Wealth inequality is at an all time high in the United States. And of course, there is both a praise and scorn of such inequality for a variety of reasons. Is a compromise between both positions possible? Let’s reconsider the arguments for and against wealth inequality, first. --------------------- Wealth inequality is seen by some as a positive thing, since inequality creates competition and instills a desire to seize initiative; for if everyone were treated as equals, regardless of what they do for money, some assume that people would cease to try to do more, or go beyond the status quo.
Land of the free and equality for all; as nice as the model this may appear to be, truth be told it appears to be nothing more than a slogan. The fact of the matter is we live in a world that doesn 't follow these motos, the way people interact and view one another makes this hard to achieve. The reality that hold to be true today is that we are a large group of people ruled by a set few whom have large amounts of money; often, these people rarely act keeping in mind what good their actions can have over the people. Instead do what they believe to be the right thing for themselves solely working in the favor of their ever increasing wallet size, becoming completely dependent on the will of the dollar bill. In addition we to have systematically
In Goodsell’s “A Case for Bureaucracy” Goodsell makes several valid points about the argument for and against Bureaucracy. Before reading I too would have assumed bureaucracy is a waste of time and that most bureaucrats are just lazy, rude and tend to hate their job. But now I've realized that Bureaucracy does succeed. People, Americans, tend to expect bureaucrats to be able to do anything. Even when the tasks seems impossible they expect the problem to be solved immediately which ultimately sets the bureaucrats up for failure from the beginning.
Even though America was meant to be a classless society, economic classes still separate people to a great extent in the 1920’s. In The Great Gatsby and the Twenties, by Ronald Berman, Berman explains that both Nick and Gatsby want to change their lives through hard work and success, (Berman p83) which seems as American as can be. However, those who were born rich never truly accept those who worked hard to become upper-class. When Tom tries to insult Gatsby, he calls him “Mr. Nobody from Nowhere”(Fitzgerald p130), suggesting that even after Gatsby puts in years of effort to become rich, even after he makes a small fortune, the fact that he was not born upper class is enough to make him “less” in some people’s eyes.
Many people have strong opinions—some for and some against—on is inequality important for the American government to address it? One proponent might think that large inequality could cause chaos and harm economy. Another opponent may cite the fact that some wage disparity is necessary for the labor supply. Both the proponent and opponent are acceptable if the inequality is not very high. However, if we do not do something when the income and wealth inequality remains very high, the problems of a divided America can hardly been solved.
Although the United States is also guilty of having its people live in poverty, and others falling victim to violence and countless injustices, it’s not as tolerable as seen in the border towns. It is eye-opening that two countries that are so incredibly close geographically can be so far apart economically. This could be traced back to wealthier, faster developing countries exploiting underdeveloped countries like Mexico. The uneven distribution of economic power, assets, and increased globalization benefits wealthier countries like the United States and can hurt poor ones like Mexico as seen in the book. Increased globalization for poorer places like the ones mentioned in the book means they get to be exploited, pushed further into poverty, used for cheap labor, and any valued natural resources, all leading to a dying economy.
With newer technology, it has caused the the size of the labor force to decrease and the wealth gap to increase. He explains why he had run for office was to balance this inequality.
According to Galbraith, there is “poverty… in public services … [and] affluence in private goods” (571). Despite being 60 years since he observed this, I still think it is applicable today. With mass media and advertisements, citizens are too often manipulated into buying private goods that they do not need. Neither exists for public goods, causing there to be significantly more private than public goods in society. In order to improve the social imbalance issue, Galbraith believes that the only solution is an “increased public cost” (573).
This time called for the elimination of monopolies, and by doing so, competition increases and the power of the business elite decreases. With a rising middle class living in fear of the controlling and powerful business elite and political machines, the government needed to intervene. Therefore, in the late 1890’s the government passed the Sherman Antitrust Act which banned industrial monopolies that limited competition. The law sought to increase competition of the sale of items and goods, thereby helping the middle and lower classes earn money without fear of dominance of the wealthy elite and trusts. However, the act had little effect because the wording was so vague.
The first reason Obama gives to support his claim is that rising inequality and lack of upward mobility is bad for the economy. For example, in paragraph 19, he states ”One study finds that growth is more fragile and recessions are more frequent in countries with greater inequality. When families have less to spend, that means businesses have fewer customers, and households rack up greater mortgage and credit card debt…” This evidence supports the claim by illustrating that the American Dream is threatened because when families have less to spend, it creates a chain of events that end up affecting many people that work hard to achieve the American Dream. People then