The 1% have the best of everything that money can buy, but they’re still missing something really important. Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz lays it all out in this May 2011 article in Vanity Fair.
Read it here: Stiglitz, "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”
- Stiglitz asserts that the U.S. economy will likely do poorly in the long run given the present trends and conditions, and he presents three reasons to support this assertion. What are they? Which of the reasons do you find most persuasive? Why?
- The fact that income inequality in the U.S. is expanding is not new information, nor is it disputed. And Stiglitz doesn’t propose any concrete solutions to the problems he details. What, then, is his principal argument? Whom is he trying to persuade? Explain your conclusions.
- Read (or re-read) Robert Frank’s essay in Chapter 18 of your text. Both authors are economists, both argue that the growing economic inequality is undesirable, and both present similar evidence. Which of the two essays do you find more persuasive? Why? Explain your reasoning and point to examples in each essay to support your thinking.
- Think about Stiglitz’s challenge to imagine a world where governments have to compete to attract workers, and envision it on a community scale. What would that look like in your town or neighborhood? What would employers and local governments need to offer? Consider the benefits and services that Stiglitz suggests, and think of other factors that would be important to your family and your neighbors. Write an essay describing such a thriving community; make your description as practical and realistic as possible.
They Say I Blog 
This article truly targets the idea that there is monetary inequality in America. Of course there is some difference between the wealthy and poor. Yet the distribution of money cannot be solely blamed on the rich. We must be the change we would like to see in the world and in America. According to a 2008 data from the Census Bureau, 80% of adults from families earning at least $100k a year voted, while only 52% of adults who had families who earned $20k or less voted for the 2008 Presidential candidates (Censky). People who are married homeowners with college degrees are also far more likely to vote than single renters with a high school diploma. People believe their vote will not be heard and will not count. This may seem like the case but if we are able to, we should all vote, regardless of our economic status. If only the rich vote, only the rich will be heard. We must all educate ourselves and be more politically active. We are not entitled to anything but an opportunity. We must strive for success, it will not be handed to us.
All in all, I do not believe the rich are running the entire country. Yes they have a great deal of influence but this is a democracy, there are checks and balances and we should all be thankful since we are blessed to live in America. I say this because just yesterday, a woman from Pakistan was strangled to death by her brother for posting “westernized” and “provocative” pictures of herself on Instagram. This was considered an “honor killing” since Qanteel (victim) had embarrassed the family with her “provocative” mannerisms. We do live in the land of the free and of many opportunities, yet articles like these instill a sense of indignation.
Censky, Annalyn. “Why the Rich Vote More.” CNNMoney. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 17 July 2016. .
LikeLike
Sitglitz’s discusses in his essay, “Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%,” the injustice brought through the separation of wealth. The injustice is that one percent of the population controls one-fourth of the nations wealth. America boasts its opportunities for new entrepreneurs to start businesses here, the middle and lower classes are suffering.
One argument that is Sitglitz addressed about the 1% controlling the government in a monetary sense does not go along with the American Dream. If an entrepreneur is paying government officials to lower their taxing amounts, It is unfair to the society that you are profiting off of to not be giving back to the society in the same percentage of income that they have to pay.
Although I agree with most of what Sitglitz argues, one has to look at the subjective reasoning behind it. More than half of students do not make it to a college degree, where the premiums from a college degree are considerably higher. Money does not chose who makes it, so to say that any individual is incapable to become a 1%er is false.
LikeLike
Once again, the way the economic system is set up only lends itself to these huge discrepancies between social classes, especially the one-percent from the rest of us. I actually have many thoughts going on in my head after reading this article. I’ll try my best to give an educated and concrete opinion. In America there has long been a “correct” way to go about life, at least stereotypically it is, go to school, get a degree, work in an office from 9 to 5, or become a doctor, lawyer, or some other type of socially desirable job. However nowadays this idea of having to go to school and acquiring a good job is fuzzing, because we now have the internet, which lends itself to many new opportunities to make a living. Meaning that now we have more choices as to what we want to do with our lives, and if we work hard enough and we are good enough at it we can be very successful. I am not directly affected by the huge economic gap between the one-percent, and the rest (at least not that I know of), so it would be hypocritical of me to take a hard stance against any particular idea. However I definitely can see how it does affect all of us as a society, even if I can also see how any particular person (and thus all) can get themselves out of a socioeconomically unstable position through hard work and much dedication. All in all, if the system is not changed, nothing is going to change, the reality of it all is that the more money we have the better off we are going to be, at least that’s the way it is in America, those that are wealthy even receive better treatment from people in general and that’s in no way related to money, but rather an individuals character.
