Income Inequality

A cause of income inequality could be the jobs that people have. “In the United States, income inequality, or the gap between the rich and everyone else, has been growing markedly… (Income Inequality, para 1).” There have been no signs of income inequality changing for the lower classes, or getting better, therefore, it has become a very concerned issue upon Americans. “America’s top ten percent now average at least nine times as much income as the bottom 90 percent (Income Inequality, para 2).” Many people who have a big dream have jobs that pay minimum wage, which makes it hard. With the rich getting richer, it makes it hard for the lower classes to get a shot at being at the top with them. This also makes it hard to close the gap between the three classes.

Today, the average income of the richest 10% is 14 times that of the poorest 10% in the United States. Famous economist Milton Friedman argues that this inequality gap would eventually spur people to work harder and boost productivity. Others, who are not that optimistic, argue that the income inequality leads to a growing level of inequality of opportunity. For that reason, six in 10 Americans now say that only a few people at the top have an opportunity to advance. Looking at both of the perspectives, we see that different people’s attitudes towards fairness and equality are different. However, it still does not change the fact that income inequality is not at the desired range to have positive consequences, which makes it a huge problem. A recent study points out that different economic systems function best with different levels of inequality and under current circumstances, the inequality range that will lead to positive consequences for the U.S. economy is between the Gini coefficients of 0.25 and 0.35. This is an efficient range, because it addresses notions of fairness that have been supported by each side.

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

This first lecture gave us a close look into the unequal share of wealth and the factors that determine the wealth of individuals in the American society. One of the first factors that affect immensely the inequality in America is the obsessiveness of wanting to classify people and make them mark a box for their gender, race and class. Where men and whites have more privileges than any other person and are not only paid higher, but would most likely spend less time in prison for committing the same crime as an African American. The United states is so unequal that the top 1% of the population has 38.1% of the wealth and the bottom 40% which is a little less than half of the people living in America only have 0.2% of the wealth. And as if that statistic alone was not scary enough, we learn in this

In any given population, there is a difference between what people within the population earn. The uneven distribution of income in any given population is income inequality. In order for there to be income, there has to be several sources of income. These sources of income may be combinational or independent per person receiving the income. Income may result from wages, rent, bank account interests, salaries or even profits made in business transactions ( Stiglitz, 2012).

This article titled "How income inequality hurts America” written by Steve Hargreaves explains the thesis statement itself. On the other hand, he states it’s not just income equality but it’s also lifespan inequality, education inequality, and declining economic growth, which refers to the graphs shown above the starting paragraph. Mr. Hargreaves then points out a fact that the rich are getting richer, while the poor and the middle class are falling behind. Another fact concerning this issue is the 400 richest people outnumber the wealth of the bottom 150 million put together.

Furthermore, the equality of opportunities as one of the foundations of the American dream turned into evident inequality. “The lion’s share of economic growth in American over the past thirty years has gone to a small, wealthy minority, to such an extent that it’s unclear whether the typical family has benefited at all from technological progress and the rising productivity it brings” (Krugman 586). Income inequality has been steadily growing since 2008 when the global financial crisis erupted. Moreover, the gap in prosperity between the group of Americans with high income and all the others had never been such extreme as it is now. Thus, not everyone has the opportunity to become wealthy through hard work. The increase in socioeconomic inequalities,

High income inequality prevents an economy from growing, so the current status of the wealth gap in the U.S. is dangerous to the future of the U.S. economy. In fact, the average income of the top 10% of the United States population is roughly nine times greater than the average income of the poorest 10% of the population (OECD). This widening wealth gap is a problem of extreme importance and failure to recognize it may lead to social problems such as a rise in crime and overall social unrest. A continuing rise in this wealth gap affects all U.S. citizens as the bottom 99% may lose opportunities in education and be exposed to more crime, and the top 1% may lose consumers as no one will be able to afford their products. Furthermore, due to this rising gap, ordinary children of the masses, who are from the bottom 40%, are being denied to educational opportunities because they cost more money (Ingraham). Regardless if a child is born into a wealthy or poor family, they are still born with the same attributes; however, it is income inequality that creates inequality in educational opportunities for children, which threatens the overall educational status quo of the nation. A major wealth gap in any society is strongly associated with significant problems such as greater poverty levels, more crime, and even poor conditions of health (Partridge and Weinstein).

Corporations and businesses should take responsibility in devising multiple solutions that help society as a whole. In Joseph Stiglitz’s essay “Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society” shows the corruption of wealth inequality in society. While, in Ethan Watters’ essay “The Mega-Marketing of Depression in Japan” shows the corruption of Western pharmaceutical companies shaping culture to market depression in Japan. [Drug marketing is a big problem in today’s society since big firms neglect their obligation to share the profits with others in society. Both Watters and Stiglitz offer objections to the economic markets in America as unjust due to market competition, false marketing techniques, opposition to cultural or income differences,

At the root of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ highly touted (and shouted) policies, from free college to an increase in the minimum wage, is the issue of inequality in America. Perhaps it’s no surprise that Sanders has seen great success on his message of fixing inequality in the United States, the gap between the wealthy and poor has been growing at an alarming rate. The focus tends to be on income inequality rather than wealth inequality. According to Google Trends, searches for “Income Inequality” significantly outnumber searches for “Wealth Inequality”, and have consistently done so since 2004 (Web Search Interests). Despite this, wealth inequality is a far greater problem than income inequality. Income inequality

In the article where Michael Shermer has his commentary, the skeptical side of income inequality is discussed. The article is very unique because it is a bunch of critics that respond to Michael Shermer’s claim “that the U.S. is still the land of equal opportunity.” Many scholars criticize Shermer’s skepticism that the income inequality is not as large as people perceive it to be in the United States. In one case, Shermer responds to a critic and he highlights how the rich and poor are not that far apart, emphasizing how many economists believe that poverty can be reduced to 0% by 2100, some believing even by 2050. Shermer concludes his response to the critic by signing off saying that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation predicted poverty

Income inequality has been a major concern around the world, and it mainly links to how economic metrics are distributed among individuals in a country. Economists generally categorise these metrics in wealth, income and consumption. Wilkinson and Picket (2009) showed in their studies that inequality has drawbacks that lead to social problems. This is because income inequality and wealth concentration can hinder or delay long term growth. In 2011, International Monetary Fund economists showed that less income inequality increased the duration of countries’ economic growth spells more than free trade, low government corruption, foreign investment or low foreign debt (Berg and Ostry, 2011).

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