In “To Fix Income Inequality, The Have Nots Must Become The Do Somethings”, Pennington interprets that socialism challenges America’s free market to thrive, due to of the lack of creative power one needs to economically conquer. Income economic inequality is the gap between the rich and poor. Conflict over this topic commonly arises from the capitalist and socialists. Both groups have absolute different opinions on how the economy should be run. The beauty of a capitalist market is anyone can construct gains at any time; so there is no excuse to be jealous of the wealthy. A capitalist view is to look at the “glass half full or half empty”, as a few might say. When people look at their own wealth, it is not all based on your income, but the …show more content…
Noteably when it has to do with money. If someone works hard their whole life, takes risks, as a consequence ends up successful, which is a substance to applaud about. America is known as the “land of the free”; you are not destined to be successful depending on your family, class, or residency. A few situations might brew it extra challenging for a person to economically thrive, but not impossible. There always has to be the bottom and top of a scale, but Pennington describes that being on the bottom, as well as seeing the top, should give you motivation to be greater. That is true in behalf of, if there were no “ top of the food chain” people who look at life, as a competition would have no motivation to be profoundly the best they could be. This is why the lazy people get jealous; they do not like seeing other people succeeding over them. They do not live above and beyond to try to pass the …show more content…
For example, a person who works 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job should generate nothing in compare to a CEO of a national company. Minimum wage jobs are for people on their own, or teenagers, not to support grown adults with families. Socialism does not want there to be much of a income gap. If that was the case, populace would pick the easiest job possible, along with give forth half effort due to everyman earing the same pay, so why not? This works the same way in school. If a teacher says they are going to give each person a completion grade, it is highly unlikely you will try as intensely, seeing you know everybody will gain a perfect score. If a teacher said he or she was going to grade it based on accuracy, you are further likely to try to succeed the highest score you can accomplish. Capitalism creates the needed competition for the economy to
All individuals have different paths and life goals. It is true that individuals may start out with more advantages than others, but it should not be used as a limitation to others. Mantsios lists several realities discussing the different levels of opportunity for Americans. In these realities, he describes that wealth and our economic status is important in order to reach success. In one of his realities, Mantsios discussed the privileges within inheritance laws stating: “…Americans do not have an equal opportunity to succeed, […]. Inheritance laws provide built-in privileges to the offspring of the wealthy and add to the likelihood of their economic success while handicapping the chances for everyone else” (392). It appears as if he only believes success comes out of extreme wealth, and if someone is not, they’re disadvantaged and will ultimately be less successful than others. Mantsios talks only in extremes; he discusses the very rich, the very poor and how each affects each other, while simultaneously arguing that there is little to no chance for those in the middle or lower class to grow and become successful. In contrast, Jay-Z discusses how he did not let the obstacles he faced, or his economic status limit him. He is quoted saying, “don’t let [society] diminish your accomplishment or dim your shine” (Packer 361). Here, he is taking a much more positive approach, stating that individuals should not limit their success based on their social class. Class should not be a tool used to limit individuals and their success. To say that an individual born into the upper class will just coast through life without hardship is untrue. In the same respect, to say that an individual born into lower or middle class will have no chance at success, is just as untrue. We all face different levels of hardship in life, therefore condemning an individual because they have a leg up or down in
According to Gregory Mantsios many American people believed that the classes in the United States were irrelevant, that we equally reside(ed) in a middle class nation, that we were all getting richer, and that everyone has an opportunity to succeed in life. But what many believed, was far from the truth. In reality the middle class of the United States receives a very small amount of the nation's wealth, and sixty percent of America's population receives less than 6 percent of the nation's wealth, while the top 1 percent of the American population receives 34 percent of the total national wealth. In the article Class in America ( 2009), written by Gregory Mantsios informs us that there are some huge differences that exist between the classes of America, especially the wealthy and the poor. After
Margaret Mead once said that "For many Americans, the concept of success is a source of confusion. As a people, we Americans greatly prize success. We are taught to celebrate and admire the one who gets the highest grades, the one voted most attractive or most likely to succeed. But while we often rejoice in the success of people far removed from ourselves-people who work in another profession, live in another community, or are endowed with a talent that we do not especially want for ourselves-we tend to regard the success of people close at hand, within our own small group, as a threat." Personally i believe that this is not true for many reasons. It makes the world run smoother although I wont be talking about that personally it really does.
