Table of Contents
This is the start
My Standpoint
The Opposing View
Refutation and opposition of the opposing position
Summary of Position
Introducing
The interest in this topic has grown after decades or stability. Economic inequality refers to the unequal distribution between groups in society of salaries and opportunities. This has long been a source of concern to many countries.
Robert Rector, Rachel Sheffield, and Joseph E. Stiglitz all offer different reasons for why increasing economic inequalities are a problem. Stiglitz describes the massive and growing inequalities in America. Stiglitz claims that they are the result of capitalism and worker exploitation.
Rector & Sheffield both believe inequality isn’t as bad as it seems when you consider all the factors, such poverty, food shortages and overcrowding. Rector and Sheffield present more well-organized information than Stiglitz. Therefore, I will assess their explanations for the best conclusion.
My PositionWhile many experts accept that economic inequalities are a serious issue that requires remediation, others disagree. Rector and Sheffield’s first point is that they think the poor are not struggling because they have a good living situation and they get their food from their community. The poor are given the chance to apply over time for stabilized amenities in their household. This includes color TVs, phone lines, and fully equipped kitchens.
The Amenities in Poor Households graph shows that the plethora of modern conveniences in many poor families’ homes are the result of years of steady improvement in their standard of living. The chart shows that some poor families may not be able to afford all of the listed amenities. Malnutrition and poverty are included in the housing offered. In the United States there is little evidence that poverty causes malnutrition. However, many people believe that poor people are forced to eat low quality diets with high fat and low nutrition.
According to Cambridge University, eating healthy in America costs three time as much as eating unhealthy food. This price difference is increasing. Healthy food prices increased by an average of?1.84 for every 1,000 calories consumed over the past decade. Meanwhile, unhealthy foods went up by 73p. The poor must make tough decisions about their food purchases to maintain a consistent income.
Rector & Steffield go on to discuss food and nutrition for poor children. They also touch upon temporary food shortages & homelessness. If food stamps expire at the end of each month, a household with a low income may have to make sacrifices or reduce its food intake.
Stiglitz believes strongly that inequality isn’t inevitable. He starts by saying that America, which is rich and has many wealthy people, still has a lot of poor people. The nature of American society, the way we see ourselves, and how others view us are all factors that contribute to inequality. He says that the same stories could be used to describe each dimension of America’s extreme inequality, such as health care.
America is the only advanced nation that does not recognize healthcare access as a right of every citizen. This means that poor Americans have a much harder time getting good or adequate medical care than people in other developed countries. Australians and permanent Australian residents can receive free hospital care.
Medicare, private health coverage and personal payments cover the costs of treatment for private patients in a hospital. The fact that Americans are responsible for paying healthcare costs, while Australians don’t, shows how America’s system is not as effective as Australia. Stiglitz says that recent studies show that if there were more opportunities for the poor to get a decent education and access to good paying jobs, then we would spend less money on prisons.
If the money is distributed to people with low incomes, the economy will be more stable, and there will be more jobs. The economy will grow faster if pay distribution is kept slanted towards low-income earners. Joblessness will be reduced and the economy will be more stable. He will be backed by many who agree that the goal is not to eradicate inequality, but to moderate it and restore American Dream.
Refutation to Opposing PositionStiglitz made many valid points. I am less sure about his other claims. Stiglitz said that many poor children never leave poverty. I disagree. It has been proven by many celebrities, including Jennifer Lopez, who lived in The Bronx with her single mother and was reportedly valued at $300 million. Tom Cruise grew with an abusive dad and now is reportedly valued at $380 million. Justin Bieber grew with a low-income family and now is reportedly estimated to be worth $200,000,000. Mariah carey grew with her single mother in a low-income apartment in Long Island and now is reportedly estimated to be worth $510,000,000.
Stiglitz makes the assumption that a child who comes from a family of poverty will be unable to escape their life and live a more comfortable lifestyle. Stiglitz’s statement that poverty is the same thing as being poor was another point with which I disagreed.
I think that those who live in poverty are more likely to struggle than the poor in order to escape their lifestyles. Living in poverty means being economically severely disadvantaged. People living in poverty have generally poor and sometimes inadequate nutrition, education and health care. Being poor can be a temporary economic status. An individual who is heavily indebted to student loan companies may be financially poor but has made a decision to study to gain the skills necessary to live, work, and prosper in an ‘advanced’ area.
Position SummaryI stand with Restore and Sheffield where we have a better understanding of poverty in America. I also believe in including facts about those who are poor. The first talking-point is that the average poor American lives in a well-maintained air-conditioned apartment or house with cable TV, multiple color televisions, DVD players, VCRs and other appliances. Half of the poor own computers and a third have wide-screen Plasma TVs. This is only one of the many reasons I agree with you that economic inequality in America is not a major problem and can be corrected if needed.
My position is no because I totally agree with Rector, Sheffield and their argument that inequality in the United States is not a problem since the poor are well off. As mentioned in the source, 92% of poor households are equipped with a microwave. A microwave is a necessity for American households, so those who own one are considered lucky.
A further 43 percent of low-income families have access to internet. In a world where technology is everywhere, internet service has become a rare privilege. Living conditions for the poor have been improving over decades. The majority of poor people have items they would not have bought a decade ago. We have spent trillions to fight poverty, but those who are “in poverty”, have more than what we think. These arguments have convinced me that Rector and Sheffield are right and their explanations lead to the best conclusions.
