The Distribution of Wealth, the LA Times - Essay Example

The Distribution of Wealth: Article Comparison The LA Times published an opinion column by Michael I Norton and Dan Ariely about the distribution of wealth in the United States titled, “Spreading the wealth: The gap between rich and poor in the U.S. is bigger than at any time since the 1920s. Is that really what most Americans want?” The article was based on a survey of a representative sample of more than 5,000 Americans. The article concluded that the majority of Americans, “Seem to favor policies that involve taking from the rich and giving to the poor.” In other words, most Americans want a fairer distribution of wealth than exists in the country at the moment. In 2003, Dinesh DSouza wrote an article published on the web in the National Review Online, titled “10 Great Things: What to Love About the United States” that said that the wealth gap was not a problem, that their was an upside to the wealth gap and that the critics “ignore what is unique and good about American civilization.” This discussion will compare and contrast these two articles. The themes and conclusions of both articles have been presented in the first paragraphs of this discussion. Next, the arguments the authors use will be briefly outlined. Then the persuasiveness of each article will be evaluated. Norton and Ariely use quantitative evidence or numerical evidence. They present various statistics: Specifically, three sets of statistics. They begin by identifying the wealth gap. In the United States today the wealthiest 20% of the population owns 85% of the national wealth and the bottom 40% “own very near 0%.” In fact, since many are in debt and have no assets they may control negative wealth, or even less than zero. These numbers came from an analysis by Edward Wolf of New York University. In The LA Times survey the sample was asked what they thought was the distribution of wealth in America (not what it is but what they think it is). They thought the distribution of wealth was less unequal than it is. They thought that the wealthiest 20% owned only 60% of the wealth and the bottom 40% had 10% of the wealth (not zero or even less). Then when asked what they wanted the “ideal distribution of wealth” to be they said even more even than their perception. They want the top 20% to own 30% of the wealth and the bottom 40% to own 25%. Basically, most Americans do not realize how uneven wealth distribution is in the United States, they think it is less uneven than it is and they want it to be even less uneven than they believe that it is. In “10 Great Things: What to Love About the United States”, author Dinesh DSouza does not criticize the wealth gap in the United States. He identifies many positive aspects of America that are either positive causes of the wealth gap or positive consequences of the wealth gap. He does not use quantitative evidence, he uses qualitative evidence. He uses theories, ideas and other thoughts rather than numbers to make his points. DSouza argues, as the title states that their are “great things”about the United States that should be “loved”,and many of these arguments accept and praise the distribution of wealth. For DSouza there is an uneven distribution of wealth in America, but it is not a problem. DSouza writes that even the poor in America have a very good life. He says construction workers can afford expensive coffee, even maids drive cars and plumbers can afford European vacations. He also writes that there is social mobility in the United States. Construction workers can become millionaire developers, maids can work here way up to having maids themselves and plumbers can become important and influential like Joe the Plumber in the 2008 Presidential election campaign. He points out that the founder of eBay whose parents were once poor immigrants from Iran is now wealthy. Also, he points out that other poor immigrants have done the same thing. This is named social mobility and DSouza argues it means that anyone can join the wealthy elite. And, presumably, that the wealthy can lose their wealth if they do not continue to work hard and be productive citizens. In other words, he believes Americans can go up (and down) the ladder or wealth and success. He also argues that America is socially equal despite the wealth gap. In the United Kingdom there is a historic class structure: The rich and the poor are different socially. There are Lords and Ladies at the top and the working class at the bottom and there is a social barrier between the two that money can never change. He also writes that in many countries, like his country of birth India, this social inequality is even a bigger barrier. In summing up all of these points he makes a well-worded and persuasive argument for the opportunities that America offers all of its citizens, “in America, you determine them [your fate and your identity] for yourself.... This notion of being the architect of your own destiny is the incredibly powerful idea that is behind the worldwide appeal of America.” He argues that in America the wealth gap and social mobility are an incentive. They encourage the poor to work to become wealthy and the wealthy to work to stay wealthy. Clearly these two articles take different views of the wealth gap. DSouza sees it as a positive part of American life and Norton and Ariely argue that it is a negative part of American life. Also, as noted earlier, they use different types of evidence. Norton and Ariely use statistical evidence while DSouza uses word arguments and persuasion. Norton and Ariely focus on economic differences while DSouza looks at social issues such as the social equality despite the wealth gap in America and the social mobility in America that lets individuals rise above the wealth gap. There is also a second side to the differences between the arguments in the two articles. The LA Times articles focuses on comparisons within American society. They argue about wealth differences within American society. They argue that the wealth gap is bigger than Americans want it to be and even bigger than they realize it is. DSouza uses arguments between countries. He argues that the wealth gap in the United States is less than it is in other countries such as Iran. He argues that social mobility is more possible in the United States than it is in India. Overall, Norton and Ariely argue the wealth gap is too pick within America while DSouza argues that it is less than it is in other countries. Therefore, in conclusion one could say that both articles are right. The wealth gap is greater in America than it might be, but that does not change the fact that it is less, and less of a problem, than it is in other countries in the world. Further, one can believe as I do, that American society offers great mobility, anyone can become wealthy, and great social equality, if I met Bill Gates I would refer to him as Mr. Gates not Lord or Sir. At the same time, one can believe as I do, that the wealth gap in the United States should be less, that the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire and that the government should provide more assistance to the poor. These two articles demonstrate that the cup can be half full and half empty at the same time and it all depends on how you look at it. Or, if you believe it is or you believe it isnt, you are probably right. References DSouza, Dinesh. (July 2, 2003). “10 Great Things: What to Love About the United States”. National Review Online. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/207396/10-great-things/dsouza. Norton, Michael I. and Dan Ariely. (November 8, 2010). “Spreading the wealth: The gap between rich and poor in the U.S. is bigger than at any time since the 1920s. Is that really what most Americans want?” The LA Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-norton-wealth-inequality-20101108,0,1887934.story. Read More