How can we combat economic inequality as the gap between rich and poor continues to grow? Recently, a panel of experts at the Jewish Cultural Center in Newton weighed in on this complex problem, and one trend became clear: the lower classes in our society cannot easily pull themselves up the socioeconomic ladder. Meanwhile, the upper classes accumulate more wealth and power with relative ease. We are trapped in a vicious cycle where those born into poverty stay poor, while those born into rich families get richer.
Author and reporter Roger Lowenstein moderated the panel discussion with Washington, D.C. Center for Economic and Policy Research’s Dean Baker, Harvard economics professor Greg Mankiw, and Cornell sociologist Kim Weeden. All three panelists acknowledged that there’s more to the issue than money alone. Weeden outlined how the cycle of inequality perpetuates in three different spheres: family, school, and neighborhoods.
Weeden also brought up the growing inequality in health that corresponds to economic inequality: A woman who is fifty years old today can expect to live for only 28 more years if she is in the bottom economic group of Americans. In comparison, if she is in the top economic group, she may live another 40 years.
Economist Greg Mankiw met those figures with skepticism, questioning whether this difference in longevity should be attributed to healthcare coverage or to behavior-related health problems that are more prevalent among lower-class Americans.
» See the full conversation on WGBH Forum Network
Likewise, Mankiw questioned whether unequal access to education from generation to generation might not be a result of genetics – that is, intelligent parents have intelligent kids and tend to gain access to a better education based on merit. Dean Baker, however, pointed out that the highest performing high school students in the bottom economic group are less likely to go to college than lower performing students at the top.
Inequality in health and education are strongly correlated with economic inequality and with one another. Poorer health among lower-class Americans may, as Mankiw suggested, be related to differences in self-care behavior, but access to better health education comes with access to better education overall.
Upper-class children are more likely to go on to universities than their lower-class peers because college is costly. The burden of student loans falls more heavily on poorer families, and in many cases, avoiding the cost of pursuing a college degree might outweigh the benefits of a higher education.
In our current economy, where an undergraduate degree is required for many occupations, having less education makes it difficult to secure a well-paying career. Attending school is important for learning healthy habits and skills for the workplace, and also for gaining leverage in the job market with a higher degree. This correlation among education, health and employment powers the cycle of inequality that grows with each new generation.
Millennials entering the workforce are the newest group to tackle this cycle of inequality, but they fight the same uphill battle their parents and grandparents fought. Our society has built and reinforced the cycle for generations, and there is no simple solution. Some cities, including Seattle and San Francisco, have raised their minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour, while the Affordable Care Act – better known as ObamaCare – aims to expand access to healthcare. Attempts like these make a difference, but no single act or policy change will even out the American playing field. In this year’s presidential campaign, however, the issue looms large. A progressive political agenda for the next four years will certainly be a leap in the right direction, but it falls to the millennials to search for new approaches to solving this outrageous and fixable problem.
