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.

In the NYC Future article, Center for Urban Future explained how there is a general picture of more foreign born New York residents take a bigger part of being a self-employed entrepreneur. Although I do see this throughout New York City, I wonder why foreign born residents take part in such risk. Entrepreneurship requires dedication, time, and extreme amounts of capital in order for a significant amount of profit to occur. It is extremely risky because the entrepreneurs can lose all the money they put in very easily to other competitors or failing business.

The same article also emphasizes that the place of birth, the current neighborhood, and household income also affected the percentage of entrepreneurs. What I found was most interesting was that more foreign born residents are generally more inclined to take part in entrepreneurship. According to the article, foreign born take 49% NYC’s self-employed with 39% of native born white in second place. Following that, is native-born black with 6%, native-born Hispanic with 5%, and native-born Asian with 1%.

My question is “how does this affect New York City?” I admire New York City because it is one of the most diverse places in the United States and I believe foreign-born entrepreneurship develops and hones the American dream. Immigrants made NYC what it is today. In fact, most Americans are directly related to or know someone in their family tree who came to the United States as an immigrant. It’s amazing what people can do.

The NY Times article posed a very interesting theory. I guess in the long run, technology could affect the income inequality gap by completing the harder jobs. I agree it is true that once the majority of people are adjusted to the technology, the younger generation would be able to accompany and integrate with the machines/computers.

The extent to what technology can do is amazing. The fact that it has potential to provide “cheap, high-quality heart surgery and other medical procedures, and over time such techniques” is amazing. “Imagine a future China producing cheaper and safer cars, a cure for some kinds of cancer, and workable battery storage for solar energy.” Hopefully, future technology does not get rid of the need for human labor, otherwise that would lead to bigger problems than before.

Income inequality is undeniable. Various measures, including the Gini coefficient as well as the tax study by Piketty and Saez, all indicate the rapid rise in income inequality levels within the United States over the course of the past century. We all know something must be done to correct this inequality as the United States is on the verge of tipping over. However, as the New Yorker article by Jill Lepore states, the problem is only being exacerbated by Congress as the Democrats and Republicans argue over which party is to blame rather than brainstorm innovative solutions to solve this crisis. The ideas that have been offered, however, have been controversial and do not provide the short-term or long-term relief we need. As such, we need to find another alternative to buffer the negative effects of income inequality until an official one is decreed from the government. One big asset we do have to fight this battle is the technological innovation that has skyrocketed in the past few decades.

Tyler Cowen, in his New York Times article, talks about the positive effects technology can provide to fight the rise in this inequality. Currently, there is a wide gap between the technological skills of the past generation and the current one. As Cowen mentions, this creates income inequality as those with the advanced technological skills will be able to further themselves and compete in the job markets better. Less skilled workers who only possess basic computer skills, or none at all, do not have this advantage. In this day and age where computers are constantly utilized in nearly every sector of the economy, not having these skills is a huge disadvantage. It must be noted as well that there is a large digital divide between those in the same generation as well. This division is caused by the growing income disparities between classes. Working at Let’s Get Ready, a nonprofit whose goal is to provide free college preparation to students in low-income families, I have witnessed the lack of technological skills in many students who I have always believed to be more technologically advanced than I am. However, this is not the case as many of them have not been taught to type correctly or exposed to complex programs I was in high school simply due to their economic status.

However, if we are able to simplify the language of computers down to the level where everyone can use it through deductive reasoning, we may be able to buffer the effects of income inequality in this situation. This simplification of computers will open many doors for those in the lower-income classes who are not exposed to such technology. As Cowen mentions, if everyone is able to maneuver their way logically through computers, those in the low-income brackets will more readily access resources online that can give them an edge in the job market. They will also be able to compare prices for goods, which will increase competition and level the playing field.

There are, unfortunately, negative side-effects stemming from the equalization of computer levels. To simplify computer languages requires heavy technological advancement that we still have not achieved yet. If we are able to reach such an optimal level, we would have already been able to program machines to work on menial tasks that low-income workers currently complete. This will lead to a decrease in jobs, which, as we mentioned in previous posts, is a far cry from what we need to stimulate the economy. In this situation, I agree with Anthony Atkinson’s argument that the government does need to play a heavy part in guiding the path technological innovation walks in. Technological innovation is a powerful tool that can increase or decrease income inequality. What we need to do is push this creativity in the path that will result in the optimal situation for the country – higher equality. If Congress can get its act together, I find that this solution is the most feasible. Other proposed solutions, including a global tax on wealth, a minimum tax on corporations, unemployment programs, national savings bonds, and progressive tax structures, are very controversial and the reason why stubborn parties cannot agree on a legislation. Guiding technological innovation is more neutral, but the effects are still heavy.