With each class comes a certain level in financial standing, the lower class having the lowest income and the upper class having the highest income. According to Mantsios’ “Class in America” the wealthiest one percent of the American population hold thirty-four percent of the total national wealth and while this is going on nearly thirty-seven million Americans across the nation live in unrelenting poverty (Mantsios 284-6). There is a clear difference in the way that these two groups of people live, one is extreme poverty and the other extremely
In the United States there are four social classes : the upper class, the middle class, the working class, and the lower class. Of these four classes the most inequality exists between the upper class and the lower class. This inequality can be seen in the incomes that the two classes earn. During the period 1979 through the present , the growth in income has disproportionately grown.The bottom sixty percent of the US population actually saw their real income decrease in 1990 dollars. The next 20% saw medium gains. The top twenty percent saw their income increase 18%. The wealthiest one percent saw their incomes rise drastically over 80%. As reported in the 1997 Center on Budget's analysis , the wealthiest one percent of Americans ( 2.6 million people) received as much after-tax income in 1994 as the bottom 35 percent of the population combined (88 million people). But in 1977 the bottom 35 percent had about twice as much after tax income as the top one percent. These statistics further show the disproportional income growth among the social classes. The gr...
The United States has a pervasive issue of income inequality (Volscho & Kelly, 2012). While the wealthy few live in absurd abundance, poor hardworking individuals often cannot afford basic necessities. Such a dynamic is not only an affront to the ideals of equality of opportunity, but also may increase crime as a result of relative deprivation and lack of legitimate opportunities to achieve (Thio, 2010). This essay describes the magnitude of income inequality in the United States, reveals barriers that obscures its magnitude, and suggests a starting point from which corrective measures might develop.
Inside of this video, this guy really targets an issue nobody has really been presented. He shows charts that talk about how we Americans think our wealth is distributed. We think distribution is doing alright. Americans think that the bottom 40% is getting a bit of money. They also believe that the middle class is doing reasonably well. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In the video, he breaks it down a little bit getter. He shows a graph that shows how money is actually being distributed. The poorest of poor don 't even register on the poverty line. The middle class is barely making it. And then there is this huge difference between "the rich" and the poor. It is proven that the 1% of America has 40% of the entire nation 's wealth ("Wealth Inequality in America."). The bottom 80% of America only share 7% of the nation 's wealth among themselves. The top 1% has 50% of the stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. The bottom 50% of Americans only own 0.5% ("Wealth Inequality in America."). The poor is not just getting by but they are scraping and fighting to get by. Now that it is clear that there is a lot of poor people in America, it is important to figure out how to fix
Divisions within the social stratum is a characteristic of societies in various cultures and has been present throughout history. During the middle ages, the medieval feudal system prevailed, characterized by kings and queens reigning over the peasantry. Similarly, in today’s society, corporate feudalism, otherwise known as Capitalism, consists of wealthy elites dominating over the working poor. Class divisions became most evident during America’s Gilded Age and Progressive era, a period in time in which the rich became richer via exploitation of the fruits of labor that the poor persistently toiled to earn. As a result, many Americans grew compelled to ask the question on everyone’s mind: what do the rich owe the poor? According to wealthy
In Confronting Inequality, Paul Krugman discusses the cost of inequality and possible solutions. Krugman argues to say that it is a fantasy to believe the rich live just like the middle class. Then, he goes into detail about how middle class families struggle to try to give their children a better life and how education plays a factor in children’s future lives. For example, children’s ability to move into higher education could be affected by their parents economic status. Also, He discusses how politicians play a role in the inequality, because most of politicians are in the upper economic class. Finally, Krugman says how we could possibly have solutions to these various inequalities, but how America won’t get
Where would you consider yourself with your ranking in America 's social classes, are you upper class, middle class or even lower class? This is actually very important when it come to you receiving opportunities and in a sense special treatment. I’m referring to of course social inequality which is still very much alive in America and still affects a lot of families mostly in a negative way. This problem in America has grabbed the attention of two authors, Paul Krugman who wrote “Confronting Inequality” and Gary S. Becker and Kevin M. Murphy who wrote “The Upside of Income Inequality”. However, they both have different views on inequality Krugman believes that social inequality is only negative while on the other hand, Becker and Murphy believe
America’s upper class has been getting richer since the past three decades, and we have still not found a way to stop this. We have been unable to find a way to distribute America’s wealth equally, so we can have a decent lower class and a good middle class. Inequality has caused many people to struggle in various ways, but their is alway another side to the story.
