The Unequal Distribution Of Wealth In The United States

Nowadays, the process of globalization strengthens the connections between numerous countries across the world, and enables people living in developed countries to help those who are experiencing famine, deaths and diseases in poor countries. However, the moral necessity of doing so has been controversial in human’s society for years. One philosopher named Peter Singer gives his opinion in the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, and presents a powerful argument supporting his claim. In this essay, I will explain his conclusion and main argument, propose one objection to his argument, and evaluate the validity of my objection by considering possible response that Peter Singer would make to my objection.

The economics video is an infographic video that addresses the major inequality of wealth in America. The overall theme of the video clip is that the top 10% of the people in America have and produce way more money than the poorest Americans, which makes up the majority of the population. There is basically not bias in the video, other than that the video creator does not talk about the poor people as if he is one, and he does not talk about the upper class as if he in in the upper class. Depending how the viewer perceives the information there could be a positive or mainly negative bias. The video maker made this video to bring awareness to what people say the ideal wealth inequality should be, what people believe the wealth distribution inequality

The United States is on the way of becoming a corrupted under developed country rather than the leader of develop nations, because of the unequal distribution of wealth. Study show over 75% of the United States wealth is own by the 10% percent of its richest people. You could compare that to the other countries like Israel 68%, Italy 49% and New Zealand 57%, it shows that The United States is mostly wealth concentrated. The other 90% owns only 25% of the United States Wealth.

The author is able to draw his audience in emotionally by speaking of such countries, and how it eventually ties in to the United States, stating that “(if) a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich,” (3) concluding the connection between the U.S. and those countries who have a lower living standard.

Underdeveloped countries need help from the privileged nations, but it is not mean that all of them should become rich countries’ dependents. On the other hand, the developed countries could support them with technology, quality control and new product development. Based on the aided information and technology, the developing countries could get better future development path. Third, the capacity of the lifeboat is misestimated. Although the poorer countries have larger population, rich nations obtain the majority of the world’s fortune and resources. In that case, rich nation’s supporting capacity is definitely much larger than that of the lifeboat, and these developed countries have the great ability to help more people in the world.

In this paper I will defend John Arthur’s argument of entitlement and desert against Peter Singer’s theory of our duty to the global poor. We as privileged citizens, living in a prosperous country, do have some responsibility to help the tens of thousands of children under the age of 5 who die everyday from starvation and treatable disease. It seems natural that we as citizens of a first world country have a duty to help the global poor through charity. However that “duty” is vague and is under heavy moral debate. We as privileged citizens, living in a prosperous country, do have some responsibility to help the global poor. However, this rightful duty should not necessarily live up to the extreme and overwhelming expectations of Peter Singer. John Arthur’s argument of entitlement and desert is more realistic, logical, and more applicable to the world we live in today.

The questions are raised as what and how the wealth is distributed or allocated among societies. Countries with similar average incomes can differ substantially when it comes to people’s quality of life such as social justice, access to education and health care, job opportunities, availability of clean air and safe drinking water, the threat of crime, freedom of speech, life expectancy, birth-death control, identity, culture, conservation, equal opportunities, environmental change. Development is important as it covers a wide range process involving cultural, economic, environmental, political, social and technological change of a country. Regarding goals and means of development, recent United Nations documents emphasize on human development measured by life expectancy, adult literacy, access to all three levels of education as well as people‘s average income which is a necessary condition of their freedom of choice. In other words, human development incorporates all aspects of individuals’ well -being from their health status to their economic and political freedom. The Human Development Report 1996 of UNDP focuses on development as the end and economic growth a

Lack of development in countries in the so-called `Third World' has many political and economical reasons. Historians explain the inadequacy of developing countries with the early imperialism and the resulting colonization of the South. Exploitation of mineral resources, deforestation, slavery, and the adaptation of foreign policies shaped the picture of today's suffering and struggling civilizations and natural rich continents. The omission of concessions and equal negotiations between dependency and supremacy give rise to the contrast of enormous resources and immense poverty in developing countries is. In the last years the outcry of justice and the emancipation of the Third World became louder throughout developing and industrialized