There is another downside with technological innovation in our economy. Due to the economic depression and recession, many workers have been laid off. However, we do see a huge peak in entrepreneurship as many of these laid-off workers are turning to self-employment to sustain themselves. These businesses range from small food trucks to restaurants to digital marketing agencies. While this may sound great, we see a disparity in the groups heading towards entrepreneurship. According to the Center for an Urban Future, the locations with the lowest rates of self-employment have median incomes below $33,000. This makes sense, as those in the low-income brackets do not possess a great amount of wealth and definitely not enough to risk it all on opening a business that may or may not still be there in the next six months. As such, we see a high rate of self-employment in the more affluent locations in New York. This does not help our argument concerning technological innovation and income inequality as the rich who can afford to be self-employed can only get richer and wealthier while the poor do not have the resources to even afford a computer, let alone learn to use one.

Therefore, our dilemma now does not span only governmental action, but also the type of government we, the United States, are. We are a capitalistic economy where the goal is to rise to the top with the most innovative and all-encompassing corporation. Yes, technological innovation can help level the playing field if governmental action provides the correct guidance by issuing sufficient legislation. However, the capitalistic and competitive nature of our economy will continue to spur those with resources and skills to rise higher and those without to lose confidence.I wonder if governmental action is sufficient in reversing the effects of this type of economy while still encouraging innovation and competition.

-Amy (SiJia) You

Reading about the effect Hurricane Sandy had on New York City hit home for me. As some of my close friends had their homes destroyed from the storm, while I saw that many others were unscathed, I felt like it was unfair. While I saw the physical destruction of the storm, there were also underlying inequalities that were brought to light in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

It was reported that despite three billion dollars in federal relief to the city, lower income homeowners were getting virtually no government funding. Surprisingly, a lot of the New York City Housing Authority buildings had a bad mold problem, and Sandy only made it worse. This lack of treating the mold problem shows the lack of attention the government and perhaps society in general has in terms of addressing the issues of the poor. I feel like the insufficient maintenance of the buildings says something about current management, but it also leads to a larger picture about environmental awareness, and our impact on the world.

Gregory Zuckerman’s book on fracking really sounds too pompous and “it’s the American-way” like. Stating that fracking is able to exist in America because of the entrepreneurial attitude and risk-taking behaviors. He sounds like an American elitist – one who believes America is dominating everything and everyone. Because he states that the profits and rewards of fracking are part of America’s culture, he blatantly ignores the overall negative impact that fracking has on the population. Given the cost of contaminating drinking water and destroying habitats, is fracking really the right alternative for energy? Too add fuel to the fire, Mark Perry adds his bigoted comments about fracking making millions of Americans better off, and that it has created thousands of millionaires. Why is he advocating the masses to welcome the increased income inequality created by technological advances that often exploits whatever it can, at the expense of the people?

On the other hand, the MotherJones article depicting the correlation between high income mobility and the areas of shale activity was more insightful. Kate Sheppard noticed a correlation, but is quick to point out that a boom doesn’t last forever. Those areas that have increased employment and earnings are also the same areas that have current shale plays and prospective basins. Does this necessarily mean that shale plays and fracking lead to economic improvement?

With the move Gaslands depicting what happens to the environment due to fracking, the environmental toll is shocking and immense. Numerous chemicals are found in the people’s drinking water, and the ignorance of the advocates of fracking don’t think about the harmful effects to the environment. The documentary is a good example to show what fracking tycoons don’t want the people to see, the truth.

When technology is discussed in relation to economics and income, it is usually frowned upon due to the many ways it increases the income inequality gap within the United States. Critics focus on the argument that only small groups of people benefit financially from innovations and technological advancements, whereas supporters argue that the wealth and benefits made from technology is eventually distributed back to society. Indeed, both technology and globalization have contributed to a great divide between lower-middle income classes and capitalists who reap profits from various inventions and the labor systems that are derived from these machinations. Recently, in fact, we read about innovative scheduling technologies implemented by large corporations such as Starbucks and McDonald’s, which increased profits and cut costs at the expense of the employees.

