In John Stossel's article, "What’s Fair," he challenges the notion of government intervention as a cure for income inequality. Stossel's stance pivots on the assertion that government involvement worsens rather than improves the issue. He contends that bureaucratic interference suppresses economic growth and individual initiative, ultimately obstructing rather than promoting fairness and prosperity. Instead, Stossel advocates the quality of free markets, asserting that they offer the most successful pathway to equitable outcomes. By allowing competition and innovation to prosper, free markets empower individuals to succeed based on hard work, thereby creating a fairer society. However, critics argue that this perspective overlooks systemic barriers and confirms disparities that conserve …show more content…
He bolsters this claim by highlighting how government intervention worsens rather than improves inequality, using examples like “Donald Trump’s kids and Paris Hilton’s siblings were born rich”. That gave them a big advantage in life. Unfair!” underscoring the advantages granted by birth. This serves to underscore the systemic imbalance established within society, suggesting that government measures cannot correct such imbalances, specifically those tied to familial circumstances beyond individuals' control. Stossel contends that factors such as luck, intelligence, and entrepreneurial insight contribute to economic success, further emphasizing the limitations of government intervention in rectifying disparities rooted in personal attributes and circumstances. Reinforcing his broader argument against government conflict and in favor of the self-determination of individuals within a free market structure. No one is safe from income inequality. Government officials must refrain from preventing bad investments or how people regulate their money. Stossel touches on the idea that rich people are also affected by income
Arguments about fairness and justice have been up for debate for centuries. "What do we deserve?", a question that has many individuals raising their brows to their efforts in their pursuit to achieve their goals. If it is said that we are all placed on an equal standard why are there individuals struggling to stay afloat? In Arora’s essay, he examines three forms of economic modals of social justices that question that idea of why the prosperous or the impecunious "deserve" their position or stature in life. Out of all of Arora's economic modals that he presents the Meritocratic System is the fairest because it gives everyone a fighting chance.
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
Both Sklar and the Economist offer suggestions to improve the inequality in America, but unfortunately the inequality continues to grow. Sklar’s use of detailed facts about the richest Americans, the poorest Americans and her discussion of the impact on society add clarity to the Economist’s argument that the American dream is broken due to the inequality in America. Until the American government starts to make changes, the problem of inequality will continue to grow.
One of the factors that create an imbalance of power within a society is a person's socioeconomic status. Often people with low socioeconomic status are undervalued in society. This imbalance can cause issues with the feelings of security and confidence. Also opportunities and choices can be limited for some people, but expanded to others. People often identify with roles of different socioeconomic status groups, based on their own socioeconomic status, and this can limit creativity and the potential of groups or individuals. If the world believes that people can go from “rags to riches” in America, then there should be an opportunity for all socioeconomic groups.
...th what little they have, however; why is it left to the poor to have to suffer the consequences of these political choices. The persistence of extreme poverty and social ills speak to a situation that bears for a different approach. It is clear that capitalism and free market solutions cannot spread wealth as advocated. American governments have shown their reluctance to admit this discrepancy through the strategic creations of welfare policies and welfare reform coupled with placing blame upon the citizens who possess little power to change market decisions that govern and effect their lives.
The richest people who seem to keep getting richer have been walking into their wealth since the day they have been born. It has been proven by how the companies have been popping up around the world, how the companies are being bribed by governors trying to make their state seem more economically powerful. “Philips, Sony, and Toyota factories are popping up all over—to the self congratulatory applause of the nation’s governors and mayors, who have lured them with promises of tax abatements and new sewers, among other amenities.” (Paragraph 17) People are born into their jobs, and are doomed for their economic boats. IN other countries such as China, it has been proven that the families with the moneys are the ones with the money, are the ones with the economic power. “Many wealthy Chinese and western residents moved their money abroad and some actually left the colony. By 1971, the Cultural Revolution in China had ended in failure and conditions in Hong Kong calmed,” (Lannom) such as Gloria Lannom states, yet it took a while for Hong Kong to rebuild its economic standings because of this
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
Frank, Robert H. “Income Inequality: Too Big to Ignore.” They Say, I Say: The Moves That Matter
Krugman challenges us to think about one question, “Why should we care about high and rising inequality?” (Krugman, 586) Some of the reasons inequality is a problem is the standards of living and the lack of progress in the economy for the middle and lower class families (Krugman, 586). These show that the distribution of wealth in the United States is not equal at all. There is also the damage that the inequality does to the society and the government. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.” Today that would mean that the middle class is the most important part of our society, however, the farther we move into the future the weaker the middle class becomes (Krugman, 587). The America that we live in is both unequal in income and social aspects. The rich do not live the same lives as those that are less fortunate and the less fortunate do not get to enjoy the perks that come with lives of the rich people. The inequality does not mean that it is unfair that the majority of the population
Go into any poor neighborhood in the United States and ask around about incarceration. Nearly everyone you will encounter will describe a relative or friend in prison or recount his own experiences. Most of those effected by mass imprisonment are incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses (The House I Live In). Although an outsider may be appalled, these interactions are relatively unsurprising when the facts behind mass imprisonment are reveled. The House I Live In explains the culture that has developed around the justice system, and in particular, the drug war.
...ment and the people, more Americans can see the equality promised them: equality of opportunity. Only through community, meaning effort from both citizens and government, can inequality be resolved. No one-sided approach can rectify a situation that envelops all of society. Government must set aside partisanship in order to produce targeted legislation that addresses the declining transportation, education, and economic infrastructure. Meanwhile, the community must realign their ideals and realize that together these problems can be solved. However, as long as materialism and overt individualism dominate the community and dysfunction and gridlock have a foothold in government, the schism between rich and poor will continue to grow. The two sides will “live increasingly separate lives” (Sandel), and the goal of economic equality slips father and farther from repair.
The article is mainly about how monopolies are the main driver in income equality because they keep the majority of the profits in the hands of the few (Lynn, 2017). There are numerous examples of how monopolies are effecting everyday Americans: the farmers struggle against agricultural conglomerates, sky high prices set by the pharmaceutical companies, cable providers, health insurers, and the airlines (Lynn, 2017). Additionally, the article highlights how
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.
In spite of the privileged getting anything money can buy, an underprivileged person gets the important things money cant buy. Many people have heard the expression “if you give a man a fish you can feed them a day, if you teach a man to fish you can feed them a lifetime.” Well I believe privileged people are given fish and the underprivileged taught to fish.
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