income inequality essay free

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Income Inequality in America, Essay Example

Pages: 5

Words: 1442

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Income Inequality in America. Is it a problem and how can it be fixed?

The fact that income inequality is a problem in the United States is undeniable. Claims of the widened income gap between rich Americans and poor Americans, in addition to the diminishing middle class, is a cause for concern (Yates 1). The income inequality is one of the worse political and economic problems the United States faces (Piketty and Saez 1-3). It causes significant problems to social and political stability. It is also an indicator of national decline. Indeed, it is based on this premise that, this essay examines whether income inequality in America is a problem, as well as how it can be fixed.

Income inequality leads to political change. As Saez and Zucman (1-6) explain, loss of income by the middle class compared to the top-earners leads to political change. During the 2000s, many businesses emerged seeking political offices, as they catered for nearly 30 times more employees than the trade unions. Between the year 2000 and 2010, business interest groups spent $492 million on labor, and nearly $28.6 billion on sponsoring activism. This led to the rise of political setting the business groups dominated (Smith 3-5).

Income inequality has adverse effects on democracy. Some scholars have considered that income inequality is not compatible with real democracy (Milanovic 1). This is since creating a disparity between wealthy and poor is historically the main cause of most revolution. Indeed, it is commented that the political system in the United States faces serious threats of drifting towards a kind of oligarchy by influencing the affluent, corporations, and special interest groups. Even though, income inequality may not have impact on economic growth, the action by the government may reduce the current levels. This raises tax rates on the wealthy. It may also cause political dispute or friction – between the poor and the rich.

Income inequality contributes to national poverty. Greater income inequality is likely to encourage greater rates of poverty, as under such situations, income shifts from those in the lower income bracket to those in the upper-income bracket. Saez and Zucman (1-6) argue that when wealth remains in upper income bracket, it may lead to political revolutions and policy reforms to offset the impacts that induce poverty. This has been the trend over the decade (Economist 1). The gap in earnings has also increased over the past five years. Current statistics from the U.S. Census shows that in 2010, the wealthiest 20 percent of entire households was allocated 50.2 percent of the sum household-income, compared to the poorest 20 percent, which received 3.3 percent. In the 1980s, the income shares of the richest households received 44.1 percent. The poorest got 4.2 percent. This shows rising inequality and poverty. Further statistics indicates that individuals in the least-affluent households lost nearly 21.4 percent of their income share. On the other hand, the most-affluent households witnessed an income rise of nearly 13.8 percent. Conversely, the remaining two poorest quintiles lost income (Economist 1).

Income inequality leads to political polarization. As Political Research Quarterly establishes, income inequality is connected to the current political polarization in the United States. In its 2013 study, Political Research Quarterly established that officials who were elected tended respond to the whims of the officials within the upper-income bracket, as a result ignoring the needs of people within the lower income group. The analysis provided by Martin and Harris (1) show that, income inequality is connected to the extent to which the House of Representatives polarization has always voted.

Income inequality also leads to social stratification. Martin and Harris (1) show that class divisions have mainly resulted due to income inequality. This has led to class warfare where the rich rally around the rich and the poor rally around the poor to gain political emancipation. Hence, the rich tend to create an own virtual country, which in their perception should be a self-contained world that is complete with first-rate social services, separate economy, and infrastructure. Indeed, the gap between poor and the rich is widening more in the United States than most advanced country. A growing consensus, for that reason, is that Americans have placed emphasis on pursuing economic growth instead of income redistribution. This argument is supported by current economists, such as Corak (2013) in his analysis of theorist Alan Krueger’s “Great Gatsby Curve.” In his review, Corak (2013) indicates that nations with greater income inequalities also tend to have a greater proportion of economic advantages and disadvantages. The trend is passed on from parents to their offspring.

On the other hand, some political theorists have argued that income inequality is not a problem, and that the problems have been overstated.

Indeed, Saez and Zucman (1-6) perceive that despite the existence of income inequality, economic growth and equality in terms of getting opportunities should be what matters. Some commentators have also expressed that despite being an American problem, it is also a global problem. As a result, it should not trigger significant policy reforms. Others have also expressed that income inequality has some underlying advantages, leading to a well-functioning and competition-driven economy. Additionally, significant policy reforms to cut out income inequality may lead to policies that lessen the welfare of the more affluent individuals.

A section of researchers also argues that there is no basis in the argument that income inequality slows economic and socio-political growth. Responding to claims that income inequality slows economic and socio-political growth, Petryni (1) argues that inequality is healthy within a free market economy, as it promotes greater competition for economic and political opportunities.

At the same time, wealth inequalities tend to compensate for themselves where an extensive increase in wealth occurs. This also implies that since the income inequalities do not pose significant political or economic problems, forced wealth transfers through taxation may obliterate the income pools needed to create new ventures, leading to further political discord between the poor and the wealthy in the society. Indeed, some recent studies have established a link between high marginal tax rates on high-income earners and greater growth in employment (Petryni 1).

Some political and social theorists also perceived income inequality as valuable and natural characteristic of US economy. The American Enterprise Institute sees the growth of income inequality gap as linked to the growth of opportunities—including the motivation and desire to seek political and social emancipation.

Smith (1) further contends that inequality emanates from the growth of economic prosperity and leads to an improved standard of living of the entire US population. Such incomes, Milanovic (1) argues, are a way of rewarding certain actors in the economy for their maximal investment efforts in the future. Towards this end, therefore, suppressing inequality discourages output and pursuit of political emancipation.

Conclusion and recommendations

Largely, income inequality is a problem in the United States. Income inequality contributes to national poverty. It also has adverse effects on democracy. Further, it leads to political change. Income inequality also leads to political polarization and stratification.

Hence, there is a need for more advanced tax and transfer policies that can align the United States with the other developed nations. This requires tax reforms, such as enacting tax incidence adjustments, subsidizing healthcare and increasing the social security, heavy investment in infrastructure, fortifying labor influence and providing higher education at low costs.

Making education available to more Americans through policies that subsidize cost of education will mean that more Americans have an opportunity for better income. This is since individuals with high education qualification report lower unemployment rate. However, equal job opportunities are also crucial. Public expenditure on welfare should be increased to ensure social and economic security, where the government provides subsidized healthcare. The more affluent members of the society should also be taxed higher than, the poor Americans.

Works Cited

Corak, Miles. “Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27.3(2013): 79–102

Economist, The. “The rich, the poor and the growing gap between them,” 2006. 11 April 2015, <http://www.economist.com/node/7055911>

Kenworthy, Lane. “Does More Equality Mean Less Economic Growth?” 2007, <http://lanekenworthy.net/2007/12/03/does-more-equality-mean-less-economic-growth/>

Martin, Jonathan and Harris, John. “President Obama, Republicans fight the class war.” Politico, 2012. <http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/barack-obama-class-warrior-90052.html>

Milanovic, Branko. “More or Less.” International Monetary Fund, 2011.

Petryni, Matt. “Advantages & Disadvantages to Income Inequality.” n.d. 11 April 2015, <http://www.ehow.com/info_11415987_advantages-disadvantages-income-inequality.html>

Piketty, Thomas and Saez, Emmanuel. “Income Inequality In The United States, 1913–1998.” The Quarterly Journal Of Economics 28.1 (2003): 1-39

Saez, Emmanuel and Zucman, Gabriel. “Wealth and Inequality in the United States Since 1913: Evidence from Capitalised Income Tax Data.” National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge: 2013

Smith, Hedrick. “Who Stole the American Dream.” Random House: New York, 2012. < http://newshare.com/ruleschange/book-notes.pdf>

Todd, Michael. “The Benefits of Wealth Inequality (and Why We Should Not Fear It).” Pacific Standard , 2013. <http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/benefits-wealth-inequality-now-fear-67567>

Yates, Michael. “The Great Inequality.” Monthly Review 63.10 (2012)

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

American Airlines Demographic Information, Research Paper Example

Comparing and Contrasting Poems, Poem Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Page One Economics ®

Income and wealth inequality.