Having this perception already instilled in mind, I was surprised to read the NY Times article “How Technology Could Help Fight Income Inequality” by John Hersey. The author proposes unique solutions as to how technology can actually reduce income inequality. One of the propositions that I thought was both realistic and helpful was cheaper online education through various alternative-learning services such as MOOCs. Developing fundamental skills such as these at a relatively cheap or no cost at all can possibly lead to better jobs and income mobility. Another realistic suggestion that he put forth was that since our world is becoming increasingly more focused on computers and programming, our youth will obtain more technical skills and be accustomed to the digital world, unlike generations before them. This again can lead to more jobs, or even better, more businesses/start-ups that will uplift the poor. Some of the propositions however, seemed a bit idealized or unrealistic, such as workers obtaining more jobs with smart robots due to the need for human assistance, or medical diagnosis through artificial intelligence. I don’t necessarily see those options as viable solutions to alleviate income inequality, but nevertheless, more policymakers and entrepreneurs should have Hersey’s approach to help increase income mobility.

The “Launching Low-Income Entrepreneurs” report by Kahliah Laney, Jonathan Bowles and Tom Hilliard provides excellent commentary on how entrepreneurs can possibly serve as a closure to this income inequality gap. Even though it seems that entrepreneurship may be a great vehicle to escape one’s social and income class, the report shows that many low-income New Yorkers are not actually taking the risk. I’m not really surprised by the findings however, since it takes a considerable amount of risk and capital to start a business. But building businesses can be a path to economic betterment within low-income communities as “massive numbers of immigrants in New York, Boston, Houston and Los Angeles have turned to entrepreneurship and in doing so have transformed neighborhoods as well as their own economic fortunes. Some of these entrepreneurs have been wildly successful, generating numerous jobs for their communities and significant financial rewards for themselves.”

It does seem that more foreign-born immigrants within NYC are more self-employed than native-born residents. In Queens, NY for example, the self-employment rate was 11.5% for foreign-born residents whereas, only 6.3% of Native-born were self-employed. These statistics accurately show the trend of how immigrants come over to this country and immediately developed businesses to support their family. This was the most logical step to take, as education was probably unaffordable or not directly accessible due to language barriers. I have experienced this chain of events in action because when my family arrived to this country, my parents worked incessantly for about 20 years to develop a chain of businesses in downtown Manhattan to support us. Our stores provided jobs to our community as we hired other immigrants from Bangladesh who came here looking for work. Additionally, my family business has been able to support me up to adulthood, where I along with my siblings are obtaining college degrees to achieve successful careers. We hope to climb the income ladder ourselves, and so, I now truly understand the domino effect that entrepreneurship can have on closing the gap of income inequality.

Indeed, “The evidence that income inequality in the United States has been growing for decades and is greater than in any other developed democracy is not much disputed.” Instead of having Republicans and Democratics throwing around the word ‘income inequality’ for political points, concrete plans need to be organized and actually implemented for real to change to transpire. Technology and entrepreneurship may be viable options for this kind of change, but more analysis and think thanks must be formed to understand how these vehicles can lead to income equality. But these responsibilities cannot solely lie upon immigrant and native-born entrepreneurs. There must be a collective reform on part of Congress, business owners, and CEOs of large corporations among others who are at the helm of economic machines and systems.

The three articles brought up opposing views, but interesting correlation between geographical locations, fracking, and income inequality. In the short run, it creates certain benefits that won’t be sustainable in the long run. Rather than taking advantage of certain situations for profits, there needs to be long-term solutions to energy sources.

The two perspectives that Cohen and Liboiron bring up in “New York’s Two Sandy,” I found interesting. The article mentions, on top of the rebuilding homes that will prevent storms in the short term, the focus should also be on long terms goals such as the economic security issue such as jobs and affordable housing.  Being that I’ve volunteered in the rebuilding efforts of Hurricane Sandy, I’ve seen and heard stories of the families’ effect on the storms. For one family, it was rather the second point that was brought up, mortgages and temporary rent that has to be paid on a destroyed home and many kids to accommodate education for. On the other hand, another family who had just a flooded basement, focused on rebuilding the basement.

In Kate Sheppard’s article “Income Inequality and the Fracking Boom,” it demonstrates the correlation between the growing oil industry and upward mobility. However, this creates only a short term solution to income inequality by creating temporary jobs; as in the long term, it won’t be sustainable. Since North Dakota, one of the states that sees a 33.1 percent change of upward mobility for children in the bottom fifth rise to the top fifth, falls short of federal standards in terms of education, it will see lower percentages in the long run. In my opinion, the focus for upward mobility in North Dakota should rather be on improving education as a long term goal in order to upward mobility rather than providing temporary wealth.