LikeLike
In his article “Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%”, Joseph Stiglitz argues that America is now a country for the wealthiest one percent who gain power in almost every aspect, including the government and the economy. The inequality gap between this 1% group and the general population continue to grow and will cause some economic issues in the future. Stiglitz asserts that “one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way”. Thus, they reduce the opportunity for the poor to become rich since the poor are forced to choose jobs that are less productive. Stiglitz argues that this 1% group sways everything into their own benefits, which have helped them become rich once, now become even wealthier, due to the lowered taxes in their favor.
The American Dream definition is now officially unaffordable according to Stiglitz. That dream is turning into an American Nightmare, where people in the 99% general population can’t improve their life. I totally agree with Stiglitz when he argues that the politics and government are working to accommodate the 1%. For example, although he didn’t involve much in politics before, by money, Trumps finally found his way to the top, which fuels him to become the most likely Republican candidate to be the next U.S. President. This fact, and what Stiglitz points out in the article is actually frightening since although they’re just 1% of the total population, this group has the most influence and power in the society that one can even imagine. Yet, there is nothing that the general population can do since money speaks it all.
LikeLike
As though living in the United States weren’t already hard enough as it is – with school shootings threatening our children; bombings at least a few times a year; racial inequalities and injustices on almost a daily basis – we have also had to suffer with financial inequalities that affect about three-quarters of the American population. Stiglitz briefs us on these financial inequalities in his article, emphasizing that America’s economy will not fare well in the long run, because most of America’s citizens are “…doing worse year after year”. He gives three reasons for this: shrinking opportunity, the undermining of the efficiency of the economy, and an underinvestment in infrastructure, education and technology.
While all three reasons are valid, I find his latter two reasons to be the most compelling. The introduction of machines and automated tasks hasn’t necessarily reduced the amount of jobs for people, but changed the types of jobs available. There were many manual labor jobs replaced by machines; however, this just introduced a new type of job for these laborers to fill. Outsourcing is a key reason for loss of opportunity, though – I won’t deny that. Though there are some people who defend outsourcing by reasoning that it helps keep the costs for goods lower, enabling us to spend more on other things.
The undermining of the efficiency of our economy is a bigger problem, in my eyes. That’s where the source of the inequality stems from. The 1% use their money to influence or sway decisions. This is morally wrong. People with more money shouldn’t granted healthier, safer and over all better lives just because they can afford it. Those are rights, not privileges, that all American’s should be provided with.
Finally, the fact that there is so much money going to these one-percenters, instead of into our roads, our public schools and technologies, is disappointing. People always say that children are our future, yet the government doesn’t seem to show their belief in this mantra, based on how much money is cut from schools on a regular basis. Instead of limiting the amount of money they tax the 1%, they should take what they are supposed to and put that money towards increasing school funding to ensure our children have the best possible means to become successful contributors to our society when they become adults.
LikeLike
The top one percent of America is becoming more and more wealthy while the middle class is increasingly struggling just to stay afloat. This is a huge problem with making the “American Dream” a reality for all Americans. In the article by Stiglitz, it states that “Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America.” The problem comes from the middle class. The middle class is who is agreeing to pay to see football players paid millions of dollars to play a game. It’s the middle class who choose to go out and get a degree in something that is not useful instead of a highly demanded skill. It’s the middle class that pays to go see movies and continue to pay people to entertain us instead of entertaining ourselves.
How to reduce this “inequality” that is going on, the middle class needs to step up and change the problem. Protesting outside city hall does nothing. What changes this dynamic is changing the tax code and forcing these top one percenters to pay the taxes they should really owe. General Electric an multi-billion dollar company did not pay any federal taxes one year where the middle class is the most taxed.
Living outside our means comes from the baby boomer generation which is still running the country. They ruined the economy. They caused the housing market to go up, cars to cost as much as a small house, the need to have a degree to get any kind of job and the shame to work blue collar. The middle class needs to change this problem. It’s not going to change with the government until we put in people who speak for the middle class and are not billionaires themselves.
