• Yes, the 1% are controlling this nation.

    I recently read a statistic that about 93% of total income went to the top 1% of workers, while the 99% had to split the rest of the 7%. Women obviously get the short end of the stick in the workplace, but the middle and lower class can't do much to even the odds. The economy would thrive if the upper class were taxed more. I leave you with the fact that the president's secretary paid more in taxes than the actual president.

  • Inequality serves competition, but massive inequality, such as it exists today, discourages it.

    Extreme inequality which allows undue influence on political process undermines the competitive forces that allow efficient price and resource allocations in our economy. If we look at some changes that might be made to reduce the level of inequality, we should remember that diverting resources from some participants to boost the incomes and wealth of others would reduce the overall level of productivity. This cost should however be acceptable to reduce the harm to mobility caused by lack of opportunities to less advantaged participants, and the negative effects of externalities that are often effected without consequence by more privileged ones.

    Posted by: SeeM
  • At current levels of inequality, advantages to the rich are negative to the economy as a whole.

    When massive inequality gives wealthy participants undue influence over the political process that creates regulations in their favor, it diminishes the effectiveness of markets to maximize production. Instead of allowing natural competitive forces determine prices and allocation of resources, the role of government to curb trends dangerous to society, such as failure to account for externalities in market-determined prices, is distorted to reduce consequences for certain participants to engage in anti-social behavior. As individuals, we must examine how extreme inequality affects the majority, reduces incentives to increase one's own contribution to a system skewed towards the top. The one factor to consider in encouraging policies to promote reduced inequality is to realize the full costs to society as a whole, when resources are diverted from one group to compensate others. In striving to reduce the most negative effects of massive inequality, such as diminished mobility, crime, ecological degradation, and failure to recycle capital to productive use, we would sacrifice some of the nominal productivity due to the "job creators", investors in capital, but end up with a better society to live in for a greater number of people, and an economy that functions to maximize its usefulness to its participants.

  • Inequality is bad for the economy

    The majority of our consumers are women, mothers, grandmothers, retired people. When they are treated as equals, when they are not paid their worth, they are unable to spend money, therefore, hurting our economy. Inequality has been an issue for hundreds of years. In the 1800's it did not matter because it was the male farmers spending. However, times have changed and the women do the most spending.

  • Rewards the educated/trained, thus productive

    Educated and trained members in an economy are rewarded for this as they are the ones to receive higher paying jobs, or jobs full stop. This provides a further productive and skilled labour force as those part of it have skills required. Therefore, if anything, levels of inequality are not bad for an economy.

  • Incentive to Work

    Inequality makes people work harder to achieve 'The American Dream." Also, more wealthy people spend on more luxury goods which help out the GDP. This will help in what Obama refers to as, Trickle down economics which spreads wealth throughout the different classes. It also drives the necessity to be a technological and advanced nation, creating inventions and new methods.

  • No, inequality is what makes society work.

    Without inequality where would America be? We cannot let everyone be equal if they do not deserve to be equal. Also if things were equal among everyone, who would be doing the lower paying jobs, such as restaurant work? We need to have several different levels of quality between people to make society work. Some people are just not meant to live a successful life and will work hard at dead in jobs. Should these people who put in less effort be treated equally? I don't think they should. If you want to get somewhere in life you have to work hard.

  • No it is not because it has nothing to do with the economy.

    Inequality has nothing to do with the economy. Race and culture don't determine how the economy fluctuates on a daily basis, hard working citizens do. We don't ever analyze the economy and talk about inequality in the same sentence. They are unrelated, and any statistics that say otherwise are highly misleading.

  • I really don't see how the two issues are related.

    Inequality and the economy have nothing to do with one another. Yes, women are paid differently, but I don't feel that it is to the extent that it is having a negative impact on our economy. I can kind of see how women being paid equally with men would MAYBE boost the economy, but I don't see that it could be hurting it.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.