"For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America's prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class." 

—President Barack Obama 1

Introduction

There are many different types of inequality among people: educational attainment, work experience, and health—to name a few. This essay discusses economic inequality: its causes, measurement, and the potential impact of its growth in the U.S. economy.

Economists directly link differences in educational attainment and work experience, also known as human capital, to differences in economic outcomes. That is, formal education and job skills determine how likely a person is to find and hold a stable job that pays good wages. The flow of money from wages is the most important source of income for most people. Over time, regular income from employment allows people to own assets such as a home or a retirement financial portfolio. That stock of assets is called wealth .

Data collected by federal organizations such as the Census Bureau and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (BOG) allow us to measure how unequal the distributions of income and wealth are in the United States. Those data show that, since the 1970s, some individuals and families are earning much more income and accumulating much larger amounts of wealth than the typical family does. 

Data reported by the World Bank allow us to compare the distribution of income across countries. As of 2018, the available data show large international differences in income inequality. Although not all countries in the world have data on income inequality, among those that do, the United States ranks among the top 25% most unequal.

What Causes Inequality?

The root cause of differences in income and wealth across individuals and households is a combination of personal and social factors. Personal factors are unique to individuals and include talent, effort, and luck. Such factors can be either nurtured or hindered by the family upbringing of the individual. Social factors affect groups of people and include education policies, labor market laws, tax codes, and financial regulations. At any moment in time, social factors can overpower personal factors to determine individual prosperity and increase inequality among people. 2

For example, as gradually more married women started working outside the home between 1960 and 2000, their family incomes increased and the differences in income between households became larger depending on whether they had one or two people earning wages. At the same time, differences in the types of jobs women and men tend to hold also contribute to income inequality between genders. 3

Because wealth is accumulated over time, older people are generally wealthier than younger people. For that reason, if there are many more young people than old people in the general population and the old hold more wealth than the young, overall wealth inequality will be high. 4

Finally, some people argue that the type of monetary policy used to ensure steady access to credit by households and businesses during recent economic contractions may contribute to higher levels of income inequality. However, that claim is hotly disputed. 5

How Is Income Inequality Measured?

There are different ways to measure how unequal income is in a country. The U.S. Census measures income inequality as the ratio of the mean, or average, income for the highest quintile (top 20 percent) of earners divided by the mean income of the lowest quintile (bottom 20 percent) of earners in a particular area. Let's say a small county has 500 people earning an income. To measure how unequal those incomes are, the Census surveys and sorts each person's income from highest to lowest, calculates the average income of the 100 people earning the most and the average income of the 100 people earning the least, and divides the first figure by the second figure. 

Figure 1 Income Inequality by County 

SOURCE: U.S. Census via FRED ® , Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?m=QRCJ , accessed June 23, 2021.

Figure 1 shows average county-level income inequality measured between 2016 and 2020. The Census considers the average income over a five-year period to account for the fact that peoples' income changes from year to year. Measured this way, income inequality can be as high as 130 or as low as 5. These measurements mean that the most affluent households in a particular county can earn as much as 130 times or as little as 5 times as much as the least affluent households do.

Another way to measure income inequality in a population is to calculate the Gini index . The World Bank uses that index to measure how much the distribution of income among households deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. The Gini index can take any value between 0 and 100. A value of 0 represents perfect equality: All households earn the same income. A value of 100 indicates perfect inequality: One household earns all the income, and all other households earn nothing.

Figure 2 Gini Index by Nation

SOURCE: World Bank via FRED ® , Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?m=QRFh , accessed April 6, 2021.

Figure 2 shows country-level income inequality measured with a Gini index in 2018. The highest value is 54, and the lowest value is 25. It is important to note that two countries can have very similar Gini indexes despite having very different distributions of income. For example, in 2018, the Gini index for the United States was 41.4 and for Bulgaria was 41.3, despite the fact that those two countries' economic and social histories are very different.

In the United States, since the 1970s, the Gini index has increased at a steady rate, indicating greater income inequality across families. 6 Some research suggests that this growing difference is related to the increased value of the stock market. Wealthier households hold more stocks than poorer households. So, when stock market prices rise, the income of wealthier households grows relatively more and overall income inequality increases. 7  

How Is Wealth Inequality Measured?

The BOG combines information from two different surveys to measure how wealth is distributed among households: It takes the value of a household's assets (e.g., the current market price of a home) and liabilities (e.g., the unpaid part of a mortgage for a home) and calculates the difference between the two, which is called net worth . Next, the BOG sorts household wealth from highest to lowest and reports the net worth of four different groups: the wealthiest 1% of the population, the next 9%, the next 40%, and the bottom 50%.

Figure 3 Share of Total Net Worth Held by Population Groups

SOURCE: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System via FRED ® , Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=O2Kq , accessed April 6, 2021.

Figure 3 shows the share of total net worth held by each of those four groups. In 2021, the wealthiest 1% of the population (about 3.3 million households) held about one-third of total net worth; the next 9% (almost 30 million households) held a little more than one-third; the next 40% (about 133 million households) and the bottom 50% (about 166 million households) together held the rest—less than one-third of total net worth.

The data from the BOG show increasing wealth concentration since 1989, when the data first became available. 8 It is important to note that, over time, some individual households can move up or down between wealth groups, depending on the changing value of their assets. Also, some research suggests the particular nature of some economic fluctuations impacts some households' net worth more than others. For example, the real estate crash associated with the 2007-09 recession resulted in large losses for the poorest 50% of the population. 9

Does Inequality Matter?

The economic impact of growing income and wealth inequality in the United States is an intensely studied question. Economists are debating how to answer that question by analyzing data and creating mathematical models to study it. Because this is ongoing work, there is no single answer.

Some research shows that, in richer countries, more unequal income makes economic fluctuations more pronounced. 10 That finding means that the changes in overall income and employment known as business cycles become more dramatic. Moreover, statistical evidence suggests increased income inequality undermines economic growth due to lower educational achievements (and human capital) among poorer individuals and households. 11 As discussed earlier, education builds a person's human capital and is rewarded with higher income from employment. Finally, research suggests the increasing income and wealth inequality can undermine the use of monetary policy (as we know it) to maximize employment and ensure price stability. 12  

Inequality in individual economic outcomes arises from a combination of personal traits and social conditions. The distributions of income and wealth in a society can be measured in multiple ways: comparing the highest to the lowest earners, calculating an index describing how unequal income is among all individuals, and assessing people's financial wellbeing according to the value of their wealth holdings. Regardless of how we measure income and wealth inequality, their distributions in the United States are becoming more unequal. This trend is likely to impact economic life as we know it. More research is needed to figure out precisely how that may happen.

1 Obama, Barack. "Inaugural Address." January 21, 2013; https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/21/inaugural-address-president-barack-obama .

2 For an example of how the use of city maps to assess lending risk after the Great Depression influenced homeownership rates across population groups for decades afterward, see the following article: Mendez-Carbajo, Diego. "Neighborhood Redlining, Racial Segregation, and Homeownership." Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Page One Economics , September 2021; https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2021/09/01/neighborhood-redlining-racial-segregation-and-homeownership .