LikeLike
Joseph E. Stiglitz’s article “Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%” states that America is ran by the top 1%, just as his title represents with all its irony, however, true. I am not knowledgeable with politics but I do feel like we hardly see a working-class citizen in the Congress, if we do, it seems rare. Most of them seem to be wealthy, or wealthier than most of the people I know. But what is the American Dream? To open a business, be an entrepreneur, and make become wealthy? I do not think I ever believed in that type of American Dream. Part of my American Dream is to not have your home seized by the government or rebels for the poor excuse that it benefits them more than yourself.
LikeLike
At the end of the article, Stiglitz mentioned the name Alexis de Tocqueville and I remember reading several pieces of literature by him during my junior year in high school. A quote that I remember from the piece titled Democracy in America was “men will never gain as much as they desire and will die before reaching it.” This quote can make a few connections with this article being that the “men” Tocqueville is referring to are the men in the top 1%, their “desire” is their American Dream, and the fact that they will “die before reaching it” connects with the idea that because they are of the top 1%, their dreams are so large compared to the middle and lower class that they may not reach their definition of the American Dream. In addition to this idea, I also think that the idea of America being the “land of opportunity,” is slowing dwindling away. I say this because the opportunities available now are not equal for all classes which all has to do with the unequal distribution of wealth. Since money is not distributed as equally, not as many jobs or opportunities are available for those that need jobs to provide for their families and in turn have to suffer the consequences of there not being more opportunities. However, the American Dream is not out of our reach because the American Dream varies from person to person, so that means that someone’s dream may not be as extravagant as the next however, it is all up to achieving that dream. In my perspective, the American Dream is more of a goal that people from other countries strive to reach which could possibly be living in America, having a job, not having to live paycheck to paycheck. This goal is set and it is up to the person to put in the work to reach their goal or take the lazy route and take a slow path to get near their personal goal. This American “goal” is not out of reach, it just takes a lot of hard work to reach it.
LikeLike
Joseph E. Stiglitz brings up the point that the wealthiest people (The 1%) control much of this country. I have to agree with him, much of the laws and regulations work in the 1%’s favor. However, Stiglitz says the gap between the 1% and the rest of us is so grand that we have no hope in catching up, I think this is not true, while it is much harder to get rich, you have to save and invest to move anywhere in this country. If you don’t save enough money there’s no hope you can ever move up. Now I do believe that the 1% shouldn’t be in control of anything in this country but, that’s another problem in itself, to stop that we need money out of politics which, will probably never happen.
LikeLike
In short, I do not like this article. He complains about the top 1% and how they have too much wealth. In my opinion, while some people are born into wealth, some of those people in the 1% work very hard to get where they are. Who are we as people to judge them for their hard work. Everyone always has those remarks towards wealthy people. “I hate rich people”, “Rich people should share their money with us”. Why should we hate them? Why should they share their money? I believe most people whom are not in the top 1% are simply jealous of the individuals who do have that title. They are so jealous that they would rather have wealthy people lose their money, even though it would not go to them, in order to make themselves feel better.
LikeLike
In the article “Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%”, Joseph Stiglitz argues that the growth of income equality is a result of the top wealthiest 1% of the country being able to expand their power to gain control of the government, as well as the economy. He explains how tax policies and the process of electing government officials allow the top 1% to play a crucial role in their collecting jurisdiction for their own benefit. By enabling this to happen, the government’s distribution of wealth becomes disproportionate, which means that the American Dream can only be achieved by a select few.
Stiglitz goes on to say that “growing inequality is the flipside of something else: shrinking opportunity”. Because the top 1% is heavily supported by the government, they basically can control the system to get what they want. This causes the majority to find it more difficult to attain opportunities to support themselves, which increases the gap of separation between rich and poor. Stiglitz also mentions how the top 1% has been able to manipulate the financial system. One example is lowering tax rates on capital gains so the rich can receive their money. Many powerful financial institutions have “turned a blind eye” to distorting their systems to benefit the rich, as Stiglitz says “wealth begets power, which begets more wealth”. This means that money is power, which brings about more money. This causes money to control our lives, with the top 1% always being in favor.
