Analysis Of Terry Pratchett 's ' Captain Samuel Vimes '

Wealth gives not as fortunate people the allusion that the wealthy are happy because they are able to do whatever they want to. It imprisons a person because people do have that mindset and don’t always think that they can use their money for good.

Despite Conwells experiences, his audience repeatedly tried to prove him wrong and noted how awful it was that a Christian minister prefered to advise people to get rich rather than to preach the gospel. But Conwell believed that to make money honestly was to preach the gospel and to be poor was wrong. What the people did not understand was that a wealthy person can also be a pious person. Conwell tells the people that they should have money and it is their Christian and godly duty to do so. To be pious is to be carful of the duties owed by created beings to God; devout, godly, religious¹. The people associated wealth with being dishonest, dishonerable, mean, and contemptible. He told them that to think that to be pious you must be poor and awfully dirty is an terrible misconception.

I always believed that you are considered wealthy when you make a high income. According to the authors, most high income earners are not rich, which surprised me. Most people with high incomes fail to accumulate any lasting wealth. They live hyper-consumer lifestyles, they spend their money as fast as they earn it. I always perceived millionaires as living the lavish life with their big sport utility vehicles and huge mansions. Well I was wrong, in

In William Domhoff’s article, Wealth, Income, and Power, he examines wealth distribution in the United States, specifically financial inequality. He concludes that the wealthiest 10% of the United States effectively owns America, and that this is due in large part to an increase in unequal distribution of wealth between 1983 and 2004. Domhoff also states that the unequal wealth distribution is due in large part to tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions. Most of Domhoff’s information is accurate and includes strong, valid arguments and statements. However, there is room for improvement when identifying the subject of what is causing the inequality.

According to Alternet.org, “The wealthiest 85 people on the planet have more money that the poorest 3.5 billion people combined. The super rich .01% of America, such as Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan) take home a whopping 6% of the national income, earning around $23 million a year. Compare that to the average

“A Harvard businessman interviewed 5,000 Americans on how they thought wealth in the United States was distributed” (Wealth Inequality video). They assumed that the wealth was distributed a little unfairly, with the top 20% owning most of the wealth in a low but even decline into poverty. Then he asked them what they thought would be the ideal distribution of wealth, 92% of them (at least 9/10) said that they thought an “ideal” distribution had the top 20% barely distinguishable from the middle class with the bottom percent not too worse off than the bottom 20% of the middle class. The reality of how wealth in the U.S. is budgeted looks something a like this: the top 20% owning well of half of all the nation’s wealth, the middle class is now as worse off as what citizens thought the bottom 20%

In today’s capitalist economy, where economic transactions and business in general is centered on self-interest, there is a natural tendency for some people to make more than others. That is the basis for the “American Dream,” where people, if they worked hard, could make money proportional to their effort. However, what happens when this natural occurrence grows disproportional in its allocation of wealth within a society? The resulting issue becomes income inequality. Where a small portion of the population, own the majority of the wealth and the majority of the population own only a fraction of what the rich own. This prominent issue has always been the subject of social tension

There is no doubt that wealth inequality in America has been escalating quickly; the portion of total income earned by the top one percent has doubled since the beginning of the 1970’s. The wealthy are the main beneficiaries

Furthermore, when analyzing the different classes, and the distributions of wealth and income in the United Sates; for instance, the upper, middle, and lower classes – it is an astronomical amount of wealth that the top 1 percent acquire. It is also noted by Johnson & Rhodes (2015), “that income and wage inequality have risen sharply over the last thirty years” (pg. 228). Equally important to this, is how the average change in income is divided in Americas quintiles and the widening gaps. For example, in Table 5.2, while the lowest fifth quintile increased from $11,128 to $11,361 – a difference of $233.00 from years 2006 to 2012; the highest quintile increased from $289,446 to $319,918 – an exponential increase of $30,472 (pg. 229). With income inequalities at this rate, it is difficult for the majority of the United States to experience upward social mobility. Pursuing this further, in a line stated by Johnson and Rhodes (2015), “The wealthiest Americans can live on the dividends from their investments without having to touch the principle or work for a salary” (pg. 230). From this, it is visible to see how society has compartmentalized different levels of functions to keep a so called balance for the greater

In a country like this, growing from being poor to wealthy is extremely hard seeing as how it isn 't built for most. It was built by most but wasn 't built for most. The poor stay poor and the gap between the rich and people without money just increases.

In “Economic Elites, Investments, and Income Inequality” from the academic journal, Social Forces, graduate Ph. D student from Ohio State University, Michael Nau presents throughout his study the rise of an additional factor that has evidently influenced the concentration of vast amounts of income among the elite class, income from investments. In this era, the common belief is that demographics, labor market institutions, and technology are causing the inequality to rise and for the elites to produce astounding amounts of income. Nau’s findings present how the debate over the incomes of the elites has to be expanded apart from the ‘working rich class’ to also include the income producing wealth. In addition, Nau presents how the

This fact remains accurate after government attempts at wealth redistribution such as taxes. This shows that the government is not successful at helping to redistribute wealth and the dramatic increases in wealth of the rich while the poor barely improve show the inefficacy of the “trickle-down economy” model. To figure out why the 10% is gaining wealth so quickly, the people that make up this small group must be analyzed. The top 10% is essentially comprised of three main groups: superstars, CEOs, and high-income professionals. However, the incomes of superstars and CEOs are increasing more rapidly than those of the high-income professionals (Belsie). While the incomes of high-income professionals and superstars are market driven, they do not benefit from the same rate that CEOs do.

This “middle-class nation” is struggling to support all those who live in its borders and the misconceptions about wealth are vastly overrated. Furthermore, the idea of wealth and stability is incorrect, and there is a very sharp contrast between the rich and poor in the country. As the richest twenty percent of American hold ninety percent of the total household of the total household wealth in the country, those at the bottom have managed very poorly and suffer to get through the days.

Also income is less concentrated than wealth. Also the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) is the main source to obtain information related the allocation of wealth for household. The SCF income distribution received approximately a third of all income in 2013 data also shows that the top 3 percent of the, while the top 3 percent of the wealth distribution held 54 percent of all wealth (Stone, et al).  Similarly, the top 10 percent of the income distribution received a little less than half of all income, while the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution held three-quarters of all wealth. In fact, the average wealth has amplified over the past 50 years, but it has not developed equally for all groups

Capitalism has been the central force behind the growth of the United States’ progressive economy. Within such advanced economic system the chances of economic disparity are significantly high. In fact, over the past three decades there has being a steady increase in unequal wealth distribution among the economic classes. To sustain the current unequal wealth distribution among the classes of the American population, there are numerous factors that influence and shape this trend. For some members of the population it is alarmingly disturbing to know that recent statistics have shown that, “In the US [alone] the wealthiest 1% of its population owns more than the bottom 95 %” (Gutman). As for the difference in economic wealth, it resulted