3 For more on gender and labor markets, see the following article: Mendez-Carbajo, Diego. "Gender and Labor Markets." Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Page One Economics , January 2022; https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2022/01/03/gender-and-labor-markets .

4 For more on aging and wealth inequality, see the following article: Vandenbroucke, Guillaume and Zhu, Heting. "Aging and Wealth Inequality." Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Synopses , 2017, No. 2; https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2017/02/24/aging-and-wealth-inequality/ .

5 For a contribution to the ongoing debate about the relationship between monetary policy and income inequality, see the following article: Bullard, James. "Income Inequality and Monetary Policy: A Framework with Answers to Three Questions." Presented at the C. Peter McColough Series on International Economics, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, June 26, 2014; http://research.stlouisfed.org/econ/bullard/pdf/Bullard_CFR_26June2014_Final.pdf .

6 The following FRED® graph shows the income Gini ratio of all families, reported by the U.S. Census Bureau since 1947: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=MKYg .

7 For more on income inequality and the stock market, see the following articles: 

Bennett, Julie and Chien, YiLi. "The Large Gap in Stock Market Participation Between Black and White Households." Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Synopses , 2022, No. 7; https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2022/03/28/the-large-gap-in-stock-market-participation-between-black-and-white-households/ . 

Owyang, Michael T. and Shell, Hannah G. "Taking Stock: Income Inequality and the Stock Market." Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Synopses , 2016, No. 7; https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2016/04/29/taking-stock-income-inequality-and-the-stock-market/ .

8 For more about the change in wealth distribution over time, see the following post: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. "Comparing the Assets of the Rich, Poor, and Middle Class." FRED ® Blog , October 21, 2019; https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2019/10/comparing-the-assets-of-the-rich-poor-and-middle-class/ .

9 For more on how recessions impact household net worth, see the following article: Mendez-Carbajo, Diego. "How Recessions Have Affected Household Net Worth, 1990-2017: Uneven Experiences by Wealth Quantile." Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Synopses , 2020, No. 38; https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2020/08/07/how-recessions-have-affected-household-net-worth-1990-2017-uneven-experiences-by-wealth-quantile .

10 For more on the relationship between inequality and economic fluctuations, see the following article: Iyigun, Murat F. and Owen, Ann L. "Income Inequality and Macroeconomic Fluctuations." Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System International Finance Discussion Papers , July 1997; https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/ifdp/income-inequality-and-macroeconomic-fluctuations.htm .

11 For more on the relationship between income inequality and economic growth, see the following article: Cingano, Federico. "Trends in Income Inequality and its Impact on Economic Growth." Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD Social, Employment, and Migration Working Papers , 2014, No. 163; https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/trends-in-income-inequality-and-its-impact-on-economic-growth-sem-wp163.pdf .

12 For more on the relationship between income inequality and monetary policy, see the following article: Cairo, Isabel and Sim, Jae W. "Income Inequality, Financial Crises, and Monetary Policy." Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Finance and Economics Discussion Series , July 2018; https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/income-inequality-financial-crises-and-monetary-policy.htm .

© 2022, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or the Federal Reserve System.

Asset: A resource with economic value that an individual, corporation, or country owns with the expectation that it will provide future benefits.

Gini index: A statistical measure of income inequality in a population that ranges from 0 (indicating absolute income equality) to 100 (indicating a perfectly inequal income distribution).

Household: A group of people living in the same home, regardless of their relationship to one another.

Income: The payment people receive for providing resources in the marketplace. When people work, they provide human resources (labor) and in exchange they receive income in the form of wages or salaries. People also earn income in the forms of rent, profit, and interest.

Liability: A legal responsibility to pay back money from a loan or other type of debt.

Net worth: The value of a person's assets minus the value of his or her liabilities.

Quintile: Any of five equal groups into which a population can be divided according to the distribution of values of a particular variable.

Wealth: The value of a person's assets accumulated over time.

Cite this article

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Stay current with brief essays, scholarly articles, data news, and other information about the economy from the Research Division of the St. Louis Fed.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE RESEARCH DIVISION NEWSLETTER

Research division.

• Legal and Privacy

One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63102

Information for Visitors

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Taxes

Free Essay On Income Inequality in the United States

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Taxes , Income , Inequality , Social Issues , United States , Politics , Business , Economics

Words: 1100

Published: 07/09/2021

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Social and political movements, such as Occupy Wall Street, have drawn increased attention to income inequality in the United States. The assertions these movements build platforms on include the notion the income of the top socioeconomic groups continues to grow at a faster rate than the income of the middle and lower socioeconomic groups. If a small group already possesses a disproportionate amount of the nation’s financial resources, it is understandable why lower socioeconomic groups would react emotionally to the idea that said group is continuing to gain more. Compounding the problem is the evidence that states that the income of the lower socioeconomic groups is on the decline.

While the data supports the assertion that income inequality in America is on the rise, the real question is why income inequality is a pressing issue. Does the presence of income inequality lead to further problems, such as social unrest, stalled macroeconomic growth, and the need for government intervention? Is there a way to ensure that income inequality is minimized or even eliminated? Researchers seem to agree on the fact that growing income inequality can lead to both social unrest and stalled macroeconomic growth. What researchers tend to disagree on is whether income inequality can be reduced and eliminated through government intervention.

Given the fact that the United States’ economy primarily operates under the principles of capitalism, it is highly doubtful that a capitalistic market structure is optimal for the minimization of income inequality. Government intervention can accomplish some degree of income redistribution as long as both political parties compromise – a feat that has been more than difficult with increasing political polarization. In order to fully address and solve the problem of income inequality, the United States government and the country’s citizens need to reevaluate the effectiveness of capitalism.

A study on the prevalence of income inequality in the United States found that the average real income of the top one percent of tax filers increased from $534,264 in 1991 to $857,477 in 2010. The proportion of total income in the United States that the top one percent of earners held rose from 7.7 percent in 1973 to 18.3 percent in 2007. The share of household income for the top one percent from 42.6 percent to 50.2 percent between 1968 to 2001. In contrast, the share of household income for the bottom percent decreased from 4.2 percent to 3.2 percent during the same period (Jongsung and Tebaldi 1). These figures clearly illustrate the fact that the rich are becoming richer at the expense of the poor. Income inequality in the United States is simply not a theory; it is a clear fact. Those in the lower socioeconomic classes not only feel as though they are being exploited, but that the promise of the American Dream is a fraud.

Income data collected in each state in American revealed that income inequality was greater for nominal income versus real income. Nominal income represents income in current prices, while real income adjusts for price differentials between states (Ram 131). In other words, real income takes into account cost of living adjustments. For instance, it is well-known that housing costs substantially more in California and New York than in Nebraska or Wyoming. An annual income of $40,000 in Florida can be equivalent to an annual income of $100,000 in New York due to price differentials.

The data also reveals that nominal income inequality is less in 2010 than it was in 1989 between states, even though total income inequality in the country has been increasing since 1977 (Ram 132). What the data seems to be saying is that income inequality amongst the states is slowing or decreasing, while overall income inequality is on the rise. Soon the exact amount that an individual makes in the state of Nebraska will equal the amount that an individual makes in the state of California. The income one makes will not necessarily be adjusted for the cost of living differential between the two states, thereby increasing the real income inequity. Since it costs more to live in California, only those within the top socioeconomic tiers will be able to afford to live in the state.

Some economic experts propose a global wealth tax to help reduce income inequality, while others call for new economic policies under the current capitalistic structure. Increases in the amounts charged for rent on land and other assets has largely been responsible for the rise in income inequality, along with tax laws, education, monetary regulations, and increasing market dominance, according to economic experts (Diamond 390).

