is unethical for the state to prohibit poor people from receiving compensation for donated organs while simultaneously refusing to provide the goods of life to those same poor members of society. I agree with him, and this further backs the argument that a prohibition on compensated donation is a violation of principles of autonomy and non-maleficence due to the harm it causes.

Conclusion

To conclude, it is unclear if it will ever be legal to receive compensation for organ donations globally. What is apparent is that a model for compensated organ donation may never be perfect because both sides will continue to raise issues with one another. However, while issues of commodification, exploitation, and lack of informed consent may persist, I believe that these are not enough to constitute a global ban on organ trade due to the potential benefits of reducing global organ waiting lists, reducing organ trafficking, promoting principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, and providing financial assistance to those who need it most. Moving forward, a revised version of the Iranian model of compensated donation may be the best way to go. This version should, of course, have more sufficient safeguards put in place to better protect the vulnerable members of society.

Essay on Old Money Neighbourhood in ‘The Great Gatsby’

Fitzgerald’s ability to effectively implement contrasting settings in a novel is fundamental in symbolizing the organization of social strata, establishing major conflicts, and creating a social environment reflecting that of America in the 1920s. The construction of both location and time settings play a pivotal role in endorsing belief and value systems in The Great Gatsby. The 1920s setting contextualizes the tension between the social classes, attributing this to the laws introduced and recent economic prosperity. The juxtaposition of Manhattan and Long Island demonstrates the concern the elite have about their reputation, but only within their social circle. The physically and socially separated towns of East and West Egg promote the belief that old aristocrats are superior to the newly wealthy. The absence of such a setting would result in an ineffective portrayal of these core ideologies that wouldn’t successfully magnify the disparity in the hierarchal class system.

The 1920s setting contextualizes the discrepancy between social classes in The Great Gatsby, introducing certain socioeconomic ideologies that reinforce upper-class supremacy. In 1920, America outlawed the production and sale of alcohol, known as “Prohibition”. Instead of deterring people, a vast underground criminal empire was created to serve this demand, which is how Gatsby makes his fortune – through “bootlegging” and other criminal activities. As their wealth grew, many Americans of the 1920s broke down the traditional class barriers of society as some lower class attempted to overcome these barriers. In The Great Gatsby, Prohibition finances Gatsby’s rise to a new social status, which provokes anxiety among old aristocrats like Tom Buchanan. The historical context of prohibition in The Great Gatsby enables class tension between the old and new money. The 1920s was a decade of economic boom and prosperity for America; with a steady rise in income levels, business growth, construction, and trading on the stock market. Ultimately, the Great Gatsby foregrounds the darker side of this economic prosperity by emphasizing the immorality and corruption beneath all of this. The 1920s period sets the scene for The Great Gatsby to address popular ways of thinking about class by referencing the political and economic position of America in this decade.

In The Great Gatsby, the contrasting settings of Long Island and Manhattan demonstrate the upper class’s disregard for the opinions of the lower class and showcase the immense value put on reputation in elite society. When Manhattan is introduced, Nick notes “a dead man passed us in a hearse heaped with blooms” and “a limousine passed us, driven by a white chauffeur, in which sat three modish Negroes, two bucks and a girl”. Nick later concludes from these observations that in Manhattan “anything can happen now that we’ve slid over this bridge … anything at all”. This depiction of Manhattan as a miscellaneous city, where even the strangest events come as a little surprise, proves to be the perfect environment for Tom Buchanan’s affair with Myrtle. Tom is unashamed of his affair in Manhattan as he is unconcerned about the opinions of those who aren’t upper class seeing his misconduct. However, he is worried about his reputation with the upper class, so much so that he hides Myrtle on the train until they reach the city. He “deferred that much to the sensibilities of those East Eggers who might be on the train” and concealed Myrtle to maintain his respectability and credibility in his old aristocratic social circle. Moreover, Tom’s affair benefits from being in Manhattan as he feels free to cheat on his wife in public, as ‘he turned up in popular restaurants with her and, leaving her at a table, sauntered about, chatting with whomsoever he knew’. Meanwhile, Daisy and Gatsby’s affair in Long Island results in Gatsby having to dismiss all of his household staff as he’s worried that they will tell other East and West Egg residents about it. When Nick inquires ‘I hear you fired all your servants’ – Gatsby simply replies, ‘I wanted somebody who wouldn’t gossip”. Long Island is depicted as a setting where reputation and credibility are highly valued, especially among the elite while Manhattan is symbolic of immorality and carelessness, where actions are considered without any consideration of the consequences.

The segregated settings of West and East Egg in The Great Gatsby demonstrate the high-class society division between the “new” and “old” money, depicting the latter as superior and more prestigious. The geography of the Eggs is the first indicator of this division as they are separated by “a courtesy bay”. However, the eggs are noted to be dissimilar in “every particular except shape and size”. When Nick announces that he lives at West Egg, he notes ‘I lived at West Egg, the – well, the less fashionable of the two’ and contrasts this by noting that “across the courtesy Bay the white palaces of fashionable East Egg glittered along the water”. This illuminates the difference between the nouveau riche of West Egg who lack an established social position, and the East Egg people, whose wealth is inherited, and who have been the upper crust of society for generations. The both physical and social separation of the West and East Eggs highlight the social divide between those inheritably rich and those who have worked for their riches.

