In the beginning of the documentary Inequality For All, Robert Reich, the former secretary of labor under the Presidency of Bill Clinton, tells the audience of his students that that the question about inequality “is not inequality per se. The question is, when does inequality become a problem?” (Reich). In other words, Reich agrees with John Rawls, the father of the theory of justice, that inequality is not a problem. According to Rawls, the problem is when inequality could not be arranged in a way that nobody would be deprived of an opportunity to achieve the higher social status. However, as statistics shows 42% of the U.S. citizens, who were born in poverty, remain in poverty all their lives (Reich). Hence, those 42% are the living proof that such level of inequality
…show more content…
From economic point of view, such coincidence is explained by disbalance of cash flow. The middle class earns too little, yet spends too much; in other words, the middle class lives on tick. The 1% who is incredibly rich earns too much, spends not enough. The bigger gap between the earnings of these two groups becomes the bigger disbalance forms. Thus, at some point, misbalancing force exceeds all compensating forces of the market and a market crush happens. From philosophical point of view, the coincidence can be explained by disbalance of justice. According to Rawls’s principles of justice, the social and economic inequality is acceptable until it does not harm any member of the society. As well known, in the crisis, people of the middle class suffers the most; they lose their jobs, houses and savings. Hence, the inequality that results in such negative outcomes cannot be acceptable in any just society. Taking into account that, according to Rawls, people’s parentage does not define their future; only talents, ambitions and choices can define it, the injustice of the society with the high level of inequality became even more obvious. Nowadays, in the United States, the vast majority of the
From economic point of view, such coincidence is explained by disbalance of cash flow. The middle class earns too little, yet spends too much; in other words, the middle class lives on tick. The 1% who is incredibly rich earns too much, spends not enough. The bigger gap between the earnings of these two groups becomes the bigger disbalance forms. Thus, at some point, misbalancing force exceeds all compensating forces of the market and a market crush happens. From philosophical point of view, the coincidence can be explained by disbalance of justice. According to Rawls’s principles of justice, the social and economic inequality is acceptable until it does not harm any member of the society. As well known, in the crisis, people of the middle class suffers the most; they lose their jobs, houses and savings. Hence, the inequality that results in such negative outcomes cannot be acceptable in any just society. Taking into account that, according to Rawls, people’s parentage does not define their future; only talents, ambitions and choices can define it, the injustice of the society with the high level of inequality became even more obvious. Nowadays, in the United States, the vast majority of the