Apr
21
Post #16- Nick Djamalidinov
April 21, 2015 | 1 Comment
Income inequality pervades all aspects of society. People all over the United States were born different, grew up differently, and wind up doing differently. The problem is not that some are people are richer, it is that over time the effect allows certain people to be born with a head start over others, eliminating the idea of equal opportunity. The article “Richer and Poorer” talks about a book that presents the income inequality problem through a narrative following the lives of a few characters, who are based on real people. It also talks about the “Second Gilded Age” in the United States. Income inequality is so high, that it is reaching 1920’s levels and America is reacting differently. One solution proposed by another article for this is technology. The NY Times article claims that some income inequality will lead to more equality over time, with the main catalyst being technology.
The first article talked about how Democrats bring up equality of results as well as equality of opportunity while Republicans focus on the latter. I think equality of results is something to consider in society because of the way capitalism works. Wealth tends to accumulate at certain areas and those places get rich, leaving less for others. That means that the next generation has different starting points. The generation after inherits that legacy and then society becomes more and more unequal. I remember how the article talked about the kids on the wrong and right side of the tracks. The kids on the right side of the tracks had futures the other kids could not imagine. Is it really equal and fair that where you are born drastically influences how successful you will be? It is not like I chose my parents and neither did any rich kids. But if they have so much more opportunity than poorer children and the poverty locks out those poor kids from getting ahead, the system is broken. They no longer have equality of opportunity.
I liked how the article also brought up the issue of race. Only two people in the book were black but the issue or race was still discussed in the article. Blacks were redlined, assaulted, and threatened all the time and it contributed greatly to the income inequality we experience today. What people fail to grasp sometimes is that the legacy you inherit does not go away easily. Blacks cannot simply ignore the plight their ancestors faced and the real effects they have to put up with in the present. I especially liked what one of the black guys in his book told Putnam. He told him that basically, they did not start out the same and they did not grow up the same, and by now they still face two different realities. Just being black changed those two people’s lives and put up even more roadblocks, which white people just do not experience. That is why their upbringing and potential is so starkly different, a fact some white people cannot seem to grasp.
What I also found interesting was the comparison of our time today and the Gilded Age. Income inequality is getting just as bad today as it was back then but he added an interesting twist. Frazier said it was almost better back then because people actually tried to do something about it. The muckrakers attempted to expose the inequality and people actively criticized it. People today do not attack it as actively. I found this information pretty disappointing. i had always thought the present could always do much better than the past because we should have less concerns to deal with in lessening inequality but instead we wind up doing just as bad. And worse, there is no real outrage about it.
The second article attempts to defend the inequality we face by claiming it will unleash a reaction which will increase quality of life for all of us and decrease inequality. As technology improves, people will gain more access to jobs and the new population will be more tech-savvy. He basically claims that technology will even the playing field. I do not really see it personally. I think that even as technology improves, the rich and powerful get their hands on it first anyway. They will continue to innovate and will keep ahead. I do not like how most of his arguments are all based on the premise that people will want to help the poor or help the country as a whole. It has shown that if the rich could get richer, they will do it no matter what happens to the rest of us. As such, his examples about India inventing low cost heart surgery technology or cheap Chinese technology making its way to America, while everyone would like, do not seam that feasible. Cheap, low cost innovations do not always make it here and if something is detrimental to the rich, it usually does not gain ground, like free health insurance.
