ISSUE85 Societal overall sucess vs. people's well-being Quite hard to deal with!

[chendw04]

Hey guys! What do you think of the following issue? I find it quite hard to establish an appropraite statement. Appreciate it if any one could offer me some ideas!

 

85. Some people believe that in order to thrive, a society must put its own overall success before the well-being of its individual citizens. Others believe that the well-being of a society can only be measured by the general welfare of all its people.

 

It is probably an irony to see that the extent to which a society isconsidered thriving is likely to contradict that of the well-being of itspeople. On the contrary, a society that undoubtedly provides the best welwareto all of its people may fail to be the most robust, energetic and thrivingone. So how to deal with the relationship between the overall success andprosperity of a society and the well-being of its people who indisputablycontribute innumerous much for their society to blossom remains open to debate.I propose that for a modern nation, the overall and holistic success is moreimportant. In order to attain a comprehensive advantage among the globalcompetition, sometimes the immediate well-being of people should be preemptedby the long-term interest and success of the society.

To begin with, given a panoramic view of the world today, the societiesbelieved to experience thrivingness seem not uncommon to face more severeprobelms that undermine the welfare of their people. Take American society asan example. Because of the impact of financial crisis, U.S. encountersrelatively high umemployment rate at present. Not a few people thereforeprotest that the government should distribute more money to boost the jobmarket to help its off-the-job citizens to restore their middle-class life,rather than suqander the budget into the black hole of overseas militaryactions. However, if U.S. is uncapable to control the political situation ofthose oil-countries by means of military deterent, it will not take long forthe whole nation to be paralysed: cars, assembly lines and the like that definemodern America cannot operate without oil. More people will lose jobs for thissake. In summary, if America is unable to draw sufficient money from its innocentcotizens that could be otherwise used to raise people's well-being to keep itsglobal military success, it will lose the ultimate ground to increase thenational welware.

Secondly, sometimes more well-being is based on the"ill-being" of the same group of people within the same society. Highwelware is generally predicated upon high tax rate system, which is consideredcapable to strike distribution disparity. However, every and each one in thesociety is supposed to pay more under such taxation for what they purchase. Asa result, Sweden becomes the byword of social security system that takes careof its citizens from the cradle to grave in the price of high tax, which mostAmericans, who hold the faith that free market and smaller government will assuredlylead to a thriving and competitive nation, would refuse. Indeed, America hasmuch higher number of GDP per capita in comparison with that of Sweden.American society looks unquestionably more charged with thrivingness. From thisperspective, it seems that we cannot ask for perfect welware while are stillambitious to push forward our society to somewhere ahead.

In conclusion, while talking about the success of society as a whole andthe well-being of its people, it is true that to some extent they are inconflict with each other. Nonetheless, a modern society that raises anincreasing population with a large base do necessitate that the comprehensivesuccess of it should outweigh the immediate if not short-sighted well-being ofits people. It is also true that in a post-indutrial era, an excessivewell-being of people will to some dgree obstruct the growth of its economicamount which is the ultimate guarantee of the welware of its people.