More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on income inequality solutions
Essay on income inequality solutions
Essay on income inequality solutions
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Did He Confront Inequality 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 …show more content…
The America I grew I up in almost had a equal middle class society ( Krugman 586). In this quote, Krugman is letting the reader know that the middle class society was once his life, and that he can connect with the middle class society. Then, in the next couple of sentences, Krugman goes on to say how he noticed it has changed. From this, it is obvious that Krugman has paid attention to what’s been going on in the middle class society, and that a member of the middle class society could take interest in his statements. A middle class reader would most likely believe what Krugman is saying due to the fact, he has been where the reader is once in his life. Later on in the chapter, Krugman puts a little of himself in his writing by using the acronym “RDK (rich dumb kids).” When he makes this statement, it is apparent that Krugman is being honest in his writing. Throughout the chapter, Krugman uses words like I, our, we. Also, Krugman demonstrates that he actually has knowledge and has studied economics thoroughly. As much as I would like to see the United states give a bigger percentage of GDP to social spending beyond health care, it’s probably have to wait until liberals are stronger in the government and are using it to make people’s lives better and safer ( Krugman 598). It was clear that Krugman’s knowledge is in his writing, so the reader is more likely to trust what Krugman is saying. …show more content…
Most people have a natural soft spot for children. Krugman begins to talk about how children’s education is affected by economic status. Middle class families buy houses and take on more debt than they can handle because they want to have their children to go to a school where they have a better chance to have a better education- the inequality facing the middle class means the good school areas are going to be more expensive to live in ( Krugman 590). All parents, who care about their children’s education would relate to this statement. The desperation of parents trying to do better for their children is uplifting, but it’s sad to think they would have to go in debt to do it. Here, Krugman appeals straight to parent’s hearts triggering emotions. Then, he goes on to give facts on how bankruptcies have risen because middle class families are spending less on luxuries and more on trying to get into a good school district. Middle class families are not just being competitive for just to be greedy, but they are trying to give their children as much as a chance as possible in this unequal society (Krugman 590). This is another example where Krugman is appealing directing to people who have been going through a struggle to have their child advance in life. It is almost as if he is trying to tug on the reader’s heart
Growing up in The United States, people are given this idea of an American Dream. Almost every child is raised to believe they can become and do anything they want to do, if one works hard enough. However, a majority of people believe that there is a separation of class in American society. Gregory Mantsios author of “Class in America-2009” believes that Americans do not exchange thoughts about class division, although most of people are placed in their own set cluster of wealth. Also political officials are trying to get followers by trying to try to appeal to the bulk of the population, or the middle class, in order to get more supporters. An interesting myth that Mantsios makes in his essay is how Americans don’t have equal opportunities.
We, as Americans, view inequality one way, while Krugman perceives it rhetorically. This rhetorical view represents his signal to us, stating the fact that our society changes continuously. “The America I grew up in was a [...] middle class society. Over the past generation,
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
Taking Sides Summary-Analysis Form. Title and Author of Article: Christopher Jencks. Briefly state the main idea of this article: The main idea of this article is that economic inequality has steadily risen in the United States between the richest people and the poorest people. And this inequality affects the people in more ways than buying power; it also affects education, life expectancy, living conditions and possibly happiness.
explains that the economic gap between high and low income families is affecting their children as
Although our school system is in need of change, the film did not consider the part parental involvement plays in education, a drawback of the film. Education spending in our country has more than doubled in recent decades, but children in most states have proficiency rates of only 20 or 30 percent in math and reading (Weber 6). One must wonder if, with all of this extra spending and consistently low test scores, the problem goes beyond the school system and into American families. After all, even with small class sizes, the amount of one-on-one attention is limited for each student. Isn’t it up to parents to push their children to succeed? Amy Chua, author of the book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother uses an almost militant form of parenting which – though highly controversial – demands nothing short of excellence from her children. While other children were allowed to ride their bikes or play video games with their friends, Chua demanded that her seven-year-old daughter practice t...
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 Krugman believes that the only way to get into a good school is to be living in a higher economic area.
Krugman points out how despite the obvious and ever growing gap between the rich and middle class in terms of wealth increase, Republicans tend to vote for tax cuts for the rich and for decreases in funding for programs that benefit the middle and lower classes of society, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Cutting funds for these services puts the middle and lower classes at even more of a disadvantage than they already were. Meanwhile, the rich receiving more tax cuts means they receive more money, furthering the economic wealth gap and increasing the money they can spend to influence politics. Krugman suggests the solution to the problem is increasing taxes on the
The income gap in America makes the middle class no longer able to afford housing in respectable school districts. Not only is this inequality affecting our middle class families, but also our government policies. Since majority of our political leaders tend to be wealthy, they have much influence over certain government situations and rulings. (In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson stated, “If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States they are going to do it” (567) (qtd. )). The problem is there are men that are “big enough” in America today and are capable of influencing the government. Krugman thinks these “rich” people could help America’s economy by paying extra taxes. For instance, the tax break on hedge fund managers is costing America about six billion dollars a year. If no corners were cut and these very wealthy people paid taxes at a higher rate, the revenue could be providing help for the lower and middle class families (?). The Democratic Party will not remove the hedge fund loopholes because they help fund the Democratic political campaigns. Krugman emphasizes, “the hedge fund loophole is a classic example of how the concentration of income in a few hands corrupts politics”
The oldest story in the book is the idea that rich kids do better than poor kids in school. As Paul Krugman says it in his article, “Student’s who scored in the bottom fourth on the exam, but came from families whose status put them in the top fourth-what we used to call RDKs, for Rich Dumb Kids, were more likely to finish college than students who scored in the top fourth but whose parents were in the bottom fourth ” (Krugman 591). The more current issue is that the gap has widened between the educational successes in high and low income students, which is exactly what Krugman is arguing in favor towards.
Later in his article, Cohen explains how this leaves middle-class families in a very uncomfortable situation. Parents or other money-making entities in the household want their student to go to college and earn a degree, but now there can be an element of stress in figuring out how the fees will be paid. Furthermore, many families have to worry about sending multiple children to college in succession, so the cost of college for the children can be quickly overwhelming.... ... middle of paper ...
In American society today, childhood is considered a time for learning, exploration, and a chance for a child to make his or her mark on the world. Leading up to the Great Depression, however, childhood for working class children was seen in a different light. Working class children felt pressure to provide for their family, which inhibited them from getting an education and branching out on their own, while middle class children had a greater prospect for education because of the difference in wealth. The Great Depression brought hard times for all Americans and expanded the working class while shrinking the middle class. Because the working class children held close ties and responsibilities to their families and faced more poverty than the middle class, they had a lesser chance to move out of the working class as they had a commitment to work to support their families, or children without families had to support themselves, and had dimmer opportunities for education.
To prove his point, Krugman explains that about forty years ago (thought to be because of the New Deal) the United States was mainly a middle class society with opportunities move up in the class rankings. In contrast, today's society leads americans to believe that income is a fluctuating thing; one year you
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...
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.