Income Inequality: Where Exactly is America Headed?

Income inequality has been a debated topic throughout history with individuals using different aspects of ones life such as socioeconomic metrics which include health, sanitations, infant mortality, and many other aspects that individuals deal with on an everyday basis. Take this with a mixture of total income and assets which analyzes the distribution of income in any one economic structure to create a debate towards taxation and other avenues to sustain a balanced agenda for society.

In order to do this we must take into account many different aspects of life as I mentioned above. While health, infant mortality and sanitations is only a small portion other areas such as women to men ratio through the workforce, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, poverty indicators, population in mountain areas can all be linked to a popular index that measures income inequality. The most popular form of measuring income inequality is the Gini Index. In order for the Gini Index to calculate efficiently, it must take the area between the Lorenz Curve and a realistic line of a stable more balanced economy to form a percentage of area around the perfect equality we could achieve. The Lorenz Curve is the fancy name for a graph. Providing scientists and philosophers with a cumulative distribution meshed with a realistic distribution to determine proportions of incomes between the wealthiest to the most poverty stricken. While the Gini Index is the most popular of all indexes trying to determine the perfect equality, there are other indexes which also use the Lorenz Curve (named after Max O. Lorenz) to represent the distribution of income such as the Robin Hood Index, Pareto distribution, or the ROC Curve.
While many are successful in giving us a proper analysis of our income spread, all efforts are somewhat masked in finding a concrete answer.

While some families in any third 3rd world economy are considered well off if they have necessities such as running water, a sufficient meal, indoor plumbing, clothes, some health care, and an attempt of education are considered wealthy families in other nations. If you were to say the same of the United States where everyone had these amenities and most do, many are still considered poor in our society as this constitutes only the minimum here. Poverty surrounds that of South Asia more than any other as almost half of their population (1,266 million total) live on virtually one dollar or less per day or three-hundred sixty-five dollars a year. In total there are over one billion people within the world that are living through despair. The problem rises as people have this mindset that places that grow vastly over a period of time is providing their income inequality as a decline. This is simply not the case as China and India are great examples of growing nations with inequality still surrounding their countries. For example you may find that as an overall of these countries there inequality is slowly declining, but within provinces and other areas of the countries they be on the rise. You could compare this to the overall world inequalities of income. While the United States, and most European countries can contribute to the wealthier habitats of the world, there are many countries in the world that would be on the other spectrum of the matter and bring down the overall accumulative mark.

Which leads us to the question if inequality is actually beneficial for economic growth. As the world turns so do our reflections on what inequality can do or cannot do for us. Obviously it is a split decision between all social classes showing their beliefs on whichever side of the prospective they are on and live in on an everyday basis. For instance those that are accustomed to everyday life of being in total poverty would tend to believe that inequality is a negative towards our diverse society. Waking up every morning with the bare minimum to get through everyday life, earning just enough to pay the bills, have a car, a home, a place of work, health insurance, or even just a little extra to go out to dinner with the family every once in awhile, anyone thinking these individuals would not think negatively are blind in one eye and can't see out of the other. In other countries yes, this would be of great interest to many, but in the United States it is simply the lower class families as some may not even have some of these essentials. To the middle class of society and those that have enough to sustain a stable life are caught in the middle of taxation breaks for the wealthy, and giving their taxes to the poor which puts them in a situation where no matter what they never seem to never win, and it's an uphill climb for these rights to change on an everyday basis. Then of course their is the wealthy, that get backup from the government for taxation laws like for estate and donations. It is evident that millions of dollars are donated every year to the poor part of society, however most are in forms of foundations and things of that nature that contribute to a select few and not as an overall whole. All in all I believe it's not a question that can be answered properly because everyone is going to form their own opinions on the matter.