This presents a problem because while everyone wants to get rich, it seems that they need to get involved into some shady business. I have noticed that a lot of famous people who become rich, and who come from middle class to lower class families, don’t return to their communities to build and enrich them. They don’t want to associate with those communities because they worry about losing their power and wealth. They become willing to step on anyone who tries to bring them down, even if it is to their benefit or well-being. For the 2016 election, Republican nominee Donald Trump has been notorious for not releasing his tax returns. This goes back to Stiglitz’s claim that the wealthy are able to manipulate tax policies. Trump even argues that manipulating the system is “smart”. Smart it may be, but corrupt. I would rather have a president who does the right thing regardless if it benefits them or not. The American Dream should not favor the top 1%, it should be equal for everyone.
LikeLike
Joseph Siglitz’ “Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%,” argues that the lack of government regulation on big businesses is doing more harm than good for America’s middle and lower class. He cites that, while the earnings of the top 1% have increased by around 20% in the last 25 years, the earnings of the middle class (specifically, a male blue collar with a high school diploma) have dropped by 13% in the same time. Siglitz argues that big business ties too closely in with government, and that the economic climate of the U.S. is controlled by the 1% politicians and their 1% businessmen partners, working together to keep all of the wealth in their hands and to continue to funnel the wealth in that direction. As long as government influence is controlled by Benjamin Franklins instead of just politicians intent on improving the U.S. economy, more and more wealth will stay and be pushed further into the 1%.
It’s not news to anyone that our economic prosperity now is nothing like it was in the mid 1900’s, and the change in the distribution of wealth throughout the population is no coincidence. It’s unjust practices that many big businesses employ, such as “promoting” hourly workers to a salary pay so they don’t need to be payed overtime, that is sucking more and more wealth from the middle and lower class and sending it back up to the 1%, who already have more than they could ever possibly spend, and perpetuating the wage and class gap. If the 1% are allowed to continue shady practices like this, and the government makes no intervention to stop them, more and more wealth will belong exclusively to the 1%, much of America will be living in poverty, and we will no longer be able to call ourselves a superpower, first world country, driving the world’s economy, if we ourselves are unable to sustain a livable economy.
LikeLike
In Stiglitz’s article he is trying to convince people that the 1% is hurting America and the economy by basically taking more than they need and making it harder for the 99% to obtain financial growth and stability. He highlights three main points to emphasize this point. The first is that with this growing inequality there is less opportunity, the second is the things that the 1% do to stay ahead ,like giving themselves tax breaks and nearly monopolizing certain industries, is making the economy less and less efficient. And the third is, as the 1% takes more money they make it is harder for the government to take “collective action” as far as the infrastructure of the country goes and it is hurting everyone. I think the point that he made about growing inequality meaning less opportunity is a very strong point to make. It seems that as these big businesses expand and make more money they are ,at the same time, taking more from the people by paying cheaper rates, hiring and employing overseas, and using more mechanized labor as opposed to human. In the 1%’s attempt to save money where ever possible they are taking it from the other 99%. This also subtly ties into another point he made about CEOs of companies. CEOs are making a lot more than the average worker as of late it and would seem that they are making a huge amount of money for little to no contribution to the company. He went on to back this point by saying that some companies change the name of bonus checks these CEOs get from “performance bonuses” to “retention bonuses” because they haven’t performed up to par. This just further goes to show the inequality the economy is demonstrating by showing how someone who my know a lot more and also contribute a lot more, to not make nearly as much as the CEO who sometimes doesn’t contribute at all. Some could argue with this article and say that trickle down economics work, that by giving the 1% these higher pay rates and tax breaks that in turn the wealth will come to the other 99% as a result but this has yet be seen on a substantial level. I agree that the gap between the rich and the poor or not as rich is very wide and that is a problem. Stiglitz then goes on to make the point that oppressing the 99% will end bad for the 1% and I agree, you can only push someone so far until they decide they have had enough and stand up for themselves, and in this case it would be 1% versus 99% and that would not end well for the 1%.
LikeLike
Birds fly, fish swim, dogs eat their shit, and those with money scam. I am not surprised by this, though it is certainly not a pleasant fact when one considers the influence that this money can buy. Stiglitz makes many good points in his article, “Of the 1%, For the 1%, By the 1%”, but I would like to specifically focus on his mention of how Globalization has hurt our working people. Of all the things that work against the people, Globalism will remain near the top. One could make arguments against the rising convenience of machines in the industry, that despite aiding or creating new jobs, these machines will replace ten times more, and make the American people dependent on the owners of these machines to fulfill these tasks, thereby taking away power from the working class, but at least these machines serve us in some amount. However, the average American will see no benefit from Globalism in their increasingly depressing lives. What could benefit the rich more than a global market where they may take advantage of cheaper workers with less rights? Why pay the average American Joe minimum wage when you could hire 100 more impoverished people with no laws to protect themselves in some foreign country? One could argue that without these “opportunities”, these people may starve, but I, however heartless it may sound, would say that we have no responsibility for these people, and that this is the fault of their own leaders.
