Money inequality

Considering economic inequality within the United States, I would definitely consider this inequality to be a major issue that Americans should take seriously and try to solve it. It not only presents potential issues within the community such as social and political uprisings that may not be easy to be tamed but it also harms the self-esteem of individuals and how they look and respect themselves. Many people don’t stop to consider all the possibilities of economic situations people may be in and how it could potentially affect someone and how they see themselves. In Detroit, Michigan the economy and workforce it so bad currently, houses are less than $100 because there is no value in any of the homes that surround the major city. Not only does this display how bad the economy but also describes a general gist of what kind of neighborhoods are young adults and children are living in. The economic inequality allows for poor communities to stay in poor areas, and although many higher class companies donate to the charities to help others. The focus of where the money in these charities is a problem that I do think Americans as a whole have to look at. In bettering communities and cities such as Detroit, MI there is a better chance in the preventions and building of new companies and better foster homes for bigger issues such as children in need. Not only does it prevent the cause of violence due to ultimate frustration of poverty, it allows the opening and operation of the communities to flourish again and build into something new that could then be built upon to strengthen the community all together. Although many things can be said to help and change the community, the decisions of what is chosen to be done by major corporations and the government are all places that the action and attention needs to be brought to in order for change to occur.

In response to Valerie Reyes' Post, "Money, Money, Money"

Well I agree that Americans should keep economic inequality into consideration when looking into new taxes or even propositions such as Obamacare, though I do not see economic inequality as an issue that Americans need to solve. In the video, Wilkinson has prepared unbiased graphs based on information collected from the UNICEF, U.N. and WHO. The information that Wilkinson presents displays, in a clear manner, that economic inequality is an issue. He compares and contracts the poorest to the richest of countries with established market democracies. Within the comparisons, he further introduces socioeconomic issues found in each country and shows the audience that the countries with economic similarities are less likely to have these socioeconomic issues than richer countries with larger economic differences in regards to wealth. Wilkinson also touches on social mobility and the psychosocial effects of economic inequalities.

                I have to disagree with that economic inequality is an issue that Americans need to solve for several reasons: our economy is a capitalist democracy that enforces a form of self-regulation by competition, self-induced psychosocial issues that lead to further socioeconomic problems and social mobility is not at all an issue in America.

                In regards to our country’s economy being a capitalist democracy, everyone is already given the ability to compete in a market system with resources available to all. Though the issue is that some people do not wish to put in the effort to compete in said market. If someone so chooses to open a small business, they can refer to banks for business loans. This would mean that the entrepreneur would have to prepare a business model, estimated expenses and profits, how local/state/national economy could affect the new business, etc.  In the matter of taxes, all companies and businesses have the potential to access, or exploit, the same tax breaks as the larger corporations though I realize that most tax breaks are available due to the large volumes of money grossed by those larger corporations. The purpose of our capitalist democracy is to self-regulate the economy through competition.

                Secondly, people create their own illusions of socioeconomic issues through everyday psychosocial issues. If the opinions of others based on income or lack thereof is important to Americans, why go to college? Why not simply start working and saving up money from a young age to someday purchase that nice BMW or Cadillac? If enough time, time management and effort is applied, I could be a successful entrepreneur and live happily that everyone praises my wealth. This would not be an issue if people just lived their lives with moderation in respect to material wealth. A moderately simple lifestyle would place everyone within the same social boundaries. Mental Illnesses also have little effect in the socioeconomic aspect in my opinion. In the video, even Wilkinson states, “Kids do worse in the more unequal countries. Highly Significant relationship. But once again, if you look at that measure of child well-being, in relation to national income per person, there’s no relationship, no suggestion of a relationship.”

Finally, with reference to social mobility having a correlation to economic inequality, America has always been praised as the country where people have the potential of achieving the rags-to-riches dream. I grew up in a family of seven with my father also supporting his younger brother and his family of five with one source of income--my father. Even without using the cousins that lived with me for the better part of my childhood as a reference, kids I knew going up had name brand clothing while I was jumping for joy if my family decided to go shopping at a JC Penny or Sears. Food was regarded in a similar fashion; I appreciated the times my family and I went to a Denny’s or IHOP. I even assumed that people who own motorcycles were rich. It wasn't until I decided to make something of myself and move up in the world that I joined the Marine Corps and learned that anyone can “adapt and overcome” any obstacle before them. So, again, in regards to social mobility, I see no issue being with the fact that I have moved up socially and economically in America.

