Social Justice Issue: Wealth Inequality

A Critical Analysis of The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap

William Domhoff’s claims in the article Wealth, Income, and Power, are, for the most part, very strong. He makes strong statements regarding the concentration of wealth in the United States, and backs them up with good sources throughout. The statistics used are valid, and consistent among many trusted sources. The only area where Domhoff’s argument falls short is when he references the causes of wealth inequality. In this portion, his argument is a bit weak and could be strengthened by considering other important factors effecting wealth concentration, rather than limiting it to two seemingly all-important issues. Overall, upon examination of Domhoff’s ideas and sources, he presents an accurate and fairly strong argument about the unequal distribution of wealth in the United States.

As we move closer to the 2016 national elections in the United States, claims of a growing wealth gap between the supposed “haves” and “have-nots” becomes more pronounced. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton even went so far as to caution us that we are advancing towards a repeat of the “Gilded Age of the robber barons”. The insinuation in this claim creates a perception that there are a growing number of individuals within American society using questionable methods to increase their wealth, all at the expense of the not so fortunate. So-called culprits of these activities are often referred to as the “top 1 percent”; a term gaining a strong foothold in our current vernacular. Although the existence of an income inequality gap is evident, subjectively misinterpreted data is the primary culprit driving the perception that the income inequality gap is expanding.

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

“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%

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

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

The way money is distributed within the United States is unbalanced, with the majority of the wealthy owning the bulk of the country’s wealth. Wealth can be defined as a person’s assets and monetary gains. This unequal distribution has caused numerous economic and geographical problems, such as how resources are divided among countries, how developed or industrialized a country is in relation to wealth distribution and the wide spread of disease and lack of medical attention due to an absence of money. In this paper I will address the negative and positive aspects associated with wealth distribution. I will explain how resource distribution contributes to an area’s economic growth. I will also discuss varying ways to measure wealth

Wealth in america is only reserved for the top 1%. Even out of those who live in the

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

The highest earning fifth of U.S. families earned 59.1% of all income, while the richest earned 88.9% of all wealth. A big gap between the rich and poor is often associated with low social mobility, which contradicts the American ideal of equal opportunity. Levels of income inequality are higher than they have been in almost a century, the top one percent has a share of the national income of over 20 percent (Wilhelm). There are a variety of factors that influence income inequality, a few of which will be discussed in this paper. Rising income inequality is caused by differences in life expectancy, rapidly increases in the incomes of the top 5 percent, social trends, and shifts in the global economy.

What makes these numbers seem so dreadful is the fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In the United States, it’s estimated that 20% of the population holds 80% of the wealth. We can break these figures down further, and note that the bottom 40% of all households have only 1% of all the

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.

John Rawls in his ‘A Theory of Justice’ (Rawls , Revised edition 2009) aims to work out a theory of social justice that is a viable alternative to other doctrines, which have long dominated our philosophical tradition.  While the author acknowledges that most citizens and institutions recognize the principle of social justice, he also underlines that their conceptions on the distribution of basic rights and duties are influenced by their interests and hence are not always to the advantage of all citizens.  In fact, Rawls argues that the prevailing Utilitarian and Intuitive theories, work on the principle of maximum benefits for the greatest amount of people, or the assumption that men born into different positions have different expectations

Rejecting the strict egalitarianism, Rawls does not support a laissez faire society where people are entitled to their self-ownership of their wealth. They have the rights to their property. However, this view ignores Rawls’s emphasis on the original position. Rawls notes that, under the veil of ignorance, no one knows his social status or his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities. (572) However, the best well off might enjoy their wealth only because they are fortunate to born in a decent environment. This morally arbitrary fact remains an accident of natural endowment which the person cannot choose. Bezos was born in a rich family which was among the largest landholders in Texas. He graduated from an Ivy League school which most people could not attend. In addition, a research on 38 colleges indicates that more students came from the top 1 percent of the income scale than from the entire bottom 60 percent. These examples indicate that the advantaged begin their life at a more advanced starting point which they could not decide. Rawls would argue that these morally arbitrary privileged claims on the wealth do not constitute a just society. A just society, in contrast, needs to provide fair equality of opportunity ((2)(a) of Rawls’s theory of justice) which puts everyone at a same starting point. For instance, a just society gives equal access to education or equal job application process.