What these experts are failing to acknowledge is that the increase in income inequality is largely driven by greed. Those at the top are not satisfied with the percentage of income they have and therefore feel justified in charging more for the use of the resources they own. Unfortunately, the increase in prices and stagnation of wages has resulted in the economic exploitation of the middle and lower classes. Past government regulation has supported the efforts of the top earners and has compounded the problem.

The middle and lower classes have been unable to gain enough political influence to be able to stand up against the political lobbying groups arguing in favor of the private business sector. Rewriting the tax laws for the top socioeconomic classes and the business sector is only a start. The business sector needs to be educated on the long-term effects economic exploitation and inequality has. Without adequate discretionary income flowing through the middle and lower socioeconomic classes, the top classes and the business sector will not be able to be sustainable. While they can choose to horde more resources at the top, a balance between socialism and capitalism is needed to fix the United States’ income inequality issue.

Works Cited

Diamond, John. "Forum: Income And Wealth Inequality." National Tax Journal 68.2 (2015): 389-391. Business Source Alumni Edition. Web. 20 July 2015. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bah&AN=103130621&site=ehost-live> Jongsung, Kim, and Edinaldo Tebaldi. "Trends And Sources Of Income Inequality In The United States." Journal Of Business & Economic Studies 19.2 (2013): 1-13. Business Source Alumni Edition. Web. 20 July 2015. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bah&AN=99389508&site=ehost-live> Ram, Rati. "Real And Nominal Interstate Income Inequality In The United States: Further Evidence." International Advances In Economic Research 21.1 (2015): 131-132. Business Source Alumni Edition. Web. 20 July 2015. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bah&AN=101149030&site=ehost-live >

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1011

This paper is created by writer with

ID 286704535

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Armed forces essays, conc essays, flagella essays, historicity essays, kinesics essays, nourishing essays, feedwater essays, phenyl essays, formability essays, therapeutic cloning essays, medical issues essays, zero tolerance policy essays, alan greenspan essays, bernanke essays, disinflation essays, asbestosis essays, example of essay on together we stand letter outline, environmental studies research paper 2, sustainability and interior design research paper, example of international equity markets course work, gasland documentary response movie review example, example of organized criminal business in the united states drugs research paper, prison furlough programs critical thinking example, mental health identification and mental health insurance research paper examples, have the growth and investments or lack thereof in this area been needed article review sample, research paper on critical success factors, aboriginal artists essay, the european union in the israeli palestinian conflict research proposal examples, forensic psychology and the law criminal profiling essay examples, example of doing business oversees etiquette in selected european countries report, john hopkins university essay admission essay examples, yom kippur essay example, memorandum creative writing example, good example of dual processing sleep and dreams essay, christian gospel essay, free zora neale hurston dust tracks on a road critical thinking sample, the divided spain from civil war to second world war essay, new ways research papers, lawrence research papers, diversity training research papers, frances research papers, traumatic experiences research papers.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality – An Overview

Rising income inequality is one of the greatest challenges facing advanced economies today. Income inequality is multifaceted and is not the inevitable outcome of irresistible structural forces such as globalisation or technological development. Instead, this review shows that inequality has largely been driven by a multitude of political choices. The embrace of neoliberalism since the 1980s has provided the key catalyst for political and policy changes in the realms of union regulation, executive pay, the welfare state and tax progressivity, which have been the key drivers of inequality. These preventable causes have led to demonstrable harmful outcomes that are not explicable solely by material deprivation. This review also shows that inequality has been linked on the economic front with reduced growth, investment and innovation, and on the social front with reduced health and social mobility, and greater violent crime.

1 Introduction

Income inequality has recently come to be viewed as one of the greatest challenges facing the world today. In recent years, the topic has dominated the agenda of the World Economic Forum (WEF), where the world’s top political and business leaders attend. Their global risks report, drawn from over 700 experts in attendance, pronounced inequality to be the greatest threat to the world economy in 2017 ( Elliott 2017 ). Likewise, the past decade has seen leading global figures such as former American President Barack Obama, Pope Francis, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and the former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Christine Lagarde, all undertake speeches on the gravity of income inequality and the need to address its rise. This is because, as this research note shows, income inequality engenders harmful consequences that are not explicable solely by material deprivation.

The general dynamics of income inequality include a tendency to rise slowly and fluctuate over time. For instance, Japan had one of the highest rates in the world prior to the Second World War and the United States (US) one of the lowest, which has since completely reversed for both. The United Kingdom (UK) was also the second most equitable large European country in the 1970s but is now the most inequitable ( Dorling 2018 : 27–28).

High rates of inequality are rarely sustained for long periods because they tend to lead to or become punctuated by man-made disasters that lead to a levelling out. Scheidel (2017) posits that there in fact exists a violent ‘Four Horseman of Leveling’ (mass mobilisation warfare, transformation revolutions, state collapse, and lethal pandemics) for inequality, which have at times dramatically reduced inequalities because they can lead to the alteration of existing power structures or wipe out the wealth of elites and redistribute their resources. For instance, the pronounced shocks of the two world wars led to the ‘Great Compression’ of income throughout the West in the post-war years. There is already some evidence that the current global pandemic caused by the novel Coronavirus, has led to greater aversion to income inequality ( Asaria, Costa-Font, and Cowell 2021 ; Wiwad et al. 2021 ).

Thus, greater aversion to inequality has been able to reduce inequality in the past, this is because, as this review also shows, income inequality does not result exclusively from efficient market forces but arises out of a set of rules that is shaped by those with political power. Inequality’s rise is not inevitable, nor beyond the control of governments and policymakers, as they can affect distributional outcomes and inequality through public policy.

It is the purpose of this review to outline the causes and consequences of income inequality. The paper begins with an analysis of the key structural and institutional determinants of inequality, followed by an examination into the harmful outcomes of inequality. It then concludes with a discussion of what policymakers can do to arrest the rise of inequality.

2 Causes of Income Inequality

Broadly speaking, explanations for the increase in income inequality have largely been classified as either structural or institutional. Historically, economists emphasised structural causes of increasing income inequality, with globalisation and technological change at the forefront. However, in recent years opinion has shifted to emphasise more institutional political factors to do with the adoption of neoliberal reforms such as privatisation, deregulation and tax and welfare reductions since the early 1980s. They were first embraced and most heavily championed by the UK and US, spreading globally later, and which provide the crucial catalysts of rising income inequality ( Atkinson 2015 ; Brown 2017 ; Piketty 2020 ; Stiglitz 2013 ). I discuss each of these key factors in turn.

2.1 Globalisation

One of the earliest, and most prominent explanations for the rise of income inequality emphasised the role of globalisation ( Borjas, Freeman, and Katz 1992 ; Revenga 1992 ). Globalisation has led to the offshoring of many goods and services that used to be produced or completed domestically in the West, which has created downward pressures on the wages of lower skilled workers. According to the ‘market forces hypothesis,’ increasing inequality is a response to the rising demand for skills at the top, in which the spread of globalisation and technological progress have been facilitated through reduced barriers to trade and movement.

Proponents of globalisation as the leading cause of inequality have argued that globalisation has constrained domestic state choices and left governments collectively powerless to address inequality. Detractors admit that globalisation has indeed had deep structural effects on Western economies but its impact on the degree of agency available to domestic governments has been mediated by individual policy choices ( Thomas 2016 : 346). A key problem with attributing the cause of inequality to globalisation, is that the extent of the inequality increase has varied considerably across countries, even though they have all been exposed to the same effects of globalisation. The US also has the highest inequality amongst rich countries, but it is less reliant on international trade than most other developed countries ( Brown 2017 : 56). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis by Heimberger (2020) found that globalisation has a “small-to-moderate” inequality-increasing effect, with financial globalisation displaying the largest impact.