While I do agree with Wilkinson that there are disparities between countries of different economic standings, I disagree that America has a major issue, in this regards, to solve. Yes, we can do a little better though only minor adjustments are needed. 

more money, less trust

After watching the TED video ,“How economic inequality harms societies” by Richard Wilkinson, I think economic inequality is a problem that Americans should take seriously and try to solve. The video gives a clear analysis on proving why and how economic inequality actually harms societies. Wilkinson starts his speech by saying, “inequality has always been an issue, even since the french revolution, but the difference between now and then is that we have evidence to compare more and less equal societies, and we can see what it does”.  He uses life expectancy as his first graph to explain that life expectancy and wealth doesn't show a relationship compared to other countries, but if you look within each society you’ll see a huge social gradients in health running across the graph.” “So income means something very important within our societies, and nothing between them”. He explains this paradox by telling us that, ”within our societies, we're looking at relative income or social position, social status -- where we are in relation to each other and the size of the gaps between us”. He then assures us he didn't just pick out the data that backs his argument by including “Internationally comparable data on life expectancy, on kids' maths and literacy scores, on infant mortality rates, homicide rates, proportion of the population in prison, teenage birthrates, levels of trust, obesity, mental illness -- which in standard diagnostic classification includes drug and alcohol addiction -- and social mobility”. He shows a graph with all the countries he’s using to prove his claim that sows how much richer the richest are than the poorest in each country. He does this before he goes through all the different data he collected to give you a background on which countries are considered more “equal” and “unequal” (USA is unequal and Japan is more equal). After giving you statistical background he goes on to show what being equal and unequal does to a society.  The graph shows japan doing much better than the U.S. in all of the data categories taken. All the data shows “so far says is the same thing. The average well-being of our societies is not dependent any longer on national income and economic growth. That's very important in poorer countries, but not in the rich developed world”. The difference is trust. ”It's simply the proportion of the population who agree most people can be trusted”. In the U.S. only 15 percent feel they can trust others, but in Japan 60 percent trust other people.

money

Richard Wilkerson believes a large gap in income of a countries citizens has a negative affect on its citizens. Wilkerson uses a series of data to show how countries with equal wealth are healthier in just about everyway than those that have a larger gap. Wilkersons numbers show that the United States just about leads the world in difference of wealth between its rich economic class and its poor one and the United States scores towards the bottom of just about every category he used to prove his theory. While all the numbers point to what he is trying to argue I don’t completely buy it. For example, the reason we lead the way in the percent of the population imprisoned I would say is not due to economic equality amongst our citizens but due to the fact of the harsh drug laws we have in place. Another one of the things I thought while listening to him speak was how much he raved about japan seemed a little overboard to me. Japan happens to be one of the worlds highest suicide rates amongst teens that he brought up. Japan also is a little bit more technologically advanced than the United States which is what I would credit their higher life expectancy to. Lastly I feel like trying to distribute wealth amongst the population almost seems a little communistic in my view. If the government steps in and equally distributes wealth to all whats the point of working harder than others when its just going to be given to you. His numbers back what he tries to say but I personally don’t believe wealth distribution really has that big if a correlation as he is trying to say it does.

Does Money Buy Happiness?

In the Ted Talk, “How economic inequality harms societies” by Richard Wilkinson. Economic inequality is a problem that Americans should take serious. Throughout, the video Wilkinson shows many charts concerning the problems in unequal and equal places. He sums up all of the charts by saying, “So what we’re looking at is general social disfunction related to inequality. It’s not just one or two things that go wrong, it’s most things”. It doesn’t matter how we become equal, we can redistribute, have smaller income differences, and more. It just matters when we get there because the longer we wait the bigger the gap will grow. He also states that it isn’t just the poor that’s affected by the inequality, and that the greater the equality has the most difference at the bottom. I agree with Wilkinson because his charts show that America is being greatly affected by the inequality. Most of the time when someone is born into a rich family they stay rich, and same being into a poor family. I believe that everyone should have an equal chance when it comes to fighting for the top. If we are not going to fight for equality in money, then we should at least fight for equal opportunities.