On the opposing end, Mark Perry welcomed the idea of income inequality that is brought about by fracking. Rather, as Greg Zuckerman talks about the reasons as to why fracking in the US is successful as opposed to other foreign nations. He claims it is a sign of entrepreneurship still in existence. Perry speaks about the benefits that fracking brings to the US such as more millionaires; however, for others it also brings down the prices of energy, increases jobs and in this case, fracking benefits the ones not making millions as well. I don’t really see it as American entrepreneurship in existence, more than taking advantage of a situation. There are many inventions in the world that benefit the average citizen such as computer apps, but they also don’t harm others and their daily necessities such as clean drinking water. I don’t think it would be effective to compare entrepreneurship and creating computer applications to fracking. Rather than a sign of entrepreneurship, it seems more like of few government regulations on fracking.

Overall, it comes down to the benefits and the costs that fracking brings. Being that I’m against fracking and watching the movie “Gasland” in class made be side to being more against it, I would think the costs definitely do not outweigh the benefits. On the other hand, as brought up in previous articles, it does create temporary jobs and it brings down energy prices, but these outcomes are not long-term effects. In the long term, there needs to be a way to create a renewal energy source.

I think it is funny how people can so easily overlook long term repercussions for short term satisfaction. Gregory Zuckerman’s comments in the American Enterprise Institute completely rubbed me the wrong way. This boom in fracking is not due to this so called American entrepreneurial spirit. It is due to less government regulation and people’s recklessness in trying to earn the fastest profits in the shortest amount of time. The consequences of fracking are not concrete and while many use that as the justification to continue it, I think that makes it even riskier. We don’t know what will happen if we continue but chances are when you mess with mother nature, nothing good. Zuckerman calls for “years of trial and error necessary for shale breakthroughs” and all the time I’m thinking, you’re drilling into the Earth and releasing potentially dangerous gasses with no concrete plan? Just trial and error and see what happens? Less government regulation in shale gas isn’t a good thing. We need to emulate other countries in expressing more caution.

Zuckerman also notes that we should embrace income inequality because now smaller towns are experiencing a rebirth due to shale gas due to that incentive. While I believe that income inequality has played a part in smaller towns embracing fracking wholeheartedly, I wouldn’t associate income inequality with such a positive connotation of incentive. I feel like it’s more similar to a heavy burden that led those affected by it to resort to other means to bridge that gap. Zuckerman is right when he says that there is “a strong desire to get really wealthy” within the USA. That’s the American Dream that’s still alive and well. Everybody’s waiting for the day they get rich. But it’s a dream that has had wreaked havoc in the environment in our country and fracking seems like history repeating itself.

The article in Mother Jones supports Zuckerman’s statements of revitalized small towns due to fracking. I found it surprising that social mobility increased in places where education is hardly substantial. The article stated, “more than two-thirds of North Dakota public schools failed to meet federal standards this year” and yet they experienced more than 30% chance of social mobility. We’ve pointed time and time again that education has been one of the best ways to bridge inequality but it seems as if the success of shale gas has had more benefits.

At the end of the article, however, the author brings up a good point: Fracking is in it’s boom-time. All this talk about fracking made me overlook the fact that it isn’t just because it’s a new process, it’s also because fracking is in it’s most prosperous stage. But with all good things, it must come to an end. What happens when this boom dies down? When OPEC and the volatile energy industry twists things around? I’m thinking about those North Dakota towns. Short term success shows fantastic progresses in mobility. But long-term? I’d say it’s more far-fetched. After the boom dies down, there will be nothing else for those towns to rely on.

The last article really put the damages of Sandy into perspective. I found it hard to believe that people were still suffering from it even after almost 3 years. The article stated, “According to a survey of nearly 500 NYCHA residents, 55% had repair needs in their dwellings before Sandy, 40% developed new needs because of Sandy, and 62% were told they would have to wait six months or more for repairs.” Sandy may have damaged people’s homes but income inequality has affected who of those people gets the resources to repair those homes. But then I realize it’s always been like that. Income inequality has spurred environmental inequality. Who tends to get exposure to harmful hazards? Poor communities. Who tends to get a say in what happens in their environment? Not those poor communities.

Stella Kong

I found myself pretty angry at these articles. They both took the idea of fracking creating wealth too far. They talk about it as if there is absolutely no downside. After seeing the movie in class, I cannot ever support fracking. And on top of that, one of the articles conceded that it contributes to income inequality. But the author’s smug way of saying income inequality should be welcomed and that it is not unfortunate completely lost me. He sounds like one of those people who wants to give up our country to the rich because they know better.

Fracking has created wealth and unprecedented economic mobility in the places with natural gas deposits. In fact, Williston, North Dakota has the highest rate of economic mobility. I think the number may be a bit skewed because the people there, prior to fracking, were poor farmers so when fracking moved in, the new wealth vastly overshadowed the wealth of the earlier generations. This makes for some great numbers and makes fracking look so amazing. And so, I do not think the this economic mobility is as good as it looks. I think this phase will blow over and then the real problems with fracking, which we saw in the movie, will manifest.