2.2 Technology

A related explanation for inequality draws attention to the impact of technology specifically. The advent of the digital age has placed a higher premium on the skills needed for non-routine work and reduced the value placed on lower skilled routine work, as it has enabled machines to replace jobs that could be routinised. This skill-biased technological change (SBTC) has led to major changes in the organisation of work, as many full-time permanent jobs with benefits have given way to part-time flexible work without benefits, that are often centred around the completion of short ‘gigs’ such as a car journey or food delivery. For instance, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimated in 2015 that since the 1990s, roughly 60% of all job creation has been in the form of non-standard work due to technological changes and that those employed in such jobs are more likely to be poor ( Brown 2017 : 60).

Relatedly, a prevailing doctrine in economics is ‘marginal productivity theory,’ which holds that people with greater productivity levels will earn higher incomes. This is due to the belief that a person’s productivity is equated to their societal contribution ( Stiglitz 2013 : 37). Since technology is a leading determinant in the productivity of different skills and SBTC has led to increased productivity, it has also become a justification for inequality. However, it is very difficult to separate any one person’s contribution to society from that of others, as even the most successful businessperson owes their success to the rule of law, good infrastructure, and a state educated workforce ( Stiglitz 2013 : 97–98).

Further criticisms of the SBTC explanation, are that there was still substantial SBTC when inequality first fell dramatically and then stabilised in the period from 1930 to 1980, and it has failed to explain the perpetuation of both the gender and racial wage gap, “or the dramatic rise in education-related wage gaps for younger versus older workers” ( Brown 2017 : 67). Although it is difficult to decouple globalisation and technology, as they each have compounding tendencies, it is most likely that globalisation and technology are important explanatory factors for inequality, but predominantly facilitate and underlie the following more determinant institutional factors that happen to be already present, such as reduced tax progressivity, rising executive pay, and union decline. It is to these factors that I now turn.

2.3 Tax Policy

Taxes overwhelmingly comprise the primary source of revenue that governments can use for redistribution, which is fundamental to alleviating income inequality. Redistribution is defended on economic grounds because the marginal utility of money declines as income rises, meaning that the benefit derived from extra income is much higher for the poor than the rich. However, since the late 1970s, a major rethinking surrounding redistributive policy occurred. This precipitated ‘trickle-down economics’ theory achieving prominence amongst American and British policymakers, whereby the benefits from tax cuts on the wealthy would trickle-down to everyone. Subsequently, expert opinion has determined that tax cuts do not actually spur economic growth ( CBPP 2017 ).

Personal income tax progressivity has declined sharply in the West, as the average top income tax rate for OECD members fell from 62% in 1981 to 35% in 2015 ( IMF 2017 : 11). However, the decline has been most pronounced in the UK and the US, which had top rates of around 90% in the 1960s and 1970s. Corporate tax rates have also plummeted by roughly one half across the OECD since 1980 ( Shaxson 2015 : 4). Recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) research found that between 1985 and 1995, redistribution through the tax system had offset 60% of the increase in market inequality but has since failed to respond to the continuing increase in inequality ( IMF 2017 ). Moreover, in a sample of 18 OECD countries encompassing 50 years, Hope and Limberg (2020) found that tax reforms even significantly increased pre-tax income inequality, while having no significant effect on economic growth.

This decline in tax progressivity has been a leading cause of rising income inequality, which has been compounded by the growing problem of tax avoidance. A complex global web of shell corporations has been constructed by international brokers in offshore tax havens that is able to keep wealth hidden from tax collectors. The total hidden amount in tax havens is estimated to be $7.6 trillion US dollars and rising, or roughly 8% of total global household wealth ( Zucman 2015 : 36). Recent research has revealed that tax havens are overwhelmingly used by the immensely rich ( Alstadsæter, Johannesen, and Zucman 2019 ), thus taxing this wealth would substantially reduce income inequality and increase revenue available for redistribution. The massive reduction in income tax progressivity in the Anglo world, after it had been amongst its leaders in the post-war years, also “probably explains much of the increase in the very highest earned incomes” since 1980 ( Piketty 2014 : 495–496).

2.4 Executive Pay

The enormous rising pay of executives since the 1980s, has also fuelled income inequality and more specifically the gap between executives and their employees. For example, the gap between Chief Executive Officers (CEO) and their workers at the 500 leading US companies in 2016, was 335 times, which is nearly 10 times larger than in 1980. It is a similar story in the UK, with a pay ratio of 131 for large British firms, which has also risen markedly since 1980 ( Dorling 2017 ).

Piketty (2014 : 335) posits that the dramatic reduction in top income tax has had an amplifying effect on top executives pay since it provides them with much greater incentive to seek larger remuneration, as far less is then taken in tax. It is difficult to objectively measure an individual’s contribution to a company and with the onset of trickle-down economics and accompanying business-friendly climate since the 1980s, top executives have found it relatively easy to convince boards of their monetary worth ( Gabaix and Landier 2008 ).

The rise in executive pay in both the UK and US, is far larger than the rest of the OECD. This may partially be explained by the English-speaking ‘superstar’ theory, whereby the global market demand for top CEOs is much higher for native English speakers due to English being the prime language of the global economy ( Deaton 2013 : 210). Saez and Veall (2005) provide support for the theory in a study of the top 1% of earners from the Canadian province of Quebec, which showed that English speakers were able to increase their income share over twice as much as their French-speaking counterparts from 1980 to 2000. This upsurge of income at the top of the labour market has been accompanied by stagnation or diminishing returns for the middle and lower parts of the labour market, which has been affected by the dramatic decline of union influence throughout the West.

2.5 Union Decline

Trade unions have typically been viewed as an important force for moderating income inequality. They “contribute to wage compression by restricting wage decline among low-wage earners” and restrain wage surges among high-wage earners ( Checchi and Visser 2009 : 249). The mere presence of unions can also drive up the wages of non-union employees in similar industries, as employers tend to give in to wage demands to keep unions out. Union density has also been proven to be strongly associated with higher redistribution both directly and indirectly, through its influence on left party governments ( Haddow 2013 : 403).

There had broadly existed a ‘social contract’ between labour and business, whereby collective bargaining establishes a wage structure in many industries. However, this contract was abandoned by corporate America in the mid-1970s when large-scale corporate donations influenced policymakers to oppose pro-union reform of labour law, leading to political defeats for unions ( Hacker and Pierson 2010 : 58–59). The crackdown of strikes culminating in the momentous Air Traffic Controllers’ strike (1981) in the US and coal miner’s strike (1984–85) in the UK, caused labour to become de-politicised, which was self-reinforcing, because as their political power dispersed, policymakers had fewer incentives to protect or strengthen union regulations ( Rosenfeld and Western 2011 ). Consequently, US union density has plummeted from around a third of the workforce in 1960, down to 11.9% last decade, with the steepest decline occurring in the 1980s ( Stiglitz 2013 : 81).

Although the decline in union density is not as steep cross-nationally, the pattern is still similar. Baccaro and Howell (2011 : 529) found that on average the unionisation rate decreased by 0.39% a year since 1974 for the 15 OECD members they surveyed. Increasingly, the decline in the fortunes of labour is being linked with the increase in inequality and the sharpest increases in income inequality have occurred in the two countries with the largest falls in union density – the UK and US. Recent studies have found that the weakening of organised unions accounts for between a third and a fifth of the total rise in income inequality in the US ( Rosenfeld and Western 2011 ), and nearly one half of the increase in both the Gini rate and the top 10%’s income share amongst OECD members ( Jaumotte and Buitron 2015 ).

