Analysis of the Article 1% by Joseph Stiglitz

Everywhere you look at the United States you can find economic stratification. From the kind of vehicle you drive, to the kind of house you live in, to the kind of restaurants you eat at the most you will find economic stratification. Some might ask, does any of that truly matter today? Yes, unfortunately, it does. An important goal for most people is what’s referred to as The American Dream. Whether it is to attend a good college, get a respectable job, purchase the perfect house, and have a small family or maybe just to start your own business; that dream starts with wealth. People with more money will have an easier time with achieving the dream than a lower income person would. With wealth comes power and prestige as well. People with more money have better life chances because they can afford better healthcare, education, healthier food, and safer neighborhoods just to name a few things.

Stiglitz identifies dwindling opportunity, monopoly power and tax treatment, and the investments of the government as the effects from manipulating the economy to exclusively benefit the top 1%. The societal impact becomes clear when the author states that the ultimate price is the “erosion of our sense of identity,” which includes “fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community” because a majority of people realize the importance of these topics related to the success of themselves and their country (Stiglitz, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”). The article concludes with the significance of paying attention to common welfare as a “precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being” that the top 1% have a history of failing to grasp before meeting their

In today’s capitalist economy, where economic transactions and business in general is centered on self-interest, there is a natural tendency for some people to make more than others. That is the basis for the “American Dream,” where people, if they worked hard, could make money proportional to their effort. However, what happens when this natural occurrence grows disproportional in its allocation of wealth within a society? The resulting issue becomes income inequality. Where a small portion of the population, own the majority of the wealth and the majority of the population own only a fraction of what the rich own. This prominent issue has always been the subject of social tension

It can be said that money is power in the United States, and this is brought out in the essay, “Class in America---2012” written by Gregory Mantsios. He says that even though many Americans do not like to discuss class, “it can determine where people live, who their friends are, how well they are educated, and what they do for a living” (Mantsios). Many Americans do not speak about class type, and most find it unacceptable (Mantsios). Unfortunately, we can see that there are laws that are built to help and better the wealthy, while it cripples the rest of us. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “The richest twenty percent of Americans hold nearly ninety percent of the total household wealth in this county” (Institute) Gregory Mantsios without reserve describes the majority of people are at a disadvantage in their social class, while the upper class is compensated.

In a research of Harvard professor 5000 people in America have opinion in how they think about the actual distribution of wealth in the U.S. and the 92 percent choose the ideal would be 20 percent and 20 percent the middle class. However, the reality is very far from it. “The poorest are not even registered, they are on the package change and the middle class is barely distinguished from the poor, even the rich between the 10 % and 20 % are worst off, only the top 10 % are better off. Only the one percent gets ten time higher and 40 % all the nation wealth. The bottom 80 % 8 out 10 people only has 7 % between them.1 % makes a quarter of the national income today”(you tube, 2015). All of this data reflex one of the truly perspectives in economy of the U.S. Not only people with low wages are the most affected, but also those who have good jobs and

There is no doubt that wealth inequality in America has been escalating quickly; the portion of total income earned by the top one percent has doubled since the beginning of the 1970’s. The wealthy are the main beneficiaries

Income Inequality is a major problem that has been going on in America for decades. Many people feel that it barely exists today, but those people are very uneducated and don’t really care about the huge problem in front of them the many people that feel that way are highly uneducated, and seem to not really care about which has been gradually increasing instead of decreasing. Unfortunately, there’s not much that can be done, only of course if the poor class of people decide to actually educate themselves and get a higher education. One says poor class, simply because that’s how they’re classified. There are five types of levels that Americans are classified as, and they are: Upper Class, Upper Middle Class, Middle Class, Working Class, Poor. The highest percentage of Americans fall in the Poor department, and it has been that way for decades, and will continue to be that way for decades to come.

