Introduction Income inequality in the United States has come to metaphorically be seen as a ladder of income success in which the rungs in the top become further spread, implying that the top ten percent on the ladder own a much bigger share of the national income. The question therefore is proposed, does income inequality impair the American dream of upward mobility? As part of Intelligence Squared US we hear from Elise Gould and Nick Hanaver arguing for the proposition and Edward Conard and Scott Winship in the opposition. On the proposition we hear from Elise Gould and Nick Hanaver who argue that income inequality is a major factor in regards to the poor being able to achieve upward mobility. Gould as well as Hanaver aim to enforce the belief that because of income inequality we leave the poor unable to move up the ladder, because of lack of resources. On the opposition, Conard and Winship propose that income inequality is a key feature in a capitalist society, and actually aims to help the poor not harm them.
…show more content…
Furthermore, they argue that income does not play a role in upward mobility in the poor rather it serves as an incentive for the bright minds to reach.
Discussion
The propositions main argument was that income inequality impairs the American dream, because low income families don’t have the resources the wealthy have in order to climb the financial ladder. Therefore, we have the argument by the proposition that we have an impediment for the poor, in which not being able to afford a quality education or the necessary glasses needed in order to be molded in a path to success. Gould calls it a self- reinforcing cycle for the wealthy, something the poor are not able to afford. The opposition enforces the idea that having income inequality actually helps the middle class and although the wealthy hold a large portion of the national income, there’s a larger portion that still remains for the poor and the middle class. According to Conard inequality accelerates growth in high wage economies, therefore our economy aims to maintain a balance in which we can maintain high employment rates and adequate salary. Furthermore, having an economy with high income inequality benefits the poor because there is more money being transferred to them. Conard also implies how the poor are afforded more opportunities in private colleges, and actually force the wealthy to work harder for positions at prestigious schools. Hanaver however argues that although income inequality is not completely harmful to our economy it become bad when the gap becomes too wide as it is today. In a different perspective we’re introduced a pie, which represents the national income, and for the past thirty years a bigger piece of the pie has come to belong to the top ten percent in our economy, leaving the poor and the middle class a smaller portion to share. The proposition aims to convince the audience that the top ten percent could use less of the national income and our economy would become more prosperous since the poor and middle class would have higher salaries, and therefore a higher probability for upward mobility financially. According to Conard, there is no evidence that upward mobility is correlated with income inequality, because they although the poor have forty to fifty percent chance of changing their social status from that
Furthermore, they argue that income does not play a role in upward mobility in the poor rather it serves as an incentive for the bright minds to reach.
Discussion
The propositions main argument was that income inequality impairs the American dream, because low income families don’t have the resources the wealthy have in order to climb the financial ladder. Therefore, we have the argument by the proposition that we have an impediment for the poor, in which not being able to afford a quality education or the necessary glasses needed in order to be molded in a path to success. Gould calls it a self- reinforcing cycle for the wealthy, something the poor are not able to afford. The opposition enforces the idea that having income inequality actually helps the middle class and although the wealthy hold a large portion of the national income, there’s a larger portion that still remains for the poor and the middle class. According to Conard inequality accelerates growth in high wage economies, therefore our economy aims to maintain a balance in which we can maintain high employment rates and adequate salary. Furthermore, having an economy with high income inequality benefits the poor because there is more money being transferred to them. Conard also implies how the poor are afforded more opportunities in private colleges, and actually force the wealthy to work harder for positions at prestigious schools. Hanaver however argues that although income inequality is not completely harmful to our economy it become bad when the gap becomes too wide as it is today. In a different perspective we’re introduced a pie, which represents the national income, and for the past thirty years a bigger piece of the pie has come to belong to the top ten percent in our economy, leaving the poor and the middle class a smaller portion to share. The proposition aims to convince the audience that the top ten percent could use less of the national income and our economy would become more prosperous since the poor and middle class would have higher salaries, and therefore a higher probability for upward mobility financially. According to Conard, there is no evidence that upward mobility is correlated with income inequality, because they although the poor have forty to fifty percent chance of changing their social status from that