Immigration And Income Inequality Analysis

America has been a melting pot of cultures for many centuries, with the number of immigrants continually rising every year. Most of these immigrants come into the country with nothing at all except for the clothes on their backs and a few English words. But they also bring with them something special – their cultures and traditions from their homeland. In the Immigrant Advantage, readers can see that these specific traditions that they bring with them give them an advantage because they tend to have better mental and physical health than their native born American counterparts (5).

The Gilded Age was named by Mark Twain. What he meant by this was that the time period was glittering on the surface, but corrupt underneath. The name suits the time period well; the Gilded Age was a time of economic growth, industrial revolution and wealth, yet beneath the surface of all this the middle and lower classes suffered greatly. The big corporations and the small number of wealthy elites held most of the country’s wealth and the poor were left with barely anything. In other words, in the Gilded Age, the wealthy became wealthier and the poor became poorer.

Analyzing Economic Inequality in Hispanic Immigrant Population in the United States by Using Micro/Macro-Level Lenses

The income inequality amount all Americans is growing greater amount of stress on the everyday people. For instance, older populations are living longer which means they require medical attention more often because they’re getting weaker and venerable to the world. The ACA was passed to help all American receive coverage yet, problems like this still happen. Robyn Stone talks about how Medicare would have much benefit if they did communities housing for older families, keeping in mind the idea is that they should be able to live where they want too. Diane Rowland contradicts Stone by imploring her idea that states should close the Medicaid’s gap to give medical help for everyone and their need.

This is a topic that had been lingering in the shadows until the Occupy Wall street movement made many take a good look at the inequalities that exist all across the board. Vidal states that “the outrage of Occupy was directed at the top 1 percent of the population, an elite class consisting mainly of investment bankers, corporate executives, and layers who currently own 35 percent of the total net wealth in the United States.” (Anderson pg 270) Vidal explains that in order for us to fully understand economic inequality we need to take a look at the stagnation of living standards experienced by millions of

Americans today live in a distinctly unequal society. Inequality is now wider than it used to be in the last century, and the division in income, wages, and wealth are broader than they are in other developed economies of the world. Wealth inequality is the imbalance of wealth or income within a society, and it is one of the most vital economic challenge the US is facing today because the distribution of wealth is more dispersed, making the inequality in wealth distribution at its highest. While the matter has been discussed for many years, the actual income disparity in the U.S. has heightened and is now verging on an extreme gap that portends to impede long-term economic growth. The huge gap between the wealthy and poor is squeezing the U.S. economy, the wealth gap threatens economic growth by diminishing social mobility and producing a less-educated workforce who are not able to compete in the global economy. unrestrained level of income inequality causes political pressures, it discourages trade, investment, and hiring. The present level of income inequality in the U.S. is shrinking GDP growth, and the world's largest economy is struggling to recover from the Great Recession.

The issue of income inequality in the United States is complicated and does not have a definite answer. Income inequality can be measured in a few different ways. The first measurement for the income inequality in a country is to look at the percentages on households and group them into income categories, called distribution by income category. The second measurement for income inequality is called distribution by quintiles or fifths. This is when you divide the total number of people, households, families into five groups called quintiles to examine the percentage of total before tax income received by each quintile. Each quintile would then be ordered by income and households in the category.

Regions across the United States have been changed dramatically by the immigration trends over time. The region of Southern California is no different. When the people in an area change that areas culture is going to change as well, southern California is a great example of that. Yet while changes in history do not change the physical lay out of the area it does affect the culture tremendously. The culture in Southern California specificly is a mix of multiple people making it extremely diverse depending on the area that you are in.

The film Inequality for All really opened my eyes to a huge and growing problem in the United States, and that is inequality. Our country functions best when it has a healthy and growing middle class. That hasn't been the case for the middle class in over 20 years. The problem that we have is that the rich keep getting richer and the middle class wages stay the same, and sometimes even get lower, causing the inequality percentage to rise. The movie stated that in 1978 the average male worker made $48,302 and the average top 1% made $393,682, and in 2010 that same male worker makes $33,751 and top 1% now makes more than 1 million dollars on average. The richest 400 people in the united states have more money than over half the population combined.

Vermont Senator and presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, said it best when he said “A nation will not serve morally or economically when so few have so much, and so many have so little.” This quote perfectly describes the issue that The United States is currently dealing with: income inequality. Income inequality is the gap between how much money is made by the rich and everyone else in the nation. It also refers to the unequal distribution of wealth among people in a population. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the gross domestic product (GDP) in the United States has steadily been rising, making it seem as though economic growth is stable (Inequality for All). However, it does not take into account the increasingly widening gap between the 1% and the 99% of the nation’s population. Government officials should pay closer attention to income inequality in The United States because ignoring the issue ultimately hurts American citizens.

Many large firms make a lot of money, but there is no trickle down effect. The few on top make most of the money while the average worker does much of the work. According to the real annual income of Americans, about 95% of the benefits of economic growth over the last 25 years have gone to the rich. Should not the hard worker on the bottom get more? These firms are controlling because they only give out as much as necessary to keep the workers employed. Many of these same firms have companies in other industries, such as entertainment or retail, and a lot of the money they pay out comes back to them through these other industries. In

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.

Immigration on Microeconomic Issues and Policies are becoming a more and more sizzling topic. However, mostly because of our new president, and the plans set for immigration as a whole. To understand immigration, it's when someone who migrates from one region to another to seek an improvement in living standards because the living conditions or job opportunities in the immigrant's own region are not good. The concern is that immigrates will come over to the united states and receive free benefits (Health, Social, Welfare, etc.) while not actually contributing. Understanding that the belief of immigration and that it's abusing economy is wrong in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong there are some pro’s and con’s when debating this issue.

Everywhere you look at the United States you can find economic stratification. From the kind of vehicle you drive, to the kind of house you live in, to the kind of restaurants you eat at the most you will find economic stratification. Some might ask, does any of that truly matter today? Yes, unfortunately, it does. An important goal for most people is what’s referred to as The American Dream. Whether it is to attend a good college, get a respectable job, purchase the perfect house, and have a small family or maybe just to start your own business; that dream starts with wealth. People with more money will have an easier time with achieving the dream than a lower income person would. With wealth comes power and prestige as well. People with more money have better life chances because they can afford better healthcare, education, healthier food, and safer neighborhoods just to name a few things.

This research also shows that economic growth, on average, raises incomes for both the rich and the poor. It helps to lift the poorest in society out of absolute poverty and does not automatically increase inequality. More importantly, no country has managed to lift itself out of poverty without integrating into the global economy.