The On The Marginal Productivity Theory

The documentary emphasizes a great concern for preserving family wealth and status that appeared to be shared among many of the wealthiest American families (Johnson, 2006). For example, a segment of the film took place at a conference strictly allowed the wealthiest Americans alone. Jamie discussed how this conference was held annually with intentions of teaching incredibly wealthy Americans ways in which they can preserve the wealth of their family for successive generations. The film closely relates to many common aspects of sociology overall. However, “The One Percent” really stressed ideas similar to those presented by many Marxist conflict

The video then goes on to identify who the one percent is, including celebrities and political figures. It even goes on to compare the amount of work done by the 1percent in comparison to those in the middle class. All of the data is presented in such a simple manner so that many can understand the issue of wealth inequality throughout the United States.

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 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

In a research of Harvard professor 5000 people in America have opinion in how they think about the actual distribution of wealth in the U.S. and the 92 percent choose the ideal would be 20 percent and 20 percent the middle class. However, the reality is very far from it. “The poorest are not even registered, they are on the package change and the middle class is barely distinguished from the poor, even the rich between the 10 % and 20 % are worst off, only the top 10 % are better off. Only the one percent gets ten time higher and 40 % all the nation wealth. The bottom 80 % 8 out 10 people only has 7 % between them.1 % makes a quarter of the national income today”(you tube, 2015). All of this data reflex one of the truly perspectives in economy of the U.S. Not only people with low wages are the most affected, but also those who have good jobs and

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

Wealth inequality has become a hot-topic in recent years, this is because the return rate on capital, such as stocks or real estate, outruns that of economic growth which resulted in the wealthiest grasping a growing share of wealth, leading to increasing inequality. The unequal distribution of wealth has been a major hallmark of the U.S economy, and among its most notable and lasting results, but until it was brought to the awareness of the public by the Occupy movement’s catch phrase referring to “the 1%” of the populace who control half of the nation’s wealth, this issue had not been brought to the limelight of public economic and political discourse since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and almost every American is basically unaware of the true magnitude and character of the unequal distribution of wealth in our country. Inequality in wealth i.e. the sum of household savings, home equity, investments, and debts is

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

It is a fact that in the US, 50 percent of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. But is it really such an unfortunate reality that we would need a system other capitalism to stem the tide of upward movement of wealth distribution. In my view, what is wrong is not the 1 percent's hold on 50 percent of wealth but the resulting decline in middle class that is now a major problem for the US.

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

The gap between the rich and poor in the United States is constantly growing, due to the fact that minimum wage is low for the poor but not for the rich. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. There is no gray area in this situation. According to A Project of The Institute for Policy Studies, “The top 0.1 percent is taking in over 184 times the income of the bottom 90 percent.” There

This fact remains accurate after government attempts at wealth redistribution such as taxes. This shows that the government is not successful at helping to redistribute wealth and the dramatic increases in wealth of the rich while the poor barely improve show the inefficacy of the “trickle-down economy” model. To figure out why the 10% is gaining wealth so quickly, the people that make up this small group must be analyzed. The top 10% is essentially comprised of three main groups: superstars, CEOs, and high-income professionals. However, the incomes of superstars and CEOs are increasing more rapidly than those of the high-income professionals (Belsie). While the incomes of high-income professionals and superstars are market driven, they do not benefit from the same rate that CEOs do.

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

In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Joseph Stiglitz, a noble prize winning economist, argues that the upper 1% controls about 40% of all wealth in America. This top 1% has taken about a quarter of all income in America, and has seen their income rise about 18% in the past decade. This has made the inequality between classes in the US expand. Eventually, this inequality gap will even hurt the top 1%, because the other 99% will either fight for a bigger piece or just stop working all together. The top 1% can buy anything they need, but their fate realizes on the other 99% to work hard and not fight back. If the 99% stopped working, there would be a simple way to gain back money… that would be to raise taxes on the rich. However, the rich get rich by capital gains, which have a low tax policy. So overall, the upper percent can eventually learn, but a majority of the time it is too little too late.

“The social positions that individuals occupy help to determine who they are, what they think and do, where they are going, and what happens to them” (pg.256 Social Inequality). The film The One Percent spoke of inequality and served as an example regarding how the rich remain in control of political policies that allow them to acquire more wealth while limiting opportunities for the poor. “It easier to cleanse the earth of these people and send them to the far reaches of the universe” (Class film). This type of mentality has attributed to the reduction of positive life chances among the poor population. Many underprivileged individuals were denied safety (community police), education, and housing based on bias. “Those with lower levels of