Stiiglitz Income Equality

In the United States, high standard of living is not equally shared with in the Americans. The 1970s and 1990s was period where economic inequality began to grow. Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC Berkeley has been doing a research for the U.S. income inequality. He states that there has been an increase since the 1970s, and has reached levels that have not been seen since 1928. “In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation’s income distribution, by 1944 the top 1%’s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would remain more or less constant for the next three decades. But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost percent income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall.”(DeSilver) Ever since then, economic inequality continues to increase, especially in the last three decades.

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

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.

Along with globalization market forces has had the greatest impact on income equalities in the United Sates. Thomas Piketty says that “by definition, in all societies, income inequality is the result of adding up these two components: inequality of income from labor and inequality of income from capital. The more unequally distributed each of these two components is, the greater the total inequality ... [a] decisive factor is the relation between these two dimensions of inequality: to what extent do individuals with high income from labor also enjoy high income from capital? Technically speaking, this relation is a statistical correlation, and the greater the correlation, the greater the total inequality, all other things being equal” (Piketty & Goldhammer, 2014, p. 242). In the U.S. the correlation between the two dimensions has become so astonishing that “President Obama called economic inequality “the defining challenge of our time.” But while Americans acknowledge that the gap between the rich and poor has widened over the last decade, very few see it as a serious issue. Just five percent of Americans think that inequality is a major problem in need of attention” (Fitz,

expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest” (Trotta 1). That’s six trillion dollars added on to the seventeen trillion dollars in debt the United States has already amassed. In 2013, Daniel Trotta, a writer for Reuters News, interviewed Joseph Stiglitz, an economist who won the Nobel Prize in 2001 and gave this statement, “The Iraq war has contributed to the U.S. economic slowdown and is impeding an economic recovery…” (1). Economic problems is not what the United States needs at this time while the markets are still recovering from the 2008

No matter which country you would look into whether it’s from wealthier to those less wealthy countries through the eyes of economics, there are bound to be types of inequity within their borders. Inequity is a very crucial problem in the United States, you would think that our economy here in the states is booming, and the citizens are living life easy or without worry. Life is the United States isn’t as it seems, in fact, Inequity is in fact a big problem even in the United States. Over the years, there has been millions of Americans that were considered to be in poor or in poverty line that are not able to provide for themselves and their families. We can sadly see those Americans on the streets, cars or shelters unable to keep-ends meet that are not able to keep a decent paying job. That is why throughout this paper I’ll be discussing why inequity is a big issue in the United States from how income is distributed through causes of income inequality, social status, and even how the government interventions is trying to alleviate income inequity.

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.

In “Confronting Inequality”, author Paul Krugman explains how bad income inequality is for the American economy while suggesting what to do to fix this growing problem. Krugman covers topics such as the cost of inequality, how the middle class is over extending themselves, education and health care all while appealing to all three rhetorical elements. Krugman’s article has an overall effective and persuasive argument because of the topics he covers and his appeal to the reader with pathos, logos and ethos.

In “inequality for all”, a documentary presented and narrated by Robert Reich, Reich discusses what is happening in terms of the distribution of income and wealth in the US, why it is happening, and is it a problem. “Inequality for all” is directed by Jacob Kornbluth, it premiered in 2013, and it runs for 90 minutes. Reich studied at the University of Oxford in during the late 1960’s, where he befriended future president Bill Clinton. Subsequently, they kept in touch, and in 1993, when Clinton was elected president, he reached out to Reich, to be secretary of labor. Reich was in office for the following four years, and today he is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. For about three decades now, Reich announced that out of all developed countries, the US has the most unequal distribution of wealth, and that inequality is getting even greater in the US. In the documentary, the most compelling topics covered by Reich, are the changes that started happening in the late 1970’s, the fact that 42 percent of Americans born into poverty stay poor, and that nowadays, money controls politics.

This paper is a compare and contrasts of two of the richest men in American history and quite possible the richest ever. The first man of the two is Andrew Carnegie the king of steel and philanthropy. The second is the richest man in the entire history of The United States, the king of oil and his name is John D. Rockefeller. This truly is a compare and contrast of the titans. The first topic of discussion will be each of their respective history then followed by the compare and contrast.

Income inequality is a big ongoing problem in the United States. It has a big effect on what America was all about, the American dream. The American dream that everyone is equal and has equal opportunities. Although a big part of what goes on in the Untied States that just doesn’t fit the American dream; women are unequal in the work place. They are put under what is known as the “Glass Ceiling”. Women do not get promoted in the work place and aren’t getting equal pay as men. This also leads to wag gap between the men and women. Both create income inequality for women and affect their American Dream. There is a long history of women having to deal with the “Glass Ceiling”. Over time woman have made progress but more progress is

Income inequality has been a rising problem in the United States for the past few decades. One of the main issues surrounding this years is election, especially for the Democratic candidates is income inequality and how to address it. Public opinion on income inequality and the government’s role in changing it can easily shape how the election turns out this year which can make great differences to the lives of American’s for years to come.

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).

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

Joseph Stiglitz is a self made economist from Gary Indiana who gained his PhD from MIT before embarking on understanding how to make the social world a better place with economics mainly in how the markets work and how that knowledge can be used to help the individual. Stephen Levitt is an American economist known for his rigorous work in the field of crime and his podcasts with co-founder Stephen Dubner. In this comparative essay the similarities and differences of both Joseph Stiglitz and Steven Levitt will be compared and contrasted. The highlights of both economists careers will be covered, this will include their place and level of education, and any jobs, positions, or careers of importance they held. Finally economic theories for both economists will be displayed and to conclude this essay both economists will be compared to each other for similarities and differences.