Apr
20
Technology and Inequality – #13 – Josh Hirth
April 20, 2015 | Leave a Comment
The NYT article titled “How Technology Could Help Fight Income Inequality” discusses the possibility of the market itself, without political involvement, reversing itself to become more equal, by using technology as its catalyst. I immediately took to this argument because allowing the free market to make decisions, in my opinion, is the best course of action. Although in many cases technology has contributed to the inequality we now face, it may serve as the ultimate equalizer. As computer literacy becomes more widespread it may open up many more opportunities for lower wage earners. It also may allow for people to access resources, which will allow for more upward mobility.
The article then goes on to discuss the final cause for an organic reversal in income inequality, China. It explains how although China manufactures many of our most used products; they have not been an international leader in product innovation. And according to the article, that will soon change. As China becomes more entrepreneurial, they will lead the charge in innovation and being a poorer country, many of their innovations will be focused on the lower classes of society. Although, I am not 100% confident this will all positively affect income inequality, I believe that it is reasonably possible that it will. And when it does, it will widely change the status quo for many Americans. In other words “rather than seeking to beat down capital, our attention should be directed to leaving open the future possibilities for innovation, change and dynamism.”
The NYCfuture article outlines a different future for the lowest wage earners, entrepreneurship. The article discusses that throughout the recession just a few years ago, newly unemployed and recent graduates were forced to create their own companies because of the lack of available jobs. This ignited a new return to NY’s famed entrepreneurial spirit of the past. The article argues that the city needs to focus on reinforcing entrepreneurship among the poorest residence, and I wholeheartedly agree. Being and entrepreneur requires money and a tolerance for risk, but as we have seen in the recession it offers an alternative to the status quo. The article points out ”while so many immigrants—including newcomers who are both poor and poorly educated—have turned to entrepreneurship, many fewer native-born poor people have done so.” To me this is very problematic, because the idea of stagnation and a lack of economic mobility within a specific group is very dangerous to the overall economy.
The New Yorker article discusses some of the history of inequality, specifically as it relates to the past versus the present. It even discusses income inequality through a political lens, and discusses how America is nearing the tipping point of how much inequality it can handle. It attempts to show why all of a sudden it has become a hot button topic among democrats and republicans alike. Perhaps it is because “it’s no longer possible to deny that it exists”, so it must be time to do something about it.
Robert Putnam’s book, which attempts to put the statistics aside and instead discuss the stories of individuals from his hometown, is a game changer. They say a difference can me made in numbers, but I believe one can only fully grasp a situation in story. The stories that the article mentioned are truly heart wrenching and saddening. As the income inequality in the country grows so does the income inequality in Port Clinton. Since this is the last blog post of the semester, I am thinking back to my first post, and I realize not much has changed. Income inequality IS rooted in capitalism. It is an unfortunate attribute of our political system, and although we can attempt to Band-Aid the situation by taxing the rich etc., the only way to fix the fundamental issue, is to change the system. In capitalism, the money hungry will do everything in their power to get rich and that in it of itself drives us towards income inequality, the only way to fix the later is to change the former.
