The Role of the Government in the Economy Essay

Should minimum wage be increased? In my opinion, it should not be raised. But why not? If the minimum wage increases, the cons will be more effective than the pros. For a start, everyone with the higher paying jobs will want more money. Leading more money to be made and the price of goods will rise. Say right now, the minimum wage is 8.05 and if they rise it to 10$, everyone else that was getting paid 10$ an hour will want an increase as well. And it will keep going on until every job gets a raise. Also it wouldn’t be fair for the people who worked hard and some even go to college and would get paid only 10$ an hour for a start as too someone who got there first job and with no experience

I strongly believe that we should raise the minimum wage. All of the outcomes that would come from this event, are all positive for the majority of all the classes. Raising Minimum wage would not only benefit for the people, but also in the business world. More people would want to work for companies which would means an increased body of workers and more income. Raising the minimum wage would also help out families in the community all over. Several families are basing their daily living on the minimum wage they’re receiving from their job. Raising the minimum wage would help families out tremendously due to the fact the parents barely can afford food each night on the table let alone allowing

In today’s capitalist economy, where economic transactions and business in general is centered on self-interest, there is a natural tendency for some people to make more than others. That is the basis for the “American Dream,” where people, if they worked hard, could make money proportional to their effort. However, what happens when this natural occurrence grows disproportional in its allocation of wealth within a society? The resulting issue becomes income inequality. Where a small portion of the population, own the majority of the wealth and the majority of the population own only a fraction of what the rich own. This prominent issue has always been the subject of social tension

Fiscal responsibility is an important part of stability and the government must focus on maintaining the economic stability. As we all know, Government dept can quickly become a burden on the economy and weaken it. Macroeconomic policies change credibility of the government and strengthen political institutions. It is very important that our economy has credibility and stability because it’s vital to us Americans long term investment decisions that allow the US economy to grow. Government provide stability by ensuring to maintain stability of currency, enforce-defend property rights, and provide oversight that assures private citizens that their transaction partners in marketplaces are

Economic inequality in the United States has risen and absolute growth has slowed over the past half-century. This growing level of inequality sparks in a wave of support for redistribution. The U.S.’s inability to redistribute to the bottom quartile of the income distribution results a multitude of factors that explain why people would support or oppose redistribution. An explanation of economic inequality involves the argument that the wealthy have the needed resources in order to flourish in achieving political decisions that they favor, “through campaign contributions and other forms of economic influence” (Gelman 1213). The proposal for this paper is that there is a factor that is unaccounted for, in which it is possibly impacting the

Everything written in the article titled ‘The Upside of Income Inequality’ by Gary S. Becker and Kevin M. Murphy is not only a manipulation of the reader’s trust but it is also an insult of the reader’s intelligence. The fact that this article was first published in a magazine should speak volumes on the credibility of the statements made by these two authors. Becker and Murphy mention statistics comparing salaries and college educations but it is close to impossible to factor in the entire county to these statistics therefore, they are invalid. The article suggests that taxing the rich more than the lower class or ‘poor’ is similar to offering a subsidy to high school dropouts and taxing those going to college, but this is comparing apples to oranges and frankly it is a laughable comparison. Using appeals is an art form. Appeals help people articulate things that are important to them. Unfortunately, ethos, logos and pathos can be used to manipulate people as proven in this article.

(What is REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH?). Redistribution of wealth policies in the United States take a greater share of income from those families belonging to the top 20th percentile than those families in the bottom percentiles (Prante and Hodge). Families in the top 20th percentile earn on average 50 percent of our nation’s income (Prante and Hodge). As a result the nation’s middle to upper class earners would appear to have stopped achieving as much success due to the redistribution of their money, this causing a tremendous drop in the nation’s income averaging around 39.6 percent. When comparing the top 20th percentile to the bottom 20th percentile, those within the lowest quintile of our population makeup only 3.1 percent of the nation’s income, according to statistics from 2012 (Prante and Hodge). By the process of redistribution, it increased those of the lower quintile incomes by almost $1.1

Income inequality has been a topic of concern since the 1920’s. Never has it been of bigger concern than now. Since the year 2000, the separation between the haves and have not has widened tremendously. I don’t have issue with those that earn more being taxed more, but I do have an issue with how it is distributed to those that are less fortunate.

