Orion Culbertson
Benjamin Lozanzo
PLSI 106
December 13, 2017
The most likely state of the economy in 2035 is represented mostly by the things Thomas Piketty discusses in his article, “Capital in the Twenty First Century”. I’ll start by analyzing what he wrote in the context of today as well as how it will continue to apply for the next eighteen years. First off, it’s important to understand how political wealth distribution is. Issues surrounding the subject and what’s done about it are heavily tied to political views in the government and what the leaders in charge of different departments think is right. As Piketty discussed, “The history of inequality is shaped by the way economic, social, and political actors view what is just and what …show more content…
Things could go in a variety of different directions. However, as is represented by flow of wealth distribution, there are always forces in our society pushing for divergence and convergence, and there are no natural forces to stopping this.1 As Piketty describes, convergence is the diffusion of knowledge and the investment into training and developing skills, and this is fundamental to growing our productivity as a nation and diminishing the amount of inequalities, both in and outside of our country.1 This is important to note because depending on the amount the next leaders of our country push for convergence in the lives of everyone will affect the level of wealth distribution in 2035. We can hope for the best but there is no way to be sure of what and who is to come. Opposing convergence are forces of divergence. These forces are pushing for greater inequality, such as top earners being able to distance themselves from the rest of the population very easily because of their wealth1. This is very relevant today in society as can be seen with the protests against the top 1% of earners. This will continue for the …show more content…
Piketty also states that there hasn’t been anything to show for the rise of labor’s share in national income in the last two centuries.1 With this knowledge, it can be assumed that the share of national income workers get won’t have changed much by 2035, meaning that forces for divergence will still be at work and still be prevailing at that time. Piketty conducted a study looking at income inequality in the United States from 1910 to 2010. This study found that back in the 1910s to the 1920s, the top 10% held 45%-50% of the national income, but this dipped down to 30%-35% near the end of the 1940s.1 However, this lowering of income inequality was caused because that part of the century was a time of war. Around the 1970s, income inequality started rising again until it was back up to the top percent of earners having 45%-50% of the national income in the 2000s-2010s.1 Using this study to try and predict what the economy will look like in 2035 means both looking back at what the economy was like in 1935 as well as assuming it will follow the trend it has been. Back in 1935, Piketty’s graph shows that the top percentage had a 45% share of the income before falling after 1940. Because the fall after 1940 was caused by entering a time of war, it’s possible that if the war didn’t happen inequality
Benjamin Lozanzo
PLSI 106
December 13, 2017
The most likely state of the economy in 2035 is represented mostly by the things Thomas Piketty discusses in his article, “Capital in the Twenty First Century”. I’ll start by analyzing what he wrote in the context of today as well as how it will continue to apply for the next eighteen years. First off, it’s important to understand how political wealth distribution is. Issues surrounding the subject and what’s done about it are heavily tied to political views in the government and what the leaders in charge of different departments think is right. As Piketty discussed, “The history of inequality is shaped by the way economic, social, and political actors view what is just and what …show more content…
Things could go in a variety of different directions. However, as is represented by flow of wealth distribution, there are always forces in our society pushing for divergence and convergence, and there are no natural forces to stopping this.1 As Piketty describes, convergence is the diffusion of knowledge and the investment into training and developing skills, and this is fundamental to growing our productivity as a nation and diminishing the amount of inequalities, both in and outside of our country.1 This is important to note because depending on the amount the next leaders of our country push for convergence in the lives of everyone will affect the level of wealth distribution in 2035. We can hope for the best but there is no way to be sure of what and who is to come. Opposing convergence are forces of divergence. These forces are pushing for greater inequality, such as top earners being able to distance themselves from the rest of the population very easily because of their wealth1. This is very relevant today in society as can be seen with the protests against the top 1% of earners. This will continue for the …show more content…
Piketty also states that there hasn’t been anything to show for the rise of labor’s share in national income in the last two centuries.1 With this knowledge, it can be assumed that the share of national income workers get won’t have changed much by 2035, meaning that forces for divergence will still be at work and still be prevailing at that time. Piketty conducted a study looking at income inequality in the United States from 1910 to 2010. This study found that back in the 1910s to the 1920s, the top 10% held 45%-50% of the national income, but this dipped down to 30%-35% near the end of the 1940s.1 However, this lowering of income inequality was caused because that part of the century was a time of war. Around the 1970s, income inequality started rising again until it was back up to the top percent of earners having 45%-50% of the national income in the 2000s-2010s.1 Using this study to try and predict what the economy will look like in 2035 means both looking back at what the economy was like in 1935 as well as assuming it will follow the trend it has been. Back in 1935, Piketty’s graph shows that the top percentage had a 45% share of the income before falling after 1940. Because the fall after 1940 was caused by entering a time of war, it’s possible that if the war didn’t happen inequality