Mar
10
Inequality – A Situation To Fix, Not Celebrate (Alex Lam)
March 10, 2015 | Leave a Comment
Inequality in America is undeniably present, and a hot topic in New York City. Anyone who denies the presence of inequality is part of a rare group of people. However, finding people who celebrate the fact there is a large disparity between the wealth of the rich and the poor is unfortunately present. This group includes individuals such as Ed Glaeser from the New York Daily News.
Glaeser argues that New York City’s inequality is a positive reflection of the city. It shows that it is the place for opportunity since many of the poor working class starts their lives here. He argues that the fact it attracts the rich as well shows that it is also a great place to live. It provides economic diversity and shows that there is mobility in the city. He praises the transportation system and points out that the poor are attracted to the areas as new stations are built. Rather than focus on the fact there is such a large gap, he suggests we should look at the opportunity available.
Of course, Glaeser fails to understand the truth about mobility in New York City. Yes, there are some who are able to go from the bottom five percent to the top five percent, but most do not. Much of the mobility is available to those who are closer to the upper class. Not even most of the middle class can reach the wealth of the rich. Why? Let’s start with location. As the article states, most of the poor congregate around the new stations, as the public transportation system provides convenience and opportunity. However, this means that most of their influences and resources will be limited to those in the area. The education system in these areas tends to be on a lower level than those in rich areas. That means these kids will gain a lesser education, which in turn, leads to lower chance in success in the future. To his point about not wanting to live in the suburbs where there is little economic diversity; cities should actually aim to be more like suburbs. In these areas, there are the rich, but everyone else is at least living a comfortable life, and their children are sent to better schools.
Instead of aiming to give the poor lives that are slightly more inline with those of the rich, the city is allowing for more instances of segregation. Condominiums with a “poor door” are not idealistic. While it will provide a nicer space for them to live in, it just highlights the situation. It shows that the rich want nothing to do with the rich. They would rather push them to the side and make sure they do not have the same amenities they have. Even though the kids of the buildings are zoned the same, they may not even attend the same schools. This shows that even in the same location, the rich and the poor do not have equal opportunities. The rich are able to invest in growing their wealth, while the poor cannot.
To fix this problem, James Pethokoukis does bring in some great insight. Those on the west have the booming technology industry that is attracting the smartest people and engineers. These people are for the most part all being paid well, and attracting more opportunities. That is not to say they are completely equal, but inequality is seemingly not as large as New York City. If we could encourage more flourishing industries that can grow into future businesses, such as technology instead of being the “financial hub,” the gap could slowly close. The brightest will come the city, tax revenue will increase, leading to larger funds available (and hopefully allocated) to education that benefits all.