The American Enterprise Article was one of those articles that I just cannot take very seriously. First of all, acting like America is better than other countries does not make it any better. He said that America is the only country with the entrepreneurial culture and ample incentives for trial and error necessary for shale breakthroughs. I think that other countries are just smart enough to know that contaminating our water supply and creating more pollution is not worth more energy. But America would be the type to disregard those things just to make a quick buck. We obsess over making so much money that hurting the environment or ourselves never even enters the picture.

The third article talked about the inequality caused by hurricane sandy. The people who needed help the most were not getting it even though DiBlasio was speeding up the rebuilding process. I do not know too much about this and my home was not affected but the information is disappointing. The problem is two-fold: 34% of people complained of mold before sandy and 45% complained after Sandy. Hurricane Sandy exacerbated the problems already present, all the way up the structural problems of income inequality. I do not know how the government allocates the money for rebuilding, but I would think the dire situations and most needy people should be taken care of first. It is not a matter of favoritism, it is because there are people who desperately need repairs and there are people who have minor issues to take care of.

The articles, to me, all seemed to deal with the inequality caused by natural elements. Natural elements have no regard for our incomes or our wealth and hit indiscriminately. The shale deposits have been there for centuries before America was even a country and Hurricane Sandy did not think to hit the poor. But they create inequality nonetheless and we need to deal with these problems. Fracking, while lucrative, is not worth the environmental fallout, health concerns, or income inequality.

We’ve talked about hydraulic fracturing plenty of times and have seen the negative effects outweighing the positive ones. Sure, hydraulic fracturing is a better alternative to other options such as oil drilling and coal mining. However, it is still not the optimal solution, not even close. Hydraulic fracturing utilizes over 600 carcinogenic chemicals and toxins that pollute the water supply and destroys the environment. There has to be cleaner alternatives, especially with technological innovations skyrocketing in the past few decades.

Many proponents of hydraulic fracturing, such as those in the AVI article, give the same excuse that such an option provides jobs for our improving but fragile economy, that the technique has not been scientifically proven harmful for the environment and people, that it is the only way to supply the economy’s demand for energy. Yes, it does provide a certain amount of jobs and supply the demand for energy. However, thsee positives are coming at a higher cost.

Hydraulic fracturing does provide jobs. Concurrently, this technique also creates and sustains a small group of wealthy, hardened individuals who view hydraulic fracturing as a mean of climbing up the social ladder. They do not sympathetize with the citizens who are forced to drink chemical ridden tap water. Additionally, they do not realize that a “small” addition to the income inequality makes a big difference as the Gini coefficient had skyrocketed since the 1970s and 1980s.

At the B-Corp/Corporate Social Responsibility event at Baruch, one speaker from Equitable Origins mentioned that there may not exist an energy source that is completely clean, but there is one out there that comes pretty close. With the innovation we’ve seen across so many industries, I believe this solution is not out of our reach. In fact, the absurd amount of  money we’ve placed into hydraulic fracturing is definitely something we can reallocate into the research and development of new, innovative options for satisfying the energy supply.

However, this innovation is not highly encouraged by those in power in the energy and hydraulic fracturing. This is naturally due to the fact that such innovation will draw revenues away from the higher ups who are reaping in millions from this lucrative business. The articles do say, however, that hydraulic fracturing is,  no matter how lucrative, not sustainable in the least. At one point, we must change. We can either choose to do so now before more damage is inflicted on our crumbling environment or later when changing is the last option we have left. Good businesses never want to be backed into a corner where there is only one option left. We shouldn’t either.

-Amy (SiJia) You

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.

« go back — keep looking »

• Recent Posts

  • Blog post- Reaction to IDC presentation to Education in Japan and US
  • Blog post- Housing and Income Inequality Reaction
  • Class #22 / Blog Post
  • Post #16- Nick Djamalidinov
  • Class #22- Technology and Entrepreneurship

• Student Writing

  Student Writing Select Category announcements  (1) Bill De Blasio  (26) charter schools  (17) education  (29) entrepreneurship  (10) environmental inequality  (20) finance  (14) health law  (12) housing  (31) income gap  (81) income inequality  (118) insider trading  (9) job creation  (17) just-in-time  (6) living wage  (27) minimum wage  (36) Paul Krugman  (2) public schools  (7) recession  (4) technology  (13) Thomas Piketty  (13) Uncategorized  (77) zoning  (18)