Wealth and National Income Distribution in America - United States Capitalism (1955)

Wealth inequality in the United States refers to the unequal distribution of financial assets among residents of the United States. Wealth includes the values of homes, automobiles, businesses, savings, and investments. Those who acquire a great deal of financial wealth do so primarily through the appreciation of fiscal portfolios. For this reason, financial wealth involves only stocks and mutual funds, and other investments and is subject to much greater inequality than net worth alone. Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth."

Net worth is defined as the difference between total assets (includes both tangible assets such as homes and vehicles and intangible such as stocks and checking accounts) and total liabilities (debt, loans, etc.)

Dennis Gilbert asserts that the standard of living of the working and middle classes is dependent upon income and wages, while the rich tend to rely on wealth, distinguishing them from the vast majority of Americans. Melvin L. Oliver and Thomas M. Shapiro propose that wealth signifies the opportunity to "make it" in life; wealth is not used for daily expenditures or factored into a budget but when coupled with income it comprises the family's total opportunity "to secure a desired stature and standard of living, or pass their class status along to one's children." Moreover, "wealth provides for both short- and long-term financial security, bestows social prestige, and contributes to political power, and can be used to produce more wealth." Hence, wealth possesses a psychological element that awards people the feeling of agency, or the ability to act. The accumulation of wealth grants more options and eliminates restrictions about how one can live life.

Income inequality in the United States of America is the extent to which income, most commonly measured by household or individual, is distributed in an uneven manner, in the United States. While there seems to be consensus among social scientists that some degree of income inequality is needed, the extent of income inequality and its implications on society continue to be a subject of great debate, as they have been for over a century. The majority of social scientists believe that income inequality currently poses a problem for American society with Alan Greenspan stating it to be a "very disturbing trend."

Meanwhile, other, mostly conservative social scientists argue that income inequality is mainly the result of more workers in the average household and their age and education, and that the disappearance of the middle class is more statistical than real In a 2004 poll of 1,000 economists (from the AEA), a majority of polled economists favor "redistribution." A study by the Southern Economic Journal found that "71 percent of American economists believe the distribution of income in the US should be more equal, and 81 percent feel that the redistribution of income is a legitimate role for government." Some argue that looking at incomes according to different income levels is not useful for determining income inequality because it neglects that people do not stay within each level, but move across them as their incomes increase or decrease.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• wealth
• ownership
• america
• national
• income
• distribution
• tax
• company
• statement
• property
• illegal
• tutorial
• unconstitutional
• expenditure
• inequality
• business
• low
• creator
• children
• disparity
• difference
• effect
• substitution
• documentary
• management
• building
• education
• explained
• jazz
• russia
• politics
• communism
• warfare
• money
• bank
• capitalism
• communists
• socialists
• morally
• right
• private
• profit
• motive
• god's
• law
• bible
• incentives
• goods
• wage
• salary
• socialism
• British
• Russian
• cars
• Karl
• Marx

[bradjbourgeois73]

Even more sadly, in America today this video would be considered socialist!

[thegreatestbak3]

top 1% now controls over 50% of coutnries wealth. All part of the process of leveling the world into very rich and many poor. No middle class means the rich are unaccountable

[sfjeff1089]

Wow. "Who can possibly afford to shop in a place like this?"

Amazing propaganda.

I920-1932, 1980-2010 - The lowest tax rates on the wealthy, the slowest growth rates, the era of shrinking middle class, the era of shrinking unions. Light regulations

1933 - 1970 - The fastest growth era. Growing middle class. Establishment of 1 income households. America became world leader. Growing Union membership and Legal support for Unions. Heavy regulation.

[FiverBeyond]

I would love to see this figure compared with the current US wealth distribution.

[FiverBeyond]

@tetdragon

"Everybody should get paid fair for their efforts/contributions and that's it."

This is the foundation of socialism (and I agree with it!). The problem comes in our view of what constitutes efforts and contributions.

For example, one young man reaches age 18 with 4 million dollars in capital. He invests it in a mildly successful stock and then does nothing. Another 18-year old begins with nothing and works to build houses.

Under capitalism, who gets more money?

[tetdragon]

I dont understand why everbody is picking on 'inequality in income/wealth distribution' Everybody should get paid fair for their efforts/contributions and that is that. If that leads to inequality, so be it. We should rather have a system of fair rewards for initiative and entrepreneurship than follow a socialistic model where everybody gets paid equally regardless of their quality of output. The rich are supposed to be rich because they put in efforts. Its only just to reward them fair.

[zevgreen]

Notice, BTW, what he said at 01:31

An economic system MUST fulfill two social needs:

1st) An adequate production of goods.

Guess what...

[allgoo19]

Switch and bait analogy.

He's using the result of social program called "New Deal" then explains how good the opposite is.

A decade or so after this video was taken, dismount of New Deal began, now we have another great depression, or soon to be.

[reallifeinbc]

So to understand today's America (and past America), one ought to study Marx. In other words, the video contradicts itself as any good marketing piece seems to do!

[Maytons]

@musicinspiresall This WAS propaganda at it's highest level. Sadly, today propaganda has become an art, inserted so many times daily into our lives.