Title Economic inequality was created. Lots of factors lead to the long-standing social inequality, such as gender, ethnicity, age, level of education and so on. How would people split up income between the top ten percent and the rest if it were up to them? It depends on which group they belong to. They strive for more benefit for themselves. The growing gap between the upper class and the lower class has been expensive. In “Biographies of Hegemony”, Karen Ho looks into the prevalent ideology named “culture of smartness” and explores the close tie between some of America’s most powerful and prestigious universities and Wall Street firms. Joseph Stiglitz, the author of “Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society”, is concerned about …show more content…
Ho proposes a possible explanation on why so many elite students scramble for Wall Street’s job opportunities that “Those most enamored of, or dependent on, their putative membership in ‘the cream of the crop’ seek ways to maintain and continue the high status to which they have become accustomed, especially as graduation looms near”(179). Regarded as the most intelligent and promising students, students at elite universities are accustomed to receiving praise and respect from others. With the date of graduation approaching, they desire to sustain the high social status by working on Wall Street which satisfies their fastidious demand for not only financial security but also prestigious social status. Expecting to sustain high status is not restricted to only elite college students. Similarly, Stiglitz declares that “Those with power used that power to strengthen their economic and political positions, or at the very least to maintain them. They also attempted to shape thinking, to make acceptable difference in income that would otherwise be odious”(395). In economic and political fields, people who are in charge take advantage of the authority, in other words, the dominance to consolidate and bolster their superiority. They influence (or manipulate, to some extent) the public’s thoughts and convey the idea that the difference in income is reasonable and justifiable to the public. Both Ho and Stiglitz mention people’s desire to maintain and strengthen the status. To sustain the high status, people engaged in economics, politics, and many other fields, make an effort to shape people’s thoughts, influence the culture, and gradually transform the notion of success. Take Wall Street as an example. It is depicted as the extension of hyper elite universities, a place full of the smartness and most ambitious people. Enveloped in an atmosphere of “the culture of success”, where people are
Charles Murray, a conservative academic, has noted how a powerful upper class has separated itself from the rest of society. For Democrats, and those who more generally define themselves as progressive, economic inequality is generally central to this concern. Typically, they criticise the ostentatious and heartless super-rich for detaching itself from the rest of society. Levin recognises that high inequality is a reality but is surely right to argue that it is an effect rather than a cause. The wealthy, for instance, have benefited from the booming of the financial sector and financial assets over the
Criticizing universities for their “consumer conscious administration hounding professors to inflate grades”, the author gives a preview of the deeper issues involving higher authorities around the country (1065). Universities have a lot of pressure between each other academically, and Staples frowns upon the standards colleges have decreased to welcome more students. Also, tuition, “which now exceeds $120,000”, is a major influence that creates major university profit (1066). The author shows disappointment in universities’ leaders because, by lowering academic standards and increasing student grades for profit, they reflect the educational attitudes of their students.
Kaitlyn Johnson English, 008 September 29, 2015 Inequality Inequality has been a major problem all over the world. Not just with race or gender, but now ones' income puts them aside from others. and they are catorgarized. Gary S. Becker, a Noble laurete in economics, and Kevin M. Murphy, a professor at the University of Chicago and a recipient of a 2005 MacCrthur "genius" fellowship, believe that a higher education equals higher income. Paul Krugmam, a teacher of economics at Princeton and the city University of New York, uses people who have had an impact on America.
I do believe that distribution and wealth is definitely unfair. It is only common sense. Why would you take more away from those who are barely making it? It does not benefit the 99 percent at
On a larger scale, Conard argues that the “the growing success of successful innovators raises the bar for social status” (Conard 71). Like many standard arguments for capitalism, Conard essentially believes that seeing others succeed and profit will drive others to take their own risks in the pursuit of success which will further contribute to economic growth and society's well being. All of this is made possible by lowering taxes on the
It’s even viable that their personal long term hobbies are harmed by using this behavior. This kind of short time period thinking with out regard to its outcomes has brought about historically low taxes on the rich, extraordinarily high inequality, and a crumbling middle magnificence. but on the same time, the wealthy seem to suppose that they are excessively put upon. The core principle of the Prisoner’s catch 22 situation promotes that character economic entities will act of their personal self-interest at the expense of a collective hobby. We witness this dilemma at paintings inside many financial circles within the world nowadays.
