Singapore
S.SHARON
feedback.docxWealth distribution has to be as equitable as possible to embrace regional balance in the country. Equal distribution of wealth starts with ensuring equal opportunities politically, socially and economically to all people in the society regardless of their socioeconomic status, gender, or disabilities among other discriminative factors. In this regard, the even distribution of wealth also ensures equal growth and development of a country because of the uniform improvement of the citizens’ living standards across the nation. Irrespective of all these advantages, there are still many gaps in the distribution of opportunities; hence, affluence in America and across the world at large.
There are various ways of determining the wealth of people. Nonetheless, in the US, the main method focuses on the wages or salaries and the total possessions of the people (Domhoff, 2005). In this respect, many factors affect salaries and wages, as well as personal properties of the people, which in turn, affect the distribution of wealth of the citizens in the nation. Meanwhile, salaries and wages (incomes) are among the major factors that influence wealth distribution of people across the world.
Peoples' income influences wealth distribution because it dictates the property's acquisition potential of individuals. Citizens with high incomes can purchase expensive things and as much as they want; hence, they are rich, as opposed to the low earning people. In most societies, the rich reside in high standard states and towns with slams and other low standard residences left for the poor (Domhoff, 2005). It is in this regard that the high standard residences are growing and developing with improved services and goods at the expense of the rest of the region. If we have to develop the other regions as well, we will have to better the incomes of their residents through better economic opportunities. The wealth of people within a country can change depending on the changes occurring in the levels of their income regardless of where they are living (Domhoff, 2005).
Government policies also dictate wealth and its distribution. Good examples are the money-related policies. The US government, for example, controls the supply of cash to guarantee its currency value strength (Krugman, 2014). Effective policies encourage a country’s financial development and security and lower the joblessness not in some parts of the country but all of them. Furthermore, when a nation is able to keep the value of its currency high and strong, it presents an equal platform for all of its citizens—men and women, old and young and other groups— to earn well and raise their living standard so that they are all capable of accumulating wealth.
Age is another factor that affects wealth distribution in the US. There is a huge gap in terms of wealth between the young adults and the elderly. Stats show that the vast of the riches in the US belongs to the retired citizens with the number soaring significantly from the 1980 era. As such, today, individuals beyond 65 years hold the most—around 66% —of aggregate family unit riches in the US (Krugman, 2014). The fact that the majority of these people are retired implies that their wealth resulted from their good wages or salaries. Looking at the situation of the young adults today, on the other hand, more than 50% are jobless and therefore, it is apparent they are poor. Based on this, the present society should offer the youths opportunities today to earn and acquire riches. Otherwise, in the future, our economy is going to collapse because of the unequal distribution of wealth between the young and the old, for instance, for reasons that: Comment by Joseph Conlin: You are ignoring investments in capital. Comment by Joseph Conlin: Comment by Joseph Conlin: You need a source for this as I wrote in your first draft. Comment by Joseph Conlin: Do not use going to for future tense. …economy will collapse because. .. Comment by Joseph Conlin: You are not dealing with the information available. The old in the top 20% have far more money than the young who have not had time to accumulate their wealth.
1) Because the richest people now are the poor but because they are old retired, they will rely on their riches—their reserves, which will eventually reduce and get finished by the time they die and, Comment by Joseph Conlin: delete Comment by Joseph Conlin: AS I wrote previously. You have nothing to support this claim. This is true for the middle class. Not for the top 1%. They have billions of dollars.
2) Since the youths are jobless now, they will not be able to accumulate any wealth, which would even serve them during their old ages as the current elderlies. Comment by Joseph Conlin: This does not make sense as written.
Economic markets, as well, influence wealth distribution. Our society comprises of majorly farmers and business people. Farmers have life's essential products like food but lack money. Business people, on the other hand, have money but lack food and other commodities. In whichever way, there is an uneven distribution of resources; hence, wealth, as an equal distribution means that all of these people have the life's essential products and cash. Economic markets steps in at this point. Economic markets are places or situations that bring farmers and traders together to exchange their surpluses for what they do not have. In this respect, they help to strike a balance in the distribution of resources, and so wealth (Domhoff, 2005). Comment by Joseph Conlin: Comment by Joseph Conlin: Farmers are a very small minority of the business people and owrkers.
From this analysis, it is apparent that we are miles away from the equal distribution of wealth. The socioeconomic class division is one of the prime characteristics of our society today where slams and other low-status residences are associated with the poor and the high-class places with all sorts of improved and better-quality services with the rich (Domhoff, 2005). All these emanate from the uneven distribution of wealth. If all people were rich, there is a high probability that slams, and other low-status residences would not be in existence. The rationale is that everyone around the country would be in demand for high-quality goods and services. As such, with this kind of better living standards, no one would be struggling and the whole country would grow and develop. Comment by Joseph Conlin: As I wrote previously, if everyone is rich, then no one is rich. Rich is a comparative term. Comment by Joseph Conlin: Comment by Joseph Conlin: slums
Nonetheless, it is totally the opposite with the rich living in presumably a land full of "honey and milk" while the poor are struggling in the "deserts." Among the many factors that emanate from this uneven distribution of wealth are crimes. What do you do when you are jobless and do not have a single sense, yet you have to pay bills and eat, and on the other side, there are people enjoying life with surplus food and cash? Some con, others steal and even robe. The gap also fuels corruption according to Krugman (2014). Money is very powerful. Because of it, many civil servants have bent the low in favor of the rich. In this regard, I argue suppose that the only best way of curbing the current socioeconomic problems is by striking the right balance between the rich and the poor, and that means ensuring an even distribution in wealth.
References
Domhoff, W. (2005). Wealth, Income, and Power. Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power. Retrieved from www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html.
Krugman, P. (2014). Why Were in a New Gilded Age: Capital in the 21st Century. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved from www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/05/08/thomas-piketty-new-gilded-age/.
You are still using too much defining and first/second person. You are making statements that require support and you do not provide it. Grade C. Final grade for the assignment: C
