 |
| wired.com |
Justin
Timberlake stars in the movie, In Time,
which takes place in the future where people stop aging once they reach 25
years old and after that point they live off of what is known as “time.” Once you run out of time, you die, so in
theory as long as you have time you can live forever. The catch is this time is also used as
currency. Not only that but it can also
be stolen from you, or given to others at your own will. There are two main classes of people in the
movie, the lower class who operates off of very little time and pretty much
lives their lives minute to minute, and then there’s the upper class who pretty
much has more time than they know what to do with. The main plot of the story is that Justin Timberlake’s
character is a part of the lower class, which after a very eventful night ends
up with as much time as a very wealthy upper class citizen. His increase in time is immediately noticed
and he is hunt down by the “authorities.”
This movie is a current movie, it came out last year, and the divide
between upper and lower class can be seen as how some people might think some
politicians view our economy. This
viewpoint is that there should be a fine line between economic classes and that
the upper class should keep an eye on the lower class, but not necessarily does
anything to help them out. The movie was
released and the concept was developed during what historians are probably
going to look back and call The Great Recession, where many people argued that
in order to help the economy people from upper class families who have a lot of
money should help out more than lower class citizens. In the end of the movie Justin was able to
give a huge amount of time away for free to every person from the area in which
he had lived. This could be a sign that
people need to share the wealth.
Although this is not necessarily a physical monster, it was/is a scary
time in American history.
This is an interesting post, and I think we are in a time when the middle class is being snuffed out. What is scary is that when these types of income disparities begin to grow, so does social unrest. Crime goes up, the government becomes more corrupt, and the haves begin to protect themselves more and more from the have-nots. The term "sharing the wealth" is often demonized as being socialist or communist. The haves make the rules, and they often make them so that they don't have to share or at least so that they don't have to pay their share.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder what this movie is saying about youth and aging. We are a youth-obsessed culture. You only have to look at our magazines and television shows to see who we aspire to be. But I'm wondering - would you want to stay 25 if you had the choice?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI haven’t seen this movie, but your description and analysis of how the movie depicts the relationship between the upper and lower class seems spot on. This social commentary seems especially pertinent due to the on coming presidential debate on Thursday, which will almost certainly discuss economics, tax, and wealth inequality.
ReplyDeleteFrom your description of the movie, and Professor Rowe’s comment I am also curious about what the movie is saying about our age obsessed culture. When reflecting on the obsession of age, I generally think about the Baby Boomer generation. It seems as if they renewed the quest for immortality in the modern age through the utilization of new types of surgery, procedures, and chemicals. So perhaps our supply and demand entrepreneurial system garnered a greater focus on age products for the immensely large baby-boomer population that has in turn created a more age-obsessed culture. However, I am sure that the obsession with youth in modern society stems from numerous other sources aside from the Baby Boomers.
Growing disparity between the upper and lower classes generally lead to dicension, revolution, and great unhappiness. This growing gap is going to be a huge concern for our nation over the next few years on how to bring the lower class up without infringing upon the liberties of American citizens. I think the bigger underlying question that this movie leads to is what is justice? How do we implement it in a society where the rich have more than they need and the poor die in the street. One indirect quote from this movie that really hit me personally was when the female lead said, "the poor die, and the rich don't live." Where are we headed as a country?
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of the search for youth I think it is sad that we do not reverance age as older societies did. We think of the old as a burden and not a blessings. Thinking we are only useful, and beautiful in our youth sends us striving against nature. I think old age is something to be cherished.
This definitly resembles very much our countries economic situation. At least in the eyes of the socialists. I was talking about this issue the other day. I personally am not rich, however if I were I definitly wouldn't want my hard earned wealth to be distributed to the lower class. People need to take responsibility for themselves and stop depending on welfare and look for a job. I do have friends who are very very very wealthy, and I see all the time people trying to take advantage of their status, almost as if they feel like they owe it to them. Distribution of wealth from upper to lower classes would make owning businesses and going to school for things like medicine or law pointless. What person is going to spend 12 years in medical school to make $100k a year when an entry level pharmaceutical sales reps make the same with little or no schooling.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering how you think wealth is distributed to the poor? I just don't see it. Our tax system benefits large corporations and the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the lower and middle class. Is this not a redistribution of wealth toward the wealthiest? Large corporations like Walmart get huge tax breaks but then turn around and put local businesses out of business and hire only part time employees with no health benefits. Those same underpaid underemployed workers have to get government help just to survive. If they get sick, they end up in the emergency room with no way to pay. Meanwhile, Walmart makes enormous profits. Is this a form of wealth redistribution? Or, what about tax payers paying for things like sports stadiums while private investors make money on those same stadiums? Isn't this a form of wealth distribution?
DeleteOK, fair enough, Walmart is an example I cannot prove wrong. I personally have a vendetta against Walmart as it is. But Ill get to that another time. In terms of tax money paying for stadiums I agree with you. The public shouldn't have to pay for that, but the private investors shouldn't be held responsible for wanting to increase their wealth. In an article on the Forbes website pertaining to billionaires this year, it stated that, "There were almost as many list members who lost wealth (441) as there were who gained it (460). Only 180 held steady. Innovation, a rebounding Dow and vibrant IPO markets helped mint 128 new names".(http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2012/03/07/forbes-worlds-billionaires-2012/. The redistribution of wealth is there, whether you and I see the money or not, there is constantly money being swapped between the rich and the poor. Back to Walmart, and the reason why they disgust me. Corporations such as Walmart are as crooked as a zig-zag pattern. I used to work for a grocery store back home. This lady told me her story one day on a lunch break. She was working for Walmart, when a full paint can somehow fell off of a shelf and struck her in the head. She was rendered unconscious and was in a coma for several weeks. She as you stated above could not float the hospital bill, so to attempt to cover the damages sued Walmart. Walmart's high paid team of lawyers made the woman seem like a money hungry criminal by stating that she was only suing Walmart to get money so she no longer would have to work. Anyway to make a long story short, they did just that by tearing through her background(financial records and other sources) calling her money hungry and burying her attorney in paper work until she could no longer afford to keep her lawyer. She still is poor, still has brain damage and partial paralysis of her face.
ReplyDeleteI just realized I sort of got off topic. My point in my original comment was not about the billionaires, but of the millionaires. With the new Obama care laws all doctors are taking huge cuts, aside from cosmetic surgeons(who get paid in cash). I wont use names but lets just call him "DR.M". "Dr.M" who ten years ago made 1.5 million a year was comfortable. He bought his first house with the help of his parents and was able to pay it off fairly quick. He then went on to acquire a beach house, and a city house closer to his office. Since the start of Obama's first term "Dr.M" has taken substantial pay cuts and now only makes 500k a year. while yes to you and I this is a boat load of money, plenty for someone like us to live very comfortable. However, he still has mortgages to pay on the other two houses, and he has a sick child whom requires a huge some of money to take care of, on top of paying for his children's education. While this money isn't directly going into the bank accounts of the poor, it is going towards making healthcare more affordable for them. Do you feel as though the Dr. who had to go to south america for 12 years med school should take the hit because some people can't afford health care coverage? I know that if I went to 12 years of med school I certainly would want something to show for it.
Delete