When perusing the CIA’s world fact-book distribution of family income gini index, 2 countries stood out; Australia and Denmark. These 3 counties are all developed, so theoretically inequalities are more systemic than due to the process of development, and all three have global interests, so gross domestic product, or GDP, can be meaningfully compared to measure output. While some markers are hard to directly compare, each countries ladder of opportunities, social welfare programs and taxations redistribution give key incites into how these countries are shaping their inequality. The numbers at the CIA’s fact-book site show that, of the three, the U.S. is the least equal and Denmark is the most. The ladder of opportunity, or a nation’s
…show more content…
seems to be lagging behind other countries. Both Denmark and Australia have much larger shares of their GDP spent on labor programs, and they both have a greater concentration on active as opposed to passive measures. In 2014, Australia spent .94 percent of its GDP on labor market support, with .26 percent of that in active support. In the same year Denmark had even higher numbers with 3.33 percent spent and over half of that, or 1.91 percent, on active measures. By comparison, during the same period the U.S. spent .29 percent of GDP and .11 on active measures designed to assure employment is found. So to sum up, the U.S. spent less and concentrated a smaller portion on measures to assure that those receiving benefits for unemployment actually got jobs. While some of these numbers may seem small, keep in mind that .01 percent is a large margin when compared to a country’s whole output, so they are …show more content…
Gross domestic product per person and this metric’s growth rate are the simplest way to see this, and here things got a little unusual. While one would expect a lower than U.S. GDP per capita in Australia due to its high level of redistribution through taxation and the larger share of welfare programs, the opposite is actually true. While Denmark and the U.S. followed the expected course of showing lowered GDP per capita in response to increased efforts to reduce inequalities, Australia’s GDP per capita was actually higher than either of them. The numbers for per-capita performance in 2015 were as follows: Denmark showed 45,700 dollars, the U.S. produced 55,800 dollar per person, and Australia beat them both with 65,400 dollars. This seems to show that it is possible to address inequality in such a way as to support overall output. To sum up, while some of this is surprising, mostly it echoes the concepts that our text asserts about how to reduce inequality. It seems that spending more on benefits in the form of a safety net for those that have less, assuring that those expenditures are assisting them to find work, and redistributing wealth in the form of taxation does work to reduce inequality. The data showing that this can be accomplished to some degree without hurting output is startling, and begs the question of whether U.S. governance has
seems to be lagging behind other countries. Both Denmark and Australia have much larger shares of their GDP spent on labor programs, and they both have a greater concentration on active as opposed to passive measures. In 2014, Australia spent .94 percent of its GDP on labor market support, with .26 percent of that in active support. In the same year Denmark had even higher numbers with 3.33 percent spent and over half of that, or 1.91 percent, on active measures. By comparison, during the same period the U.S. spent .29 percent of GDP and .11 on active measures designed to assure employment is found. So to sum up, the U.S. spent less and concentrated a smaller portion on measures to assure that those receiving benefits for unemployment actually got jobs. While some of these numbers may seem small, keep in mind that .01 percent is a large margin when compared to a country’s whole output, so they are …show more content…
Gross domestic product per person and this metric’s growth rate are the simplest way to see this, and here things got a little unusual. While one would expect a lower than U.S. GDP per capita in Australia due to its high level of redistribution through taxation and the larger share of welfare programs, the opposite is actually true. While Denmark and the U.S. followed the expected course of showing lowered GDP per capita in response to increased efforts to reduce inequalities, Australia’s GDP per capita was actually higher than either of them. The numbers for per-capita performance in 2015 were as follows: Denmark showed 45,700 dollars, the U.S. produced 55,800 dollar per person, and Australia beat them both with 65,400 dollars. This seems to show that it is possible to address inequality in such a way as to support overall output. To sum up, while some of this is surprising, mostly it echoes the concepts that our text asserts about how to reduce inequality. It seems that spending more on benefits in the form of a safety net for those that have less, assuring that those expenditures are assisting them to find work, and redistributing wealth in the form of taxation does work to reduce inequality. The data showing that this can be accomplished to some degree without hurting output is startling, and begs the question of whether U.S. governance has