Wealth allows for a college and postgraduate experience, which tends to make voters more liberal; ideologically, approximately one-sixths of voters classify themselves as liberals, but over a quarter of those who have a postgraduate education are liberals. The mid-2004 popularity poll of President Bush exemplifies the relationship between ideology and education, while half of all voters in the sample said they trusted him, less than a third of voters with a postgraduate education said the same, obviously implying that a vast majority of those with higher education did not support Bush’s conservative ideas. This relationship between education and income leads to a situation where there is a divide in ideology between those who have/ can afford higher education and those who cannot; interestingly, despite the generally higher-income population being linked with the Republican Party, the well-educated, who presumably also have a decent amount of wealth, are linked with the Democratic Party. As James Wilson mentions in his article, How Divided Are We, having a post-graduate education “seems to outweigh the effect of affluence.” The sensitive dynamic between wealth and education in determining partisanship encourages politicians to polarize in order to attract voters on their side of the political spectrum.
This is a book about success in nowadays, money, power, career and life. The co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post - Arianna Huffington makes a beautiful bond in her writing – The Thrive – between personal experience and scientific prerequisite. Arianna Huffington redefines success and urges us to reconnect to ourselves. Doing things in our way is not an option, in the author perspective.
During a press conference in Washington D.C., democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposed six action steps to make education tuition and education debt free with the purpose to increase the affordability of higher education and help students graduate from college without a debt burden. However, as favorable as Sanders’s plan sounds, current debates prove it to be double-faceted. On the positive end of a spectrum, Sanders’s notion will create an influx in quality human capital by lifting the burden of expensive tuition and high loan interest rates, thus allowing more students to attend college, which in the long run will benefit the economy. On the other end, the means of revenue (the Wall Street Speculation Tax) needed for the
Throughout all of history wealth has never been distributed evenly; no monarchist kingdom, communist utopia, socialistic society, or modern free market has ever existed in a state of equilibrium. The laws of the land have always seemed to operate in a manner of some sort of prejudice. The rich generate wealth at a much higher rate than the poor. Income inequality has existed, in some form or another, since the first trade transaction. Since, we have begun record keeping, statistics show the rich controlling increasing amounts of the total income.
In this article, Tom Mckay examines how the United States has turned into an Oligarchy. One of the interesting arguments he makes is the average citizen doesn’t have significant impact on public policy and most power has come from the upper class. Figure 2 shows that the income gains for the top 1% has increase over 100% compared to the rest. The data seems to support the idea that with the top earners becoming more wealthy, that as means they are having more power. The author suggests that as the business and corporations are getting bigger and wealthier, they will essentially make all of the decision.
Many economists argue about the exact nature of the relationship of social mobility in the context of the modern economy. One such economist, Paul Krugman, negatively comments in his essay “The Death of Horatio Alger” on the decreasing social mobility among low-wage citizens in the United States. He claims that the American dream of advancement opportunities will diminish as the wealthy aim to prevent others from rising above them in the business world. Moreover, he labels America’s unequal society as a rigid “caste system” and opposes those who ignore the system’s lack of fairness to the lower class (134). Although Krugman strongly criticizes the inflexibility of economic mobility, his informal tone, biased perspective, and unjustifiable approach make his argument not only ineffective but also offensive.
Along with parallels in the rise of technology, the sensationalism in media, and the economic consequences of the two it is my belief that we have entered into a second gilded age. Today we can see our economic situation becoming more and more “gilded”, that is on the outside there is grand technological, medical, and societal progress, however, looking deeper, we can find a darker underbelly of our social and political reality. As in the gilded age, the focus of concern is a disparity of power and wealth. According to Forbes (Adams) only 18% of people trust business leaders to do the right thing and only 15% trust business leaders to tell the truth. These statistics shows a great divide between those who have power in today’s society and their reputation as honest and hardworking people.
Wealth and Inequality in America Inequality The inequality in America has increased over time; the gap between the rich and the poor has become a problem that many Americans don’t see. Inequality is the extent of income which is distributed unequally among the citizenry. The inequality of the United has a large gap between the poor and the rich making it unfair to the population, the rich are becoming wealthier and the poor remain poor. The article “Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%”, authored by Joseph E. Stiglitz describes that there is a 1 percent amount of American’s who are consuming about a quarter of the United States income in a year.
One way people approach this debate is through their religious beliefs. Although the Catholic Church does not has not released an explicit statement of which side they favor, we can use Catholic principles and ideas to come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church would favor the top one percent of wage earners to pay a higher percentage order to redistribute wealth throughout the United States of America. I assume that this would be their position, because one of the Catholic Social Teachings is Option for the Poor and Vulnerable. This encourages them to want more taxes to be collected in order to fund programs to alleviate the struggle that poor people endure. Additionally, if you look at the justice triangle, society owes individuals through distributive justice.