Chair Activities Analysis

One of the activities that we simulated in class was musical chairs. Being that we are studying about a capitalist country, named America, and playing a game that includes the victory of an individual, I suspected that this activity pertained to the competition that we face everyday to survive in our society. In both the game and in any capitalist country, an individual's success is germane to how competitive they are. If a person has a strong enough ambition to win, then they will have a greater chance to succeed, compared to if they didn't. However, as shown in musical chairs, the victory of an individual leads to the failure of many others. In the end, only a few can win and many will lose.

Through musical chairs, we also took notice on the fact that many people did not have a chair/job, because there weren't enough. People could not sit not because they "lost," but for the simple fact that this game is set up so that there wouldn't be enough chairs for everyone to sit in, similar to how # of seats of employment is less than the # of people. And to make it worse, the second time that we followed this activity, there were reserved chairs for certain people that were never removed. And similarly, in our society, those who are already wealthy will remain rich, if not richer. Their wealth will generate more wealth, while the poor will continue to struggle through life, due to their inability to follow the rules of society. (In the musical chair example, Maggie, Jia Min and Dylan will continue have a place to sit, while the competition becomes more intense for those who do not have a reserved seat).

The other activity that we did was the visual representation of the share of national wealth in America through chairs. All the chairs represented all of America's wealth. During this activity, we saw that a great amount of people had to share half a chair, while a few individuals had 3 chairs to themselves. This portrayal of share of national wealth shows that while the bottom (in terms of wealth) 60% have to share less than 20% of the national wealth, the top 1% has approximately the same amount to themselves. A vast majority of the people have to live an uncomfortable life style, just so that those few people can have more than they should (in some cases, can) use. However in America, we view that 1% as an example and the driving force for "working hard." Everyone wants to be that top percentile. Even throughout the activity, I was hoping to be one of the top 20%, so that I wouldn't have to be cramped into half a chair with two other people. But wIthout that 1% of successful people, everyone would lose all hope, which is why we see them as a goal, rather than a person that is taking our wealth that can possibly provide a better life style for us.

-Another thought-
While doing the analysis about the chair representation of the share of national wealth, I was thinking about how people on the subways, sometimes take up two seats even when there are people standing up. And most people see that as rude and selfish. However, on the bigger scale into the measures of wealth, we see those people who "take up two seats" as superior and hard working. I just thought it was interesting how America has two completely different views on people who are essentially doing the same.