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

According to Inequality.org, “We equate wealth with ‘net worth,’ the sum total of your assets minus liabilities. Assets can include everything from an owned personal residence and cash in savings accounts to investments in stocks/bonds, real estate, and retirement accounts. Liabilities cover what a household owes: a car loan, credit card balance, student loan, mortgage, or any other bill yet to be paid. In the United States, wealth inequality runs even more pronounced than income inequality” (Wealth). Wealth disparity affects everyone in America. When the top twenty percent of earners in America take over fifty percent of total earnings in any given year, It can be see as very unfair by anyone who is in the middle class and especially the lower class of citizens in the U.S. It is safe to say that both sides of the political world (Republicans and Democrats) are equally worried about how economic inequality will affect their children and future generations. No matter who you ask, rich or poor, and whatever their opinion on the shape of economic distribution in America is, they most likely have a unrealistic sense of the state it is actually in.

Poverty for centuries has been a very severe issue that has troubled many nations while impeding economic developments and progress. Poverty stricken countries are majorly concentrated in the continents of Africa and Asia. Continents like the Americas and Europe have globally been recognized as been wealthier yet still many parts of these ostensible countries face massive cases of poverty. Most at times, countries with high populations owing to high birth rates face the most cases of poverty. The definition of poverty can be boundless in the sense that poverty entails so many subsections as it sometimes gets complicated to group everything under one umbrella. Society tends to focus more on the tangible aspects of poverty because many people associate poverty with lacking money and it makes sense because poverty in terms of lacking money is a major problem affecting almost every country in the world. Even though it is debatable that poverty can be physical, intellectual, spiritual and even emotional, it is best to talk about the lack of money and economic developments in this essay. With reference to the oxford English Dictionary, poverty is state of being extremely poor and the state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount. Reflecting on this definition given, I deduced that malnutrition and hunger can define poverty. In the light of this, I think poverty is lacking a comfortable place of shelter, being ill and not having access to a better

Wealth inequality is a controversial topic because money distribution in America doesn’t ‘seem right. The upper class possess most of the wealth in America and the bottom don’t nearly get as much.

Imagine all the wealth in the United States. Roughly 84.9 trillion dollars, a pretty big number to wrap your mind around, right? Now imagine a third of that number concentrated into the hands of only 1% of the population of the United States. Not only would this seem unfair, but also immoral. Sadly, this unfortunate situation is a reality in the United States. Of all the political issues that face this nation, wealth inequality is often overlooked. This type of inequality is defined as the unequal distribution of assets among a population. The United States has one of the highest gaps between the upper and lower class out of other developed countries. Resolving this issue is a complicated

Today, America is considered one of the most developed and advanced country in the world. On top of everything, this promised country is well-known for its strong and effective economic free-market system. The foundation of the United States is based on the belief of freedom and equality, which is enjoyed and practiced by most of people in the “Country of Liberty.” Unfortunately, the idea of equality does not apply to every citizen of the U.S. In fact, the problem of inequality in America has remained a controversial issue for centuries. Specifically, today, the gap of wealth between people in the United States is dramatically increasing. Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC-Berkeley states that: “Wealth inequality in exploding, constituting a direct threat to the cherished American ideals of meritocracy and opportunity.” Wealth inequality is undoubtedly the biggest problem the American society is facing.

     Imagine living in a community where every minute of everyday you were hungry, underclothed, and at risk for death because you are poor. Now imagine waking up and your biggest problem was which sweater to wear with which jeans. Both are scenarios that occur on a daily basis in our countries, some more extreme than others are. With that in mind a question of whether or not rich nations have an obligation to help those nations if need arises. Professor of philosophy Peter Singer and biologist Garrett Hardin both have very different opinions on this matter and the following paper will focus on their arguments.