Income inequality has affected American citizens ever since the American Dream came to existence. The American Dream is centered around the concept of working hard and earning enough money to support a family, own a home, send children to college, and invest for retirement. Economic gains in income are one of the only possible ways to achieve enough wealth to fulfill the dream. Unfortunately, many people cannot achieve this dream due to low income. Income inequality refers to the uneven distribution of income and wealth between the social classes of American citizens. The United States has often experienced a rise in inequality as the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, increasing the unstable gap between the two classes. The income gap in America has been increasing steadily since the late 1970’s, and has now reached historic highs not seen since the 1920’s (Desilver). UC Berkeley economics professor, Emmanuel Saez conducted extensive research on past and present income inequality statistics and published them in his report “Striking it Richer.” Saez claims that changes in technology, tax policies, labor unions, corporate benefits, and social norms have caused income inequality. He stands to advocate a change in American economic policies that will help close this inequality gap and considers institutional and tax reforms that should be developed to counter it. Although Saez’s provides legitimate causes of income inequality, I highly disagree with the thought of making changes to end income inequality. In any diverse economic environment, income inequality will exist due to the rise of some economically successful people and the further development of factors that push people into poverty. I believe income inequality e...
The poor gets poorer, and the rich gets richer. Economically speaking, this is the truth about Capitalism. Numerous people agree that this inequality shows the greedy nature of humankind. The author of the source displays a capitalist perspective that encompasses an individualist approach towards an “un-ideal” economic system. The source articulates a prominent idea that capitalism is far from perfect. The reality is, as long as capitalism exists, there are always those people who are too poor or too rich in the system. We do not need elitists in our society but that is exactly what capitalists are. In this society, people are in clash with those who “have” and those who “have not”, which creates conflict and competition. Throughout
Income inequality continues to increase in today’s world, especially in the United States. Income inequality means the unequal distribution between individuals’ assets, wealth, or income. In the Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes, a liberal journalist, states the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are increasing widening, and there need to have things done - tax the rich, provide better education - in order to shortening the inequality gap. America is a meritocratic country, which means that everybody has equal opportunity to be successful regardless of their class privileges or wealth. However, equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes. People are having more opportunities to find a better job, but their incomes are a lot less compared to the top ten percent rich people. In this way, the poor people will never climb up the ladder to high status and become millionaires. Therefore, the government needs to increase all the tax rates on rich people in order to reduce income inequality.
Money is an essential part of life where every people can satisfy whatever they need and every person in America has a chance to find a job. However, some of the people in the country wanted to go on with their life freely by being a part of a welfare. Furthermore, distribution of wealth is a huge demand of every citizen. Everyone today is trying to look down for every people in the lower class, as they did not give any benefit to the country, waiting for the benefits that they will receive from the government. For instance, when most lower class people have gone through a financial crisis due to overspending, insufficient fund or pay for their work to support themselves and/or their family. The example shows that lower class people made the economy of the country unstable, however, the middle class and the higher class is at fault as well. Furthermore, even though the benefit of that the lower class received is from the middle class, the middle class as well benefits from the higher class. To sum up, every class is at fault towards giving the country’s economy a positive