Stiglitz's Argument Essay

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

In other words, America has a widening gap between its wealthy and poor. As the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, there is a problem emerging: the disappearance of the middle class. Low-wage workers continue to fall behind those who make higher wages, and this only widens the gap between the two. There has been an economic boom in the United States, which has made the country more prosperous than it has ever been. That prosperity does not reach all people; it seems to only favor the rich. Rising economic segregation has taken away many opportunities for the poor to rise in America today. The poor may find that the economic boom has increased their income; however, as their income increase so does the prices they must for their living expenses (Dreier, Mollenkopf, & Swanstrom 19).

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.

Stiglitz identifies dwindling opportunity, monopoly power and tax treatment, and the investments of the government as the effects from manipulating the economy to exclusively benefit the top 1%. The societal impact becomes clear when the author states that the ultimate price is the “erosion of our sense of identity,” which includes “fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community” because a majority of people realize the importance of these topics related to the success of themselves and their country (Stiglitz, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”). The article concludes with the significance of paying attention to common welfare as a “precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being” that the top 1% have a history of failing to grasp before meeting their

It can be said that money is power in the United States, and this is brought out in the essay, “Class in America---2012” written by Gregory Mantsios. He says that even though many Americans do not like to discuss class, “it can determine where people live, who their friends are, how well they are educated, and what they do for a living” (Mantsios). Many Americans do not speak about class type, and most find it unacceptable (Mantsios). Unfortunately, we can see that there are laws that are built to help and better the wealthy, while it cripples the rest of us. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “The richest twenty percent of Americans hold nearly ninety percent of the total household wealth in this county” (Institute) Gregory Mantsios without reserve describes the majority of people are at a disadvantage in their social class, while the upper class is compensated.

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

. In the Gilded Age the economy was dominated by the wealthy corporations, “And so it went, in industry after industry---shrewd, efficient businessmen building empires, choking out competition, maintaining high prices, keeping wages low, using government subsidies” (Zinn 257). This is seemingly what is happening again in the 21st century; the level of inequality has peaked once more with, “…inadequate wages, poor social mobility, lack of access to universal healthcare and basic social safety nets, limited labor rights and attacks on unions, a tax system that benefits the rich in general and unearned wealth in particular” (Morning's Minion

“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).

Kristof appeals to his readers by evoking emotion and providing logical situations that relate to his points. He incorporates an example that “the 20 wealthiest Americans, a group that would fit comfortably inside a luxury private jet bound for the Caribbean Island, are worth more than the poorer half of the American population.” Kristof evokes emotion because he wants his reader to sympathize with the poorer half of America, and realize that it is unfair that they have to go hungry while the wealthiest people are traveling to tropical islands on private jets. Kristof also appeals to his logical readers because of the statistics he includes. There are more than 318.9 million people who live in America, and 20 of those people account for the wealth of half that number. Kristof wants the reader to understand that the economic system is unfair and benefits the wealthy, and he accomplishes this by including that statistic. He allows the reader to think of the situation in his/her mind, and comprehend

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

John Komlos is Professor Emeritus of Economics and of Economic History at the University of Munich and is currently visiting professor at Duke University as well as at UNC-Chapel Hill. He has also taught at Harvard University and the University of Vienna. Born in Budapest, he became a refugee and grew up in Chicago where he received PhDs in both history and in economics from the University of Chicago. His mentor was the Nobel-Prize winning economic historian Robert Fogel. Most recently Komlos has written critically of recent economic policies that led to the “hollowing out of the middle class” and has been an advocate of humanistic economics in his articles for the PBS blog, for instance in http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/plight-african-americans-u-s-2015/.

Throughout the article, Stiglitz approaches the topic of the 1% and how that prestigious group rarely tries benefiting anyone besides his or her self. Joseph Stiglitz gets that point across and explains it well within his article. The topic of the 1% only benefiting his or her self is extensively explained in the statement about the rich not caring about common problems. The rich has a large sum of money that they could invest into infrastructure, education, war and technology, but the upper 1% does not want to do that because it does benefit that group enough. I

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

America is one of the world’s largest and prosperous developed countries in the world, but take a closer look and you realize that the great United States of America has an alarmingly large amount of poverty. Where there once used to be an “American Dream” there now lies the cold hard truth, there is less and less opportunity every day and growing inequality every second. Joseph E. Stiglitz how America has turned into a country that would be unrecognizable to any of the founding fathers. In The Price of InequalityStiglitz visits this problem and searches for the source of the economic inequality that the United States is faced with today. Stiglitz came to the conclusion that America is declining and turning into a society like the one

There are many inequalities prevalent in the US, and as a capitalist society, one of the most common is economic inequality. The Equality Trust defines economic inequality, as the gap between the well off and less well of in regards to overall economic distribution (“How Is”). See, our capitalist society strongly benefits those with a capitalist mentality and can afford the means to invest/own capital. Over the years there has been an increasing wealth gap between the top one percent earners and the general population. So why are the rich flourishing while the poor are struggling in this capitalist environment? The policy decisions of our country allow this inequality to permeate throughout our industries, thus creating a culture of power and greed. One result of this culture is the explosion of high salaries in the US and Emmanuel Saez explains this trend in Striking it Richer. Saez affirms, “Indeed, estimates based purely on wages and salaries show that the share of total wage and salaries earned by the top 1 percent wage income earners has jumped from 5.1 percent in 1970 to 12.0 percent in 2006” (Grusky 89). Too bad that the 99 percent of America missed out on this massive economic growth spurt. When economic growth is not evenly distributed among the general population, people tend to question our entire system. This has been an increasingly controversial issue, where corporate America is responsible for the constant exploitation of low-level employees. Through my