Analysis of a PHD Student´s Research on Investment Inequality

As the 2016 United States election is fast approaching, the debates on wealth inequality has once again captured the public’s attention. The society is divided in its opinion of whether the government is responsible for allowing the leading financial institutes and business tycoons to accumulate their affluence within a lax regulatory environment. Others argue that the imbalance of income distribution between the rich and the poor are just simply part of the capitalism package. In order to understand the roots of wealth inequality and to review some of the key concepts that are fundamental to these discussions, former Reuters editor Chrystia Freeland’s "Plutocrats" is a riveting account on the rise of plutocracy.

As civilization has evolved, economic inequality has existed since the feudal era and has made its place in modern society. It is a dilemma that examines the gap between the low wealth of the middle-class worker and the profitable earnings of the monopolizing upper-class business owner. It is a socio- economic issue that can best explored through the lens of the conflict theory; thoroughly explaining as to how the wealth gap came to exist and the consequences of such an economic state on the interaction between the middle-class worker and the wealthy businessman.

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.

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

There are different opinions towards inequality, some people are accepting of it while others dislike the whole idea of inequality. Is it okay to let the wealthy have more control than the poor? Should their ideas matter more than the non-wealthy? And most importantly should the poor be okay with this, if not what must they do? In “Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie and “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx, both Carnegie and Marx expose their thoughts behind inequality and its traits. They both focus and touch upon the poor (proletarians) and the rich (bourgeoisie). They bring up the pros and cons about inequality, capitalism, and communism. Inequality was in Carnegie 's view. In his opinion progress required the processes of competition. Making capitalism an engine of progress. Carnegie believed that there is good to inequality while Marx begs to differ. Marx had his own view on capitalism, he believed that it would eventually result disastrous. Marx believed communism was the best solution to keep both the proletarians and bourgeoisie in an equal place. Both of these socialists have much to say about capitalism and communism and also for economic inequality. They both share different points of view, neither wrong or right. Their opinions are based towards their life experiences and this essay will be noting the differences between they share on inequality, the means of production, and capitalism.

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.

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

Saez presents his credible data through the use of ethos. Saez is a well-known economics professor who devotes time to publish reports about the income inequality in America. Although his reports are strictly opinion, he uses enough historical statistics and actual facts to make his writing credible. Many historical theories lay a foundation that helps prove income inequality is necessary. Social Darwinism is a collection of theories that explain why the rich get richer, while the poor become poorer. Social Darwinists generally claim that the strong and successful people should see their wealth and power increase while the weak and unmotivated should see their wealth and power decrease. This is an excellent explanation for the cause of income inequality and why it shouldn’t be stopped. Wealth can sometimes be a direct result of the hard work and dedication of a person that is motivated to become successful in life. While most people may work as hard as they can and only make an average income, there are the few exceptional cases where people can prosper and rise to great economic stability. For all other citizens, the reality is they may be motivated and driven to become successful just like everyone else, but can only manage a low or middle class job. This reality

Wealth in relation to the upper class is defined not as income, but “the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts” (Domhoff 2005). Income according to Domhoff, “is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own” (Domhoff 2011). Those who own a great deal of wealth do not derive it from income, although they may have a high income resulting from the returns on their wealth. (Domhoff 2011) As for the power the upper class wields on politics, the economy and the government, it is indirectly carried out “through the activities of a wide variety of organizations and institutions. These organizations and institutions are financed and directed by those members of the upper class who have the interest and ability to involve themselves in protecting and enhancing the privileged social position of their class” (Domhoff 2005). This description of the upper class by Domhoff provides the basis for the argument that it institutionally exist - an organized, cohesive group set apart by its wealth and power.

The four dimensions of inequality include wealth, income, education, and occupation. In the United States people are ranked differently from everyone based on these four dimensions. A person’s economic circumstance is governed by wealth and income. Wealth is a personal net worth and income is the amount of money earned. Income is annual and wealth is generational. Both are distributed unequally in society, while wealth is of more importance. Only some are able to achieve wealth while 19 million Americans are living below half of the government’s line. The contribution of wealth is unequal, for example, the richest 1% in 2004 had 190 times the wealth of the median household. Or also, the top 1 percent of wealth holders control 34% of total household wealth, which is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90%. Income inequality is increasing in the U.S society. There is in an increasing gap in the difference of earnings between the heads of corporations and the workers in those corporations. In 1980, the average CEO of a corporation was paid forty-two more times than the average worker. Education: the amount of formal education an individual achieves is determinant of their occupation, income, and prestige. There is a similarity between being inadequately educated and receiving little or no income. Evidence shows that in 2008, the annual earnings of college graduates are more than double non-high

Income and assets inequality is a significate issue in economy. Throughout human history capital and assets will likely continue to accumulate and become more concentrated, as a result that an greater level of inequality might be witness. Piketty ( 2014 ) found that the rate of GDP growth is lower than return on capital. This Piketty 's famous r>g inequality shows that assets tend to accumulate faster than the rate of economic growth in capitalist societies which means capital distribution has almost inevitably been skewed very heavily to the top. What this means is that effects of income and assets inequality should be focus on. However, different countries have different situations, and general analyze shows little evidences than giving the specific geographic area. Moreover, every stages of development of each country matters for the diversification of economic influence. It means the geographic context chosen play an important role of effects of this issue.

As a Economics book, The book Capital in the Twenty-First Century is written for all Economics scholars and Econ major students all over the world. Since the book is mainly talking about the wealth and income inequality in the United States and Europe since the 18th century, it is a great reference for scholars who is writing papers about wealth distribution and income inequality. In addition, since the book was announced to be made into a documentary movie, it will be an original reference for those who are interested in the movie.