In Saving Capitalism: For the Many Not the Few, Robert Reich works to write a book that refutes a market verses government mentality. He argues that the market has been restructured so that the vast majority of economic benefits are going right to the top earners, leaving wages for most Americans stagnant and upward mobility unsure. He develops this argument through three parts by focusing specifically on certain aspects of economics within each part. In part I, Reich elaborates on the dependency of markets on the rules governing property, monopoly, contracts, bankruptcy, and enforcement (XIII). In part II, he shows what the resulting rules have meant for the resulting distribution of income and wealth in society (XIV).

The current United States’ economic system is fully focused on the rich people, and it is not fair enough to others. The more complex the market becomes, the less normal citizens understand how wealth distribution proceeds.

Income redistribution refers to the concept of transferring income from the wealthy individuals to the less wealthy individuals through social mechanisms such as monetary policies, charity, welfare, land reforms, and taxation among others. Income redistribution affects the entire economy rather than selected groups of individuals. The concept of income redistribution emanates from the existence of income inequalities within an economy. Income inequality depicts a gap between the highest and the lowest income earners in an economy (Tullock 13). Income inequality is sometimes considered appropriate in societies since it acts as an incentive in free market economies, whereby in the absence of inequality, elements of economic stagnation and lack of enterprise would emerge. Conversely, income inequality is criticized on the basis of introducing contributing towards the development of key problems in the society, including progression of poverty levels. This paper seeks to explore the concept of income redistribution and its key pros and cons.

The United States of America was once renowned for and demarcated by the size and successfulness of its middle class. Currently, America faces a shrinking middle class and a new rising oligarchy that is creating the largest wealth disparity in eighty years. Robert B. Reich wrote Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few, for the sole purpose of exposing the reasons why the wealthy get wealthier and poor get poorer. Reich contends that the free market vs government debate serves as a means of distraction, covering up the real issues of the top one percent reaping economic gains. Reich states in the book that the “free market” is a myth that prevents us from examining the rule changes and questioning who they serve. Reich further states “it is no accident that those with disproportionate influence over these rules, who are the largest beneficiaries of how the rules have been designed and adapted, are also among the most passionate supporters of the “free market” and the most ardent advocates of the relative superiority of the market over the government.”

In micro-economics market failure is characterized by resource misallocation and subsequent Pareto inefficiency. Just as the invisible hand falters, so is the case that the unregulated markets are incapable of solving all economic problems. In laissez-faire economy, market models mainly monopolistic, perfect competition and oligopoly are expected to efficiently allocate resources for the “welfare benefit” of the society. However individualistic and selfish private interests divert the public benefits thereby prompting government intervention to correct the imperfection which may lead to disastrous economic impact. Although corrective intervention policies by government may not necessarily address the underlying imperfection induced by

The “free market,” has become accepted as the norm-- and so have the systemic inequalities that accompany it. The system is not questioned, simply, because those in power have used their power in order to cement the system into place. Wealth disparity is seen as natural because the dollar amount on your paycheck correlates to your worth in the “free market.” To

Even though the economic system is not specifically targeted in this model, there would be large changes in the economy if this system was truly actualized and if the Christian population exemplified their beliefs. In the early Church, “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common” (Acts 4:32). If Christians were to follow this model today, then they would not lead a capitalist economy. Instead of competition, everything would be shared equally so that there would “not [be] a needy person among them” (Acts 4:34). The role of economic growth would no longer be important. Instead, people would look at inequality and happiness measures to ensure that all were cared for equally.