Income Inequality Krugman Analysis

In Paul Krugman’s essay, “Confronting Inequality,” he discusses various points about how America has developed into quite the divided country over the years. The United States of America has become unequal in terms of annual income, living standards, education and school districts, politics, and social standards, just to name a few. Several matters of combatting the injustice faced by the nation are also mentioned. All of Krugman’s points revolve around one central question, being “why should we care about high and rising inequality?” (Graff, Birkenstein, Durst 561). I believe inequality truly does raise concerning problems within our society, but it also may be a positive thing for our people. Extreme equality could, in turn, result in a communistic government in which those who work into overdrive earn the same titles as those who do not.

In the story “Confronting Inequality”, written by Paul Krugman, Krugman introduces the rising issue of inequality, explaining how it is and has been an issue ignored by a majority of the population. Krugman uses various views and points from external sources that support the issue he claims people had begun to ignore. His main points are usually references to other people or actual facts and statistics that affect the inequality problem; such as an article called “Income Inequality Without Class Conflict” written by Irving Kristol who tried to argue the opposite, viewing the statistics on tax rates and benefit systems, as well as mentioning markets having a major impact on inequality, creating a massive reduction.

Krugman cites 2005 Congressional Budget Office report showing that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation adjusted income for Americans in the middle of the income distribution rose 21% while the richest 0.01% rose 400 percent (Muller). By using this statistic the author is showing his main point of the piece giving it factual support. Krugman also implies his own political views with his writing, especially in this excerpt. Krugman’s (2011) says that Democrats, by and large, want that super-elite to make at least some contribution to long-term deficit reduction, Republicans want to cut the super- elite’s taxes even as they slash Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the name of fiscal discipline. (P.

In his article "Confronting Inequality" Paul Krugman is asserting the fact of high socioeconomic inequality in the United States, while demonstrating its consequences and the variety of statistic evidences upon it. He is depicting modern American society where we have a huge gap between economic elite and lower-and middle-income classes. There is a time for ''a Great Moderation" reforms that will bring a socioeconomic equality.

In the very informative article “Confronting Inequality” written by Paul Krugman, Krugman asserts that we the people should care about high and rising inequality; in view of the fact that few Americans trust the government, all Americans don’t really have an equal opportunity, and the fact that many families took on housing debt because they wanted their kids to be in a good school district, just a few reasons on why we should care. In the text he talks about the repercussions this matter causes on society along with a variation of statics and blunt quotes that back up his theory. Krugman also gives his own solutions on how to improve these issues of our broken society.

Paul Krugman, in a recent article has eloquently discussed the issue of unequally distributed income in the United States (Krugman, 2015). He alludes to a number of general economic principles in this article. He talks about how a major misconception about the effect of taxes on income inequality in the United States has been addressed through a recent research carried out by Branko Milanovic and Janet Gornick.

“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%

James Madison once stated inequality of the rich and poor predicament to be “evil” and believed that the government should avoid an “immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches” (Johnston, 2016). As one of the founding fathers of our nation, James Madison had a concern about the separation between the rich and the poor. He felt the government should do what it could to avoid the separation, which one can infer that he meant for the government to tax the rich by a greater percentage, thus reducing the financial burden on the poor. A rift has always been present between the rich and the poor throughout history. Depending upon the job, the working class may or may not make enough to support a family. At this point, the

Executive Compensation. I’m in agreement with Thomas Piketty that the one cause of rising inequality in the United States “the rise of supersalaries” for top executives (Piketty & Goldhammer, 2014, p. 298). The average American estimates CEO to worker pay ratio at about 30-to-1, which is more than 4 times what they believe to be ideal. The career review site Glassdoor reported from 2014 data that the average pay ratio of CEO to median worker was 204-to-1 and that at the top of the list, four CEOs earn more than 1,000 times the salary of their median worker with the very top pay ratio of 1,951-to-1. In some cases a CEO makes in one-hour what it takes the average employee six-months to earn. In comparison, the Washington Post reported for the

“One reason to care about inequality is the straightforward matter of living standards. The lions share of the economic growth in America over the past thirty years has gone to a small, wealthy minority…”(Krugman 586).

In Income Inequality: Too Big to Ignore, Robert H. Frank paints a picture to the reader about the struggles of pier pressure. For example: an upper-classmen chooses to buy a big house and fancy clothing. This acts as a “frame of reference” to the changes and norms of the society. If he spends money on something nice, a middle-classmen will then go and decide to do the same thing, and then a lower-classmen…all the way down the social hierarchy. This is what he calls an “expenditure cascade.” Robert relates this with a person’s downfalls, which can be traced due to lower income inequality. Income inequality basically means that in a given quantity, the dispersion of income is underlined by the gap between individuals and or households with

Income inequality has been a major issue in American history. There are many different factors that contribute to inequality. These include education, wealth, discrimination, ability, and monopoly power.

One of the social issues concerning power, status, and class in American society today is income inequality. The income gap between the social classes has increased drastically throughout the last few decades, creating a significant gap between the wealthy and the poor. This gap has become so large that the middle class has nearly diminished, creating a social class comprised of the rich and the poor. The significant gap between the two social classes is unhealthy for the economy because it provides too much power in the hands of those with high social status.

Two important factors that determine a workers' income, regardless of their class, are their race and gender. Minority groups as well as women are less likely to receive an income they deserve, regardless of the job. They are seen as less educated and less capable of doing certain jobs, and they are restricted in advancing and achieving a more suitable income. Only the top capitalists, white males, are receiving the bulk of the nation's income revenue and all the benefits that come along with it. They are the richest people of the United States and instead of being taxed like everyone else, they are allowed even more lee-way. "There is a solution to this problem that will save small farms and businesses, eliminate the ‘death tax' for all Americans and still preserve the integrity of the federal budget: Tax the net worth of the very richest Americans on a regular basis during their lifetime" (Eitzen & Leedham pg. 40). The already rich continue to earn more and more money with their jobs, and they are not being taxed in proportion to their income. They have gotten away with accumulating more of the nation's wealth, while others struggle to make it in life.

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).