Instead, one must look at our own government, with their hands stained from shaking the unclean hands of the true leaders around the world, all looking to support their own interests instead of their people. Money buys influence, and influence opens borders and loosens restrictions. The rich use those in power to further their goals, even if it comes at the cost of the American people. If there were limitations in place to restrict the use of foreign workers or taxes to prevent cheap importation, the rich would be forced to spend their money within our own economy, but because these laws are struck down by their pawns, the rich can afford to use these outside methods in great amounts to maximize profits and better compete with other businesses. Debt climbs and climbs, and prices bloat and bloat due to inflation, but only the average American will ever truly be affected by this. To stop this cycle of exploitation, one must confine the rich to our own country. People will always pick the cheaper option, and we need to make American resources and workers the cheaper option by increasing restrictions on outside options. To do so, we need people in power that care more about the people than lining their pockets or guaranteeing a comfortable position somewhere when their term ends. No matter how high up, as it stands now, it’s cheaper to buy a politician than it is to run an honest business.
LikeLike
In “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Stiglitz puts into very clear focus what is happening with American distribution of wealth. The figures are striking. When he says that “the top 1 percent control 40 percent [of the wealth and that 25 years ago the] corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent”, my mouth dropped open.
Stiglitz also touches on a problem that any of use that drive have begun to notice: our crumbling infrastructure. Our roads, bridges and public works are being neglected all over the nation. He argues that the “rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves.” And he’s right. The imbalance of wealth in this country is showing. It’s visible in the poorly maintained highways and sidewalks all over the country.
LikeLike
In this article, Inequality in Latin America, Brazil, has been striving in recent years rather than successfully to reduce gaps in income. America has allowed inequality to grow. Stiglitz reasons to support assertion were the American Dream struggling until this day, many distrortions that lead to inequality such as those associated with monopoly undermine the efficiency of the economy, and the third reason is collective action. I find the first reason more persuasive because, I feel that, not many people would think to learn and know how important the American Dream was. Not everyone got treated equally, and they needed to change that.
LikeLike
In regards of this article, which was written by Joseph Stiglitz, the writer discusses about the overwhelming issue of the growing inequality of wealth that occurs in the United States. Stiglitz continues to press on the idea that the wealthiest of this nation, such as the top one percent are able to place their influence on politicians and law makers because the immense money that they generate creates power. Furthermore, the policies that are created end up benefiting the wealthy much more and not those who struggle financially or have underlying economic disadvantages. I think that the points and ideas that Stiglitz makes are accurate, when considering the major economic issues that the United States faces today. When people continue to question why this country loses jobs, its because companies like to outsource our labor. Outsourcing labor allows companies to create products with less cost. This is just one of the many things that contribute to many of the economic problems of the US. With the increasing destruction of regulatory laws for companies and the wealthy, it has allowed the economic scenario for the US to suffer. Big businesses with few regulation can also allow them to take advantage of their workers. They can end up paying them an almost unlivable wage and continue to pursue to create substantial hours with low pay. Meanwhile, the wealth of the working class continues to shrink and the affordability of education, healthcare, and more continue to increase, the wealth of the top continues to expand rapidly. The unequal distribution of wealth further disenfranchises those that live in minority communities as history has shown that those communities were never treated equally. Another thing I would like to expand on that is mentioned within the article, includes how the wealthy elites and corporations are able to influence politicians and legislators to create damaging economic policies. Such can be behind the idea of global warming. As scientific facts have shown that global warming is a real thing, the oil and gas industries are able to push and influence legislation through the immense wealth that they have accumulated. Also, even with a global pandemic and struggling healthcare system, wealthy healthcare executives continue to charge excessive prices for prescription drugs and procedures. All of this has resulted from the crumbling regulatory laws and evasions that the wealthy have helped influenced in order to contribute to their overall growth of wealth. The idea behind that there is equal opportunity of economic growth for all is an understatement. The past decades show that the alarming wealth gap continues to result in issues for the working class or those individuals who are the backbone of this country.
LikeLike