Is it a problem if 1% of Americans possess 50% of American wealth and assets?
I believe that it is a problem if 1% of Americans possess 50% of American wealth and assets. This concept of uneven distribution in wealth is mainly attributed to income inequality. It is more commonly known as the gap between the rich and the poor. There is a remarkable inequality in the wealth of America and there is an apparent wide gap between the rich and the poor. The income inequality leads to discontent within the citizens of a country and they feel that they are not being adequately rewarded for their hard work. It may also increase the crime rate, especially crimes that involve looting and stealing money from the rich. The people may believe that they are not being treated fairly. Most scholars agree that wealth inequality in the United States is at historic highs, with some estimates suggesting that the top 1% of Americans hold nearly 50% of the wealth, topping even the levels seen just before the Great Depression in the 1920s (Hbs.edu, 2011)
According to studies, the income inequality has become worse in the past 30 years in America. The concept that 1% of rich Americans hold about 50% of nation’s wealth has promoted the wealth disparity in the society. There are masses struggling to get by especially in the current bad economy where as top executives in a company are getting hefty bonuses. It makes us wonder whether the economy is actually as bad as it looks or the wealth has just accumulated in the hands of rich people, leaving very little for the rest. The arrogance that arises from being owners of massive wealth lead to the insensitivity of the rich towards the poor.
Some people believe that uneven distribution of wealth actually works in the favor of the society instead of being a problem for the society. It concentrates wealth with the manufacturers and industrialists who in turn provide us with cheaper services and goods. There are certain people who are rich industrialists and they want to help people through corporate responsibility projects. There are numerous corporations such as Google, Apple and Pepsi that are first to send financial and other types of help when natural calamities strike. They also have ongoing projects to help the needy and the poor. These corporations are able to help people because of the wealth they own. If there was equal distribution of wealth in America, it might have seemed to be a fairer way to reward everyone for their hard work but it would not create circumstances for the existence of huge corporations. The economic growth of America can be attributed to industrialization and the majority of the industrialists make 1% of the American population that hold 50% of the nation’s wealth.
I believe that it is actually a problem that 1% of Americans own 50% of America’s wealth. The belief of some people that this concentration of wealth is good for a nation’s economy is a flawed argument. The elite 1% population of the nation that holds the primary chunk of America may actually not choose to help rest of the people because they hold the power. Many huge corporations are known for hoarding wealth and give their top management hefty bonuses while choosing not to pay dividends. Paying out dividends is the main way the company shares their wealth with their shareholders. Another interesting point is that the not the entire 1% population that holds 50% of the wealth in America made of industrialists. There are financial firms who are a major of this 1% and they are only concerned about the financial portfolio of their clients who are already rich. They have nothing to do with helping people through corporate responsibility programs or any other such program. According to the argument in the second paragraph the industrialists, manufacturers and the large scale provider of services are the ones who own the majority of wealth and use it to help people but this is not always the case. The percentage of such people is actually very low and the majority of the chunk wants to hoard the wealth for themselves. The people who hold the assets might not want to invest it in the propositions that would create more jobs and distribute wealth. They might invest in ventures that use more machineries and increase overall profit. These are the people who do not work towards the overall welfare of the people but serve their own selfish motives.
In conclusion, I would like to reemphasize the point that it is a problem if 1% of the American population holds 50% of the nation’s wealth. It promotes financialization and hoarding of wealth without investing it in causes that would redistribute the wealth in the society. It promotes capitalism and materialism because it seems like the people who have a better life are the hoarders of wealth.
References
(n.d.). Retrieved from www.ashfordwritingcenter.com
Shaw, H., & Stone, C. (2011, May 25). Tax data show richest 1 percent took a hit in 2008, but income remained highly concentrated at the top. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3309
The 99 percent. (2011, October 26). Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america
Norton, M., & Ariely, D. (2011). Building a better America—one wealth quintile at a time. Retrieved from http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton ariely in press.pdf