Wealth in america is only reserved for the top 1%. Even out of those who live in the

It is a fact that in the US, 50 percent of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. But is it really such an unfortunate reality that we would need a system other capitalism to stem the tide of upward movement of wealth distribution. In my view, what is wrong is not the 1 percent's hold on 50 percent of wealth but the resulting decline in middle class that is now a major problem for the US.

As we move closer to the 2016 national elections in the United States, claims of a growing wealth gap between the supposed “haves” and “have-nots” becomes more pronounced. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton even went so far as to caution us that we are advancing towards a repeat of the “Gilded Age of the robber barons”. The insinuation in this claim creates a perception that there are a growing number of individuals within American society using questionable methods to increase their wealth, all at the expense of the not so fortunate. So-called culprits of these activities are often referred to as the “top 1 percent”; a term gaining a strong foothold in our current vernacular. Although the existence of an income inequality gap is evident, subjectively misinterpreted data is the primary culprit driving the perception that the income inequality gap is expanding.

Capitalism has been the central force behind the growth of the United States’ progressive economy. Within such advanced economic system the chances of economic disparity are significantly high. In fact, over the past three decades there has being a steady increase in unequal wealth distribution among the economic classes. To sustain the current unequal wealth distribution among the classes of the American population, there are numerous factors that influence and shape this trend. For some members of the population it is alarmingly disturbing to know that recent statistics have shown that, “In the US [alone] the wealthiest 1% of its population owns more than the bottom 95 %” (Gutman). As for the difference in economic wealth, it resulted

America is one of the world’s largest and prosperous developed countries in the world, but take a closer look and you realize that the great United States of America has an alarmingly large amount of poverty. Where there once used to be an “American Dream” there now lies the cold hard truth, there is less and less opportunity every day and growing inequality every second. Joseph E. Stiglitz how America has turned into a country that would be unrecognizable to any of the founding fathers. In The Price of InequalityStiglitz visits this problem and searches for the source of the economic inequality that the United States is faced with today. Stiglitz came to the conclusion that America is declining and turning into a society like the one

Two important factors that determine a workers' income, regardless of their class, are their race and gender. Minority groups as well as women are less likely to receive an income they deserve, regardless of the job. They are seen as less educated and less capable of doing certain jobs, and they are restricted in advancing and achieving a more suitable income. Only the top capitalists, white males, are receiving the bulk of the nation's income revenue and all the benefits that come along with it. They are the richest people of the United States and instead of being taxed like everyone else, they are allowed even more lee-way. "There is a solution to this problem that will save small farms and businesses, eliminate the ‘death tax' for all Americans and still preserve the integrity of the federal budget: Tax the net worth of the very richest Americans on a regular basis during their lifetime" (Eitzen & Leedham pg. 40). The already rich continue to earn more and more money with their jobs, and they are not being taxed in proportion to their income. They have gotten away with accumulating more of the nation's wealth, while others struggle to make it in life.

In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” by economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, the increasing gap in wealth and power between America’s richest and the lower classes is explained by analyzing the policies that allow the upper class to control the distribution of wealth and the consequences of this control. Stiglitz creates an effective argument by logically refuting opposing claims, using his expertise as an economist, and appealing to the American spirit.

Stiglitz paints a very dark and hated picture of the top 1 percent or wealthy elite right off the bat. Stiglitz is clearly against the 1 percent in almost every way. The 1 percent is stingy, useless, and does nothing to provide benefits for the middle class or any body outside of the 1 percent. The deeper into the article I found myself, the more questions came to mind. Are these facts or opinions? Does the authors argument hold any statistical value? The more I questioned the more specific my research became. The research developed into reasons how the marginal-productivity theory is in fact a vital part in the 1 percents role in the economy. That piece of information led to two other important pieces of evidence. How much did the 1 percent actually contribute to society? How many job and educational opportunities came from the wealthy elite? The research and statistics go on to speak for themselves by stating how exactly the top 1 percent contribute to society specifically outside of their income class and how many economic opportunities are provided from just the 1 percent alone.