To illustrate the changing relationship between inequality and unionisation, Figure 1 displays a local polynomial smoother scatter plot of union density by income inequality, for 23 OECD countries, 1980–2018. They are negatively correlated, as countries with higher union density have much lower levels of income inequality. Figure 2 further plots the time trends of both. Income inequality (as measured via the Gini coefficient) has climbed over 0.02 percentage points on average in these countries since 1980, which is roughly a one-tenth rise. Whereas union density has fallen on average from 44 to 35 percentage points, which is over one-fifth.

Gini coefficient by union density, OECD 1980–2018. Data on Gini coefficients from SWIID ( Solt 2020 ); data on union density from ICTWSS Database ( Visser 2019 ).

Gini coefficient by union density, 1980–2018. Data on Gini coefficients from SWIID ( Solt 2020 ); data on union density from ICTWSS Database ( Visser 2019 ).

In sum, income inequality is multifaceted and is not the inevitable outcome of irresistible structural forces such as globalisation or technological development. Instead, it has largely been driven by a multitude of political choices. Tridico (2018) finds that the increases in inequality from 1990 to 2013 in 26 OECD countries, was largely owing to increased financialisation, deepening labour flexibility, the weakening of trade unions and welfare state retrenchment. While Huber, Huo, and Stephens (2019) recently reveals that top income shares are unrelated to economic growth and knowledge-intensive production but is closely related to political and policy changes surrounding union density, government partisanship, top income tax rates, and educational investment. Lastly, Hager’s (2020) recent meta-analysis concludes that the “empirical record consistently shows that government policy plays a pivotal role” in shaping income inequality.

These preventable causes that have given rise to inequality have created socio-economic challenges, due to the demonstrably negative outcomes that inequality engenders. What follows is a detailed analysis of the significant mechanisms that income inequality induces, which lead to harmful outcomes.

3 Consequences of Income Inequality

Escalating income inequality has been linked with numerous negative outcomes. On the economic front, negative results transpire beyond the obvious poverty and material deprivation that is often associated with low incomes. Income inequality has also been shown to reduce growth, innovation, and investment. On the social front, Wilkinson and Pickett’s ground-breaking The Spirit Level ( 2009 ), found that societies that are more unequal have worse social outcomes on average than more egalitarian societies. They summarised an extensive body of research from the previous 30 years to create an Index of Health and Social Problems, which revealed a host of different health and social problems (measuring life expectancy, infant mortality, obesity, trust, imprisonment, homicide, drug abuse, mental health, social mobility, childhood education, and teenage pregnancy) as being positively correlated with the level of income inequality across rich nations and across states within the US. Figure 3 displays the cross-national findings via a sample of 21 OECD countries.

Index of health and social problems by Gini coefficient. Data on health and social problems index from The Equality Trust (2018) ; data on Gini coefficients from OECD (2020) .

3.1 Economic

Income inequality is predominantly an economic subject. Therefore, it is understandable that it can engender pervasive economic outcomes. Foremost economically speaking, it has been linked with reduced growth, investment and innovation. Leading international organisations such as the IMF, World Bank and OECD, pushed for neoliberal reforms beginning in the 1980s, although they have recently started to substantially temper their views due to their own research into inequality. A 2016 study by IMF economists, noted that neoliberal policies have delivered benefits through the expansion of global trade and transfers of technology, but the resulting increases in inequality “itself undercut growth, the very thing that the neo-liberal agenda is intent on boosting” ( Ostry, Loungani, and Furceri 2016 : 41). Cingano’s (2014) OECD cross-national study, found that once a country’s income inequality reaches a certain level it reduces growth. The growth rate in these countries would have been one-fifth higher had income inequality not increased, while the greater equality of the other countries included in the study helped to increase their growth rates.

Consumer spending is good for economic growth but rising income inequality shifts more money to the top of the income distribution, where higher income individuals have a much smaller propensity to consume than lower-income individuals. The wealthy save roughly 15–25% of their income, whereas low income individuals spend their entire income on consumer goods and services ( Stiglitz 2013 : 106). Therefore, greater inequality reduces demand in an economy and is a major contributor to the ‘secular stagnation’ (persistent insufficient demand relative to aggregate private savings) that the largest Western economies have been experiencing since the financial crisis. Inequality also increases the level of debt, as lower-income individuals borrow more to maintain their standard of living, especially in a climate of low interest rates. Combined with deregulation, greater debt increases instability and “was a major contributor to, if not the underlying cause of, the 2008 financial crash” ( Brown 2017 : 35–36).

Another key economic effect of income inequality is that it leads to reduced welfare spending and public investment. Since a greater share of the income distribution is earned by the very wealthy, governments have less income available to fund education, public amenities, and other services that the poor rely heavily on. This creates social separation, whereby the wealthy opt out in publicly funding services because their private equivalents are of better quality. This causes a cycle of increasing income inequality that is likely to eventually lead to a situation of “private affluence and public squalor” ( Marmot 2015 : 39).

Lastly, it has been proven that economic instability is a by-product of increasing inequality, which harms innovation. Both countries and American states with the highest inequality have been found to be the least innovative in terms of the amount of Intellectual Property (IP) patents they produce ( Dorling 2018 : 129–130). Although income inequality is predominantly an economic subject, its effects are so pervasive that it has also been linked to a host of negative health and societal outcomes.

Wilkinson and Pickett found key associations between income inequality for both physical and mental health. For example, they discovered that on average the life expectancy gap is more than four years between the least and most equitable richest nations (Japan and the US). Since their revelations, overall life expectancy has been reported to be declining in the US ( Case and Deaton 2020 ). It has held or declined every year since 2014, which has led to a cumulative drop of 1.13 years ( Andrasfay and Goldman 2021 ). Marmot (2015) has provided evidence that there exists a social gradient whereby differences in affluence translate into increasing health inequalities, which can be shown even down to the neighbourhood level, as more affluent areas have higher life expectancy on average than deprived areas, and a clear gradient appears where life expectancy increases in line with affluence.

Moreover, Marmot’s famous Whitehall studies, which are large-scale longitudinal studies of Whitehall employees of UK central government, found an inverse-relationship between salary grade and ill-health, whereby low-grade workers were four times as likely as high-grade workers to suffer from ill-health ( 2015 : 11). Health steadily improves with rank and the correlation is little affected by lifestyle controls such as tobacco and alcohol usage. However, the leading factor that seems to make the most difference in ill-health is job stress and a person’s sense of control over their work, including the variety of work and the use and development of skills ( Schrecker and Bambra 2015 : 54–55).

‘Psychosocial stresses,’ like those appearing in the Whitehall studies, have been found to be more common and frequent amongst low-income individuals, beyond just the workplace ( Jensen and van Kersbergen 2017 : 24). Wilkinson and Pickett (2019) posit that greater income inequality engenders low self-esteem, chronic stress and depression, stemming from status anxiety. This occurs because more importance is placed on where people fit in a hierarchy with greater inequality. For evidence, they outline a clear relationship of a much higher percentage of the population suffering from mental illness in more unequal countries. Meticulous research has shown that huge inequalities in income result in the poor having feelings of shame across a range of environments. Furthermore, Dickerson and Kemeny’s (2004) meta-analysis of 208 studies found that stress-hormone (cortisol) levels were raised particularly “when people felt that others were making negative judgements about them” ( Rowlingson 2011 : 24).

