Apr
16
Class 21 – Income Inequality and Fracking // Sheena Chin
April 16, 2015 | Leave a Comment
In our past classes, we have mostly discussed income inequality relative to variables including race, age, immigration status, and even by New York City neighborhoods. We have not however, discussed income inequality in association to nationwide geographic locations nor have we seen how living in different United States state and cities could differ in social mobility. The first article from Mother Jones shares insight on how income equality is affected by the fracking boom. From the article, Sheppherd writes how income inequality and social mobility differs from United States city to city because there is a difference in resources available.
For instance, we can compare New York City’s most heavily funded high schools to North Dakota’s failing, under-sourced high schools. Other varying resources that could influence social mobility and income inequality could include racial segregation (of which I was surprised to read about considering you would not see racial segregation as a problem here in New York City as much, but there are instances of segregation further down South, I guess), quality of public education, and affordability of local colleges. From these variables, it is safe to assume that the income inequality and social mobility standard in the cities out Central West would fare worse than wealthy New York State, but that is not the case today. The funny thing about the oil boom and fracking that has been taken place in these states is that it has created more jobs and more income. While I have always regarded fracking as a negative force on society due to its health risks, fracking has closed the income gap in states like North Dakota and has allowed children to move upwards from their parents significantly.
In the American Enterprise Institute article, Mark J. Perry encourages and embraces shale fracking for it has stabled energy prices, increased wealth, and spread jobs. Interestingly, he quotes from author Gregory Zuckerman in his article. In the short excerpt, we see that Zuckerman strongly approves for fracking, which he defines to be nothing short of “American”. He carries on repeating how hydraulic fracturing is innovative and a product from the “American” entrepreneurial culture that has made all Americans wealthy. From reading his excerpt, I was turned off from his constant droning on about fracking being “American”. I don’t know who Zuckerman is, but I disagree with his big fat Republican ideals of how fracking captures the American spirit because not only do Americans “create computer apps, drones, and rap stars,” Americans are surging ahead in energy production. I guess I’m biased because I do not side with fracking, but I just wanted to drop in my comments on Zuckerman’s writing.
Mark J. Perry also supports fracking, but his writing was easier to accept and may I say more intellectual. Not only does Mark J. Perry support fracking, but he also says the income divide is desirable. The Shale revolution has created thousands of millionaires in this time and has therefore increased income inequality in America. However, he states that everyone is better off with lower and more stable energy prices thanks to fracking. He also says that while the Energy Boom made a small group of petropreneurs super rich, it has also made the rest of us wealthier. The problem I have with this statement is yet again, how Republican it sounds. This statement sounds a lot like Reagan’s Trickle Down Economy policy, which as we know did not work as expected. If making the rich richer does make everyone else richer, I would like to see some statistics following the Energy Boom.
From the readings, I think that most people will tend to agree that income inequality that occurred from the Energy Boom seemed to be welcome. Whether it was out in the west where it made moving up in the world easier and made it easier for people to achieve wealth, or it is creating more wealth so everyone becomes wealthier, income inequality in the poorer states where the Energy Boom is a positive affect. However, the Energy Boom will not last forever; it will pass. It will be interesting to see how the state out west fare after the Energy Boom dies down.