Global income inequality is a total different matter than just that of the United States. As Third World countries fight everyday for more international trading and investment to diminish the overall affects of inequality in their nations. Unfortunately, those who are expressing interest of such a great notion it is unconceivable to think that those accusing are not helping in their own right as they have been decreasing economic democracy, global efficiency, and destruction of environment while negotiations are taking place. In theory it would be possible to take the great nations and give to the poor ones to induce a sense of balance through global economics and build towards stronger resolutions that would cause for the wealthier nations not to have to provide as much and cause their own countries to fall deeper into an inequality of not only income, but of life itself. Take for example Africa, and South Africa which are two of the most contrasting societies in the world. As one prospers and the other strives to simply survive each day, the stronghold on balancing distribution of income is completely faltered, but is a serious issue that not only they deal with there, but the United States tries to back the situation into a better way of living. Some aspects to reflect on however are things that are similar as far as the twenty percent difference in wages between men and women within their occupations. Women in Third World countries have a sense of feeling that work of a maid is a stepping stone towards brighter and future things while women in the United States believe occupations as maids, secretaries, waitresses, and other low paying incomes are nothing more than a job that pays the bills, but will more than likely peaks out there. Although not seeming as if this example is pertaining to if inequality has a different effect on Third World countries, it is monumental in most cases. It is a piece of the puzzle to a picture of absolute and perfect inequalities that gets passed over time and time again for the simple fact that it looks like a small issue.

While many believe that taxation and social security are major issues when it comes to the distribution of income from the wealthy to the poor it, again it is another double-edged sword where the population will be split in thirds arguing their own disagreements and praises over both issues. As people age and retire, they are completely dependent for the most part on social security. Social security is distributed to the poor in an ongoing effort to stabilize the equality of the people by using the tax dollars that are taken from the middle class and higher throughout the course of a fiscal year. For those families that are younger in age raising children, another form of relinquishing money from the upper two classes to the less fortunate is through the EIC or Earned Income Credit which families can receive based on dependents in the household during a given year. These are two of the most important sanctions to disperse money to the poor, closing the overall gap of inequality.

When placed in history many economies suffered in the beginning having substantial levels of inequality. Sloppy at based the ideals were to have political power reign over deliberations over inequality and set ground rules and policies that would have them benefit more than the rest of society. Giving themselves a more vigorating leeway of opportunities in the economy this provided the rest of the world with a state of inequalities. New World countries who owned an abundance of land and property showed evidence that while real estate was prosperous, each country still differed. Mostly from others issues that were not originally factored into the equation such as health, political influence, and wealth distributed in the populations. Some areas were more suitable for growing crops (mainly sugar) being able to produce a high return with low costs such as in Brazil or other adjoining areas. Prosperity was evident, however didn't last as the areas were crowded with slaves which in turn brought the inequality down tremendously. The northern areas such as the United States and Great Britain were able to bring most of the plentifulness the land had to offer with different dimensions of crops. The problems rose for those that had wealth throughout their countries as the rules that were governed by the states and the government were unorganized to a degree where a establishing rules properly for all of society instead of a select few. Fast forwarding to todays rules and regulations within the United States are still quarreling over the same issues as in the beginning.

Dating as far back as the common laws of England equity reflects a solution of laws that were conceived at an earlier stage and not recognized by the original laws that were produced by parliament. The equity is structed is seemingly the assets of one such as a home that has less liabilities involved over the course of the life of the owner's agreement of the land and home they own. There are many forms of equity inequality that don't necessarily extend to only land, but also the equity of slaves during the given periods throughout history, and inequality in the classrooms that stem from certain grades and teachers receiving substantially less assets to further educate our children. These alone are more pieces to the ever growing picture that shows why things such as the Gini Index are used to compensate for such issues. On other occasions real estate equity contributes to different dimensions all on its own that are mistakenly masked by poverty areas. In today's world, there are areas where pricing of homes are very inexpensive do to the surrounding areas as far as crime rate, how old the area and homes are within the city, and more importantly the conditions that they are in. As you could buy home in a low income neighborhood, fix it up, then resell it, you may not even get the amount you originally paid let alone more do to the first two scenarios earlier about crime rate, and how rundown is the neighborhood. All causes the larger picture to be presumably more evident.