These effects on both mental and physical health can be best illustrated via the ‘absolute income’ and ‘relative income’ hypotheses ( Daly, Boyce, and Wood 2015 ). The relative income hypothesis posits that when an individual’s income is held constant, the relative income of others can affect a person’s health depending on how they view themselves in comparison to those above them ( Wilkinson 1996 ). This pattern also holds when income inequality increases at the societal level, because if such changes lead to increases in chronic stress, it can increase ill-health nationally. Whereas the absolute income hypothesis predicts that health gains from an extra unit of income diminish as an individual’s income rises ( Kawachi, Adler, and Dow 2010 ). A mean preserving transfer from a richer to poorer individual raises the health of the poorer individual more than it lowers the health of the richer person. This occurs because there is an optimum threshold of income required to maintain good health. Thus, when holding total income constant, a more equal distribution of income should improve overall population health. This pattern also applies at the country-wide level, as the “effect of income on health appears substantial as countries move from about $15,000 to 25,000 US dollars per capita,” but appears non-existent beyond that point ( Leigh, Jencks, and Smeeding 2009 : 386–387).

Income inequality also impacts happiness and wellbeing, as the happiest nations are routinely the ones with low inequality, such as Denmark and Norway. Happiness has been proven to be affected by the law of diminishing returns in economics. It states that higher income incrementally improves happiness but only up to a certain point, as any individual income earned beyond roughly $70,000 US dollars, does not bring about greater happiness ( Deaton 2013 : 53). The negative physical and mental health outcomes that income inequality provoke, also impact key societal areas such as crime, social mobility and education.

Rates of violent crime are lower in more equal countries ( Hsieh and Pugh 1993 ; Whitworth 2012 ). This is largely because more equal countries have less poverty, which leads to less people being desperate about their situation, as lower-income individuals have been shown to commit more crime. Relatedly, according to strain theory, more unequal societies place higher social value in achieving economic success, while providing lower means to achieve it ( Merton 1938 ). This generates strain, which may lead more individuals to pursue crime as a means of attaining financial success. At the opposite end of the income spectrum, the wealthy in more equal countries are also less likely to exploit others and commit fraud or exhibit other anti-social behaviour, partly because they feel less of a need to cut corners to get ahead, or to make money ( Dorling 2017 : 152–153). Homicides also tend to rise with inequality. Daly (2016) reveals that inequality predicts homicide rates better than any other variable and accounts for around half of the variance in murder rates between countries and American states. Roughly 90% of American homicides are committed by men, and since the majority of homicides occur over status, inequality raises the stakes of disputes over status amongst men.

Studies have also shown that there is a marked negative relationship between income inequality and social mobility. Utilising Intergenerational Earnings Elasticity data from Blanden, Gregg, and Machin (2005) , Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) first outline this relationship cross-nationally for eight OECD countries. Corak (2013) famously expanded on this with his ‘Great Gatsby Curve’ for 22 countries using the same measure. I update and expand on these studies in Figure 4 to include all 36 OECD members, utilising the WEF’s inaugural 2020 Social Mobility Index. It clearly shows that social mobility is much lower on average in more unequal countries across the entire OECD.

Index of social mobility by Gini coefficient. Data on social mobility index from World Economic Forum (2020) ; data on Gini coefficients from SWIID ( Solt 2020 ).

A primary driver for the negative relationship between inequality and social mobility, derives from the availability of resources during early childhood. Life chances have been shown to be determined in early childhood to a disproportionately large extent ( Jensen and van Kersbergen 2017 : 29). Children in more equitable regions such as Scandinavia, have better access to resources, as they go to similar schools, receive similar educational opportunities, and have access to a wider range of career options. Whereas in the UK and US, a greater number of jobs at the top are closed off to those at the bottom and affluent parents are far more likely to send their children to private schools and fund other ‘child enrichment’ goods and services ( Dorling 2017 : 26). Therefore, as income inequality rises, there is a greater disparity in the resources that rich and poor parents can invest in their children’s education, which has been shown to substantially affect “cognitive development and school achievement” ( Brown 2017 : 33–34).

4 Conclusions

The causes and consequences of income inequality are multifaceted. Income inequality is not the inevitable outcome of irresistible structural forces such as globalisation or technological development. Instead, it has largely been driven by a multitude of institutional political choices. These preventable causes that have given rise to inequality have created socio-economic challenges, due to the demonstrably negative outcomes that inequality engenders.

The neoliberal political consensus poses challenges for policymakers to arrest the rise of income inequality. However, there are many proven solutions that policymakers can enact if the appropriate will can be summoned. Restoring higher levels of labour protections would aid in reversing the declining trend of labour wage share. Similarly, government promotion and support for new corporate governance models that give trade unions and workers a seat at the table in ownership decisions through board memberships, would somewhat redress the increasing power imbalance between capital and labour that is generating more inequality. Greater regulation aimed at limiting the now dominant shareholder principle of maximising value through share buy-backs and instead offering greater incentives to pursue maximisation of stakeholder value, long-term financial stability and investment, can reduce inequality. Most importantly, tax policy can be harnessed to redress income inequality. Such policies include restoring higher marginal income and corporate tax rates, setting higher corporate tax rates for firms with higher ratios of CEO-to-worker pay, and establishing luxury taxes on spiralling compensation packages. Finally, a move away from austerity, which has gripped the West since the financial crisis, and a move towards much greater government investment and welfare state spending, would also lift growth and low-wages.

Alstadsæter, A., N. Johannesen, and G. Zucman. 2019. “Tax Evasion and Inequality.” American Economic Review 109 (6): 2073–103. 10.3386/w23772 Search in Google Scholar

Andrasfay, T., and N. Goldman. 2021. “Reductions in 2020 US Life Expectancy Due to COVID-19 and the Disproportionate Impact on the Black and Latino Populations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (5), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014746118 . Search in Google Scholar

Asaria, M., J. Costa-Font, and F. A. Cowell. 2021. “How Does Exposure to Covid-19 Influence Health and Income Inequality Aversion.” IZA Discussion Paper. no. 14103. Also available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3785067 . 10.2139/ssrn.3907733 Search in Google Scholar

Atkinson, A. B. 2015. Inequality: What Can Be Done? London: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674287013 Search in Google Scholar

Baccaro, L., and C. Howell. 2011. “A Common Neoliberal Trajectory: The Transformation of Industrial Relations in Advanced Capitalism.” Politics & Society 39 (4): 521–63, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329211420082 . Search in Google Scholar

Blanden, J., P. Gregg, and S. Machin. 2005. Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America . London: Centre for Economic Performance. 10.1017/CBO9780511492549.007 Search in Google Scholar

Borjas, G. J., R. B. Freeman, and L. F. Katz. 1992. “On the Labor Market Effects of Immigration and Trade.” In Immigration and the Workforce , edited by G. J. Borjas, and R. B. Freeman, 213–44. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.3386/w3761 Search in Google Scholar

Brown, R. 2017. The Inequality Crisis: The Facts and What We Can Do About It . Bristol: Polity Press. 10.2307/j.ctt22p7kb5 Search in Google Scholar

Case, A., and A. Deaton. 2020. Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism . Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9780691217062 Search in Google Scholar

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) . 2017. Tax Cuts for the Rich Aren’t an Economic Panacea – and Could Hurt Growth. Also available at https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/tax-cuts-for-the-rich-arent-an-economic-panacea-and-could-hurt-growth . Search in Google Scholar

Checchi, D., and J. Visser. 2009. “Inequality and the Labor Market: Unions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality , edited by B. Nolan, W. Salverda, and T. M. Smeeding, 230–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Cingano, F. 2014. Trends in Income Inequality and its Impact on Economic Growth . OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 163. Paris: OECD Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

Corak, M. 2013. “Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (3): 79–102, https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.3.79 . Search in Google Scholar