The setting of the Valley of Ashes portrays the lives of the working class as oppressed, circumscribed, and desolate as well as depicting the moral and social decay that results from the uninhibited pursuit of wealth. The Valley of Ashes is a dumping ground for industrial waste where “ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens” and where “ashes take the forms of houses and chimneys”. To reach Manhattan, affluent Long Island residents must travel through the filth and degradation associated with this location, acting as a stark contrast to the charmed and extravagant lives of the East and West Eggers. This setting is a scathing criticism of the moral decay taking place in society at the time as the rich indulge themselves with regard for nothing but their pleasure. It also illustrates the harrowing effects of consumerism and industrialism in America, promoting the idea that America has lost its morality in the rush to embrace the consumerism and materialism culture. Moreover, the fact that the climatic action of the car crash causing Myrtle’s death is set in the Valley of Ashes reinforces the notion of how the working class is underprivileged and unimportant in the eyes of the rich. In the aftermath of the crash, when speaking with police, Gatsby “spoke as if Daisy’s reaction was the only thing that mattered”, appearing more invested in his standing with Daisy than the loss of Myrtle’s life. This reaction to Myrtle’s passing highlights how the working class who inhabit the Valley of Ashes are disposable and unimportant to the upper class. This relates right back to the theme of immorality and inequality in the Valley of Ashes as this highlights the rich’s attitudes toward the poor, that they are expendable and undeserving of any real sorrow. The setting of the Valley of Ashes provides the perfect environment for this occurrence as the oppressed atmosphere of such a place reinforces how neglectful the rich are, both in their belittling attitudes and economic greed.   

Do Rich People and Celebrities Deserve the Money They Earn? Essay

Over the past generations, there has always been three classes of wealth: the upper class, middle class, and the lower class. And not to mention, high Income earners likely are substantially educated, have high-status occupations, and maintain powerful social networks. The upper class, however, only makes up to 3% of the population of the United States, with 2% earning millions per year and 1% percent earning hundreds of millions to billions per year. There are pros and cons of being extremely wealthy, which may be people taking advantage of you because of the money and the welfare that you have. The question to be answered is whether rich people, in particular celebrities, deserve money and everything they have and why they deserve it.

To start things off, there are some people who are billionaires who were at one point in poverty or were homeless. For instance, Howard Schultz, the founder of Starbucks, grew up in a housing complex that was for the poor. Despite the adversity he had to go through, he ended up winning a football scholarship to the University of Northern Michigan and went to Xerox after his graduation. Shortly after, he took over a coffee shop called ‘Starbucks’, which at the time had only 60 shops. Schultz became the company’s CEO in the year of 1987 and grew the coffee chain to more than 16,000 outlets worldwide. This goes to show that anyone that comes from a poor background can become wealthy if they are willing to work hard for what they have earned.

Secondly, there are some who were born into success and wealth because of the hard work that their parents had to put into it. In concordance with Ashley Moor’s ‘20 Celebrities Who Were Born Wealthy’ (3/9/2020), Adam Levine, the lead singer for Maroon 5 and ‘The Voice’ judge, grew up in Los Angeles while he attended Brentwood, a prestigious private school. Adam got to live a cushy lifestyle thanks to his father, Fred Levine, who found great success as the founder of retail Chain M. Frederic. This made Adam Levine’s path to wealth and fame easier as he met all his fellow Maroon 5 band members and Brentwood. There are those people who are born into success and those who had to work for it, it’s just that those who were born wealthy are usually carried to success.

In addition, there are downsides of becoming wealthy, although we envision ourselves being a rich chairman of a business. The question is, is becoming rich what we really want? To illustrate, according to Selena Maranjian’s ’15 Downsides to Being Rich’, if someone is famous or high in wealth, they lose their privacy and become more accessible. As a result, they’ll no longer simply be able to go out to a restaurant or a store-or anywhere-without at least a chance of being recognized, disturbed, photographed and perhaps gossiped about. Many celebrities have to deal with people going through the garbage they put out each week, with some having to find more private ways to get rid of trash.

There are, however, advantages of being in the middle class and the poor class. For instance, according to Quora’s ‘What Is the Advantage of Belonging to a Middle-Class Family?’ (3/9/2020), one of the advantages of belonging to a middle class and the poor class is that you learn to value and love your things that you have. To add on, another advantage of belonging in these separate columns is that people learn to value their money because it is hard earned. Therefore, belonging to the middle class or poor class family you learn that life is not always a ‘bed of rose’.

Now I’d like to consider someone who doesn’t really fit into these categories or sources: a man named Frederick Clegg, who is the main character in a novel written by John Fowles. This source illustrates how wealth can make people do things that few would expect them to do. In John Fowles book, ‘The Collector’, Frederick became wealthy out of dumb luck by gambling. This led to him planning and kidnapping a girl named Miranda. What this takes away is that wealth can change people’s minds and drive them to make unspeakable and ominous decisions.

There are some cases where there are people who do and don’t deserve wealth, depending on how they use and conduct their wealth determines if they deserve to be rich or not. In accordance with Catey Hill’s, “The Dark Reasons so Many Rich People Are Miserable Human Beings” (3/9/2020), being rich does not contribute to happiness or great welfare, there are many millionaires (or billionaires) who became more miserable when they achieved their wealth and success. Once people have more than enough money to meet basic needs and be able to purchase small conveniences or repay debt, extra money may simply fuel “desires such as pursuing more material gains and social comparisons, which could, ironically, lower well-being”, – researchers of Purdue University believe. To put into perspective, wealth can lead an individual to become depressed or deep into their sentiments because once they get what they have always wanted and they realize that it’s not what they wanted after all.

In conclusion, people’s ambitions can be the nail to the coffin because once a person gets what they want, they always strive for more than what they really need. To my dismay and belief, why are people happier with less wealth happier than those who have more? Though this question was addressed thoroughly already, here’s another way to look at this opposition, an individual becomes selfish when it comes to them thriving to achieve success and this usually results in them to lose their social connectedness- and that eats into their overall sense of well-being. Whereas, poor people have valued the little things they have like the social support and relations that they have sustained, in hopes that one day the struggle will be over. Ultimately, I am convinced that rich people and celebrities do not deserve money and everything they have.