So you must ask yourself are the rich actually getting richer and the poor getting poorer, or is this just a facade that is led by propaganda within the country itself? The answer is that most likely there is no real overall answer. The best to consummate the actual totals is by digging deeper than just simply nationally and take a good look within each state in effort to find a true answer. Florida for example it is evident that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Florida has had the #1 growth rate over a few years span. While rapid growth has occurred in Florida over the last nine years, it has not overall in the United States. While evident, the wages for workers are the most concentrated of any state. Almost forty percent of workers were classified as the "working poor" compared to those in other states. However the major blow to the inequality of Florida came when twenty percent of the lowest income workers lost an additional three percent of income on a yearly basis. While these are only statistics for one state it proved that the rich were overly getting richer at least in Florida. So I believe it is imperative to search this on a more obscure level throwing out the national overall distribution and look on it in more defined way to get a clearer answer of the situation between the areas of the country.

Which will make 2008 and it's presidential election one of the most followed election in years. The fact that income inequality is going to be the biggest issue amongst the campaigns giving us a sense for those running if and how they are going to tackle the issue if elected as President of the United States of America. While many believe that the issues revolving technology in our creative economy and the effects the sophistication has on society it's leading to an uprising in the incentive system. Other candidates tend to focus in on more simplified reasons such of demographic areas and where the older are becoming wealthier and the working world becoming more stagnate. However the fact remains that whether or not some of these are viable debates to cover in the future they may be throwing smoking mirrors at society intentionally, therefore leaving open another major issue that contributes to the situation which is education. It seems as though as our education thrives, the inequality raises more so from funding issues that are overseen within and voting by the people for local levies that do not benefit the system overall and only causes more challenges in the long run. The only way anyone can see to solve the situation is to outlaw age or education at this point which obviously is delusional and a complete lack of meeting eye to eye with one another in the government.

Another difference that is an ever increasing topic from women's rights movements, is the issue of the difference of income in the United States between men and women. While women on the national level are making negative twenty-three cents less than their male counterparts it could possible be just a facade with determining the exact amount. It is well documented that although evident, the fact that many women have lower waged jobs is due in part to being either a stay at home mother with a family and children to look after, or working only part-time for the same reasons. If this is the case the easiest part time jobs to come across are those of either cashiers at a local grocery store, a part-time secretarial job, or being a waitress at a local restaurant. All of these jobs are in high demand and if a woman is possibly going to school or as we said before has a family and the bills are piling up, the easiest way out is to find something quick and attainable as the three occupations I previously mentioned. In order to come to an immediate solution may be irrelevant if the numbers don't necessarily hold true to form as the indexes say. There is such a fine line here as I hope not to cross, but in another event there may be women who don't want to work in higher paying jobs that require more time involved which in turn would neglect the home life with their children as the course of time goes on. There are constant variables that can be debated over and over and over again, but however true that may be, it is also evident that a different structure should be made up for those that qualify for other positions with higher paying wages.

The stipulations of the various laws are evident but as an overall nation the overall wages within each state could cause for a more burden inequality than ever before. While the raising of the minimum wage in sum states would help decrease inequality, the fact that the money added to minimum issues is essentially taken away from social security monies and welfare checks would only worsen inequality depending on the area where this happens. Is there ever going to be a perfect equality? Not necessarily, due in part to the ever growing concerns on an everyday basis that everyone in society has to deal with constantly. If we disperse more money to poor then we are taking away from the middle class and wealthy. If we provide less and cut taxes we are becoming unethical in trying to help support these poverty stricken people which will in turn raise other problems, for instance depression and suicide which could affect children of our nation and this is just scratching the surface of the domino effect that would take place. We have to figure out how to become balanced with all of society involved not just certain classifications. Yes some will win, some will lose, and the rest won't understand or just go on with their lives oblivious to everything around them. Unfortunately, the trouble lies in the nation having a hard time working as one and instead of believing in all for one and for all, it's perceived as once in it for me and in order to fix this we have to start from the top and then work our way down.