Daly, M. 2016. Killing the Competition: Economic Inequality and Homicide . Oxford: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203787748 Search in Google Scholar

Daly, M., C. Boyce, and A. Wood. 2015. “A Social Rank Explanation of How Money Influences Health.” Health Psychology 34 (3): 222–30, https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000098 . Search in Google Scholar

Deaton, A. 2013. The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality . Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400847969 Search in Google Scholar

Dickerson, S. S., and M. Kemeny. 2004. “Acute Stressors and Cortisol Responses: A Theoretical Integration and Synthesis of Laboratory Research.” Psychological Bulletin 130 (3): 355–91, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355 . Search in Google Scholar

Dorling, D. 2017. The Equality Effect: Improving Life for Everyone . Oxford: New Internationalist Publications Ltd. Search in Google Scholar

Dorling, D. 2018. Do We Need Economic Inequality? Cambridge: Polity Press. Search in Google Scholar

Elliott, L. 2017. “Rising Inequality Threatens World Economy, Says WEF.” The Guardian. Also available at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/11/inequality-world-economy-wef-brexit-donald-trump-world-economic-forum-risk-report . Search in Google Scholar

Gabaix, X., and A. Landier. 2008. “Why Has CEO Pay Increased So Much?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 123 (1): 49–100, https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.1.49 . Search in Google Scholar

Hacker, J. S., and P. Pierson. 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer – And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class . New York: Simon & Schuster. Search in Google Scholar

Haddow, R. 2013. “Labour Market Income Transfers and Redistribution.” In Inequality and the Fading of Redistributive Politics , edited by K. Banting, and J. Myles, 381–412. Vancouver: UBC Press. Search in Google Scholar

Hager, S. 2020. “Varieties of Top Incomes?” Socio-Economic Review 18 (4): 1175–98. 10.1093/ser/mwy036 Search in Google Scholar

Heimberger, P. 2020. “Does Economic Globalisation Affect Income Inequality? A Meta‐analysis.” The World Economy 43 (11): 2960–82, https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13007 . Search in Google Scholar

Hope, D., and J. Limberg. 2020. The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich . London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Also available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/ . Search in Google Scholar

Hsieh, C.-C., and M. D. Pugh. 1993. “Poverty, Inequality and Violent Crime: a Meta-Analysis of Recent Aggregate Data Studies.” Criminal Justice Review 18 (2): 182–202, https://doi.org/10.1177/073401689301800203 . Search in Google Scholar

Huber, E., J. Huo, and J. D. Stephens. 2019. “Power, Policy, and Top Income Shares.” Socio-Economic Review 17 (2): 231–53, https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwx027 . Search in Google Scholar

International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2017. Fiscal Monitor: Tackling Inequality . Washington: IMF. Search in Google Scholar

Jaumotte, F., and C. O. Buitron. 2015. “Power from the People.” Finance & Development 52 (1): 29–31. Search in Google Scholar

Jensen, C., and K. Van Kersbergen. 2017. The Politics of Inequality . London: Palgrave. 10.1057/978-1-137-42702-1 Search in Google Scholar

Kawachi, I., N. E. Adler, and W. H. Dow. 2010. “Money, Schooling, and Health: Mechanisms and Causal Evidence.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1186 (1): 56–68, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05340.x . Search in Google Scholar

Leigh, A., C. Jencks, and T. Smeeding. 2009. “Health and Economic Inequality.” In The Oxford Book of Economic Equality , edited by W. Salverda, B. Nolan, and T. Smeeding, 384–405. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199606061.013.0016 Search in Google Scholar

Marmot, M. 2015. The Health Gap: The Challenge of an Unequal World . London: Bloomsbury. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00150-6 Search in Google Scholar

Merton, R. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3 (5): 672–82, https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686 . Search in Google Scholar

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) . 2020. “Income Inequality” (Indicator) . Paris: OECD Publishing. Also available at https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm . Search in Google Scholar

Ostry, J. D., P. Loungani, and D. Furceri. 2016. “ Neoliberalism: Oversold? ” Finance and Development 532: 38–41. Also available at https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm . Search in Google Scholar

Piketty, T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674369542 Search in Google Scholar

Piketty, T. 2020. Capital and Ideology . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674245075 Search in Google Scholar

Revenga, A. 1992. “Exporting Jobs? The Impact of Import Competition on Employment and Wages in U.S. Manufacturing.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (1): 255–84, https://doi.org/10.2307/2118329 . Search in Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, J., and B. Western. 2011. “Unions, Norms, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality.” American Sociological Review 78 (4): 513–37. 10.1177/0003122411414817 Search in Google Scholar

Rowlingson, K. 2011. Does Income Inequality Cause Health and Social Problems? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Search in Google Scholar

Saez, E., and M. Veall. 2005. “The Evolution of High Incomes in Northern America: Lessons from Canadian Evidence.” American Economic Review 95 (3): 831–49, https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054201404 . Search in Google Scholar

Scheidel, W. 2017. The Great Leveller: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century . Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400884605 Search in Google Scholar

Schrecker, T., and C. Bambra. 2015. How Politics Makes Us Sick: Neoliberal Epidemics . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137463074 Search in Google Scholar

Shaxson, N. 2015. Ten Reasons to Defend the Corporation Tax . London: Tax Justice Network. Also available at http://www.taxjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ten_Reasons_Full_Report.pdf . Search in Google Scholar

Solt, F. 2020. “Measuring Income Inequality across Countries and over Time: The Standardized World Income Inequality Database.” Social Science Quarterly 101 (3): 1183–99. Version 9.0, https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12795 . Search in Google Scholar

Stiglitz, J. 2013. The Price of Inequality . London: Penguin Books. 10.1111/npqu.11358 Search in Google Scholar

The Equality Trust . 2018. “The Spirit Level Data.” London. Also available at https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=5 . Search in Google Scholar

Thomas, A. 2016. Republic of Equals: Predistribution and Property-Owning Democracy . Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190602116.001.0001 Search in Google Scholar

Tridico, P. 2018. “The Determinants of Income Inequality in OECD Countries.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 42 (4): 1009–42, https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bex069 . Search in Google Scholar

Visser, J. 2019. ICTWSS Database . Version 6.1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies (AIAS), University of Amsterdam. Search in Google Scholar

Whitworth, A. 2012. “Inequality and Crime across England: A Multilevel Modelling Approach.” Social Policy and Society 11 (1): 27–40, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474746411000388 . Search in Google Scholar

Wilkinson, R. 1996. Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality . London: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Wilkinson, R., and K. Pickett. 2009. The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone . London: Penguin Books. Search in Google Scholar

Wilkinson, R., and K. Pickett. 2019. The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Well-Being . London: Penguin Books. Search in Google Scholar

Wiwad, D., B. Mercier, P. K. Piff, A. Shariff, and L. B. Aknin. 2021. “Recognizing the Impact of COVID-19 on the Poor Alters Attitudes towards Poverty and Inequality.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104083 . Search in Google Scholar

World Economic Forum. 2020. The Global Social Mobility Report 2020 . Geneva: World Economic Forum. Also available at https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report.pdf . Search in Google Scholar

Zucman, G. 2015. The Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Scourge of Tax Havens . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226245560.001.0001 Search in Google Scholar

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

Home / Essay Samples / Economics / Income Inequality / Income Inequality In The United States

Income Inequality In The United States

• Category: History , Economics
• Topic: American History , Income Inequality

Pages: 2 (1065 words)

Views: 2437

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Pharmacy Essays

Income Inequality Essays

Microeconomics Essays

Budgeting Essays

Consumerism Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->