IndexIntroductionMy PositionOpposing PositionRefutation of the Opposing PositionSummary of the PositionIntroductionDespite the fact that there is an exceptionally long history of concerns with inequality economic, interest in this point has increased significantly after decades of stability. Economic inequality is the unequal division of wages and opportunities among various groups in society and has been a concern of many nations around the world and has recently made it more difficult for some individuals to have opportunities to advance in society. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Joseph E. Stiglitz, Robert Rector, and Rachel Sheffield offer different explanations for whether or not growing economic inequality is a serious problem. Stiglitz demonstrates the vast and growing inequality in America and argues that it stems from the exploitation of workers and the way capitalism works. Rector and Sheffield both firmly believe that inequality is not that bad since the poor are quite well off if we look at everyone. the facts relating to their living conditions, poverty, the consistency of food supply and crowding. In my opinion, both sides of this argument make very interesting points, but Rector and Sheffield have more organized information than Stiglitz, so I will evaluate their explanations to find who has the most reasonable ending. My Position While most experts seem to accept that inequality is a noteworthy problem that requires some kind of remedy, some oppose this idea. One of the first points made by Rector and Sheffield is how they believe that the poor do not have much difficulty as they are quite well off due to their living conditions and food supply from their communities. Over time, the poor were given the opportunity to apply for stabilized services for their families. These amenities include color TVs, telephones, and kitchens equipped with ovens, stoves, and refrigerators. However, based on data from the Services in Poor Households graph, it indicates that the wide range of modern conveniences in the homes of the poor is the result of decades of steady progress in the living standards of the poor. The graph also shows that not all poor families are able to acquire all the services listed. In addition to the housing provided, there is also poverty and malnutrition. There is little to no evidence of poverty-induced malnutrition in the United States, however, a lack of financial resources is often believed to force poor people to eat low-quality diets that are nutrient-deficient and high in fat, but data from survey show that nutritional density does not vary based on income class. In the United States, eating healthy costs three times more than consuming unhealthy food, and the price gap is widening, according to a University of Cambridge study. The average gain in healthy food increased by £1.84 per 1,000 calories over the decade, while unhealthy food increased by 73p for the same energy intake. This puts the poor in a rigid position where they have to think about what they are buying to maintain a steady income, so even if the poor wanted to eat healthier, they wouldn't have the funds to keep up and would instead have to put up with buying unhealthy foods as a means to make their salary last until the next one. Rector and Steffield then state points regarding nutrition and poor children, consistencyof food supply, temporary food shortages and homelessness. For example, even if a poor family has an overall adequate or good food supply when measured over a moderate period, they may still have to reduce meals or go without if food stamps run out at the end of the month. Opposite position Stiglitz strongly believes that inequality is not inevitable. He begins his argument by talking about how a rich country like America is filled with so many poor people despite the amount of wealth they have. Inequality in America today is largely about the nature of our society, our view of who we are, and the view others have of us. He says similar stories could be told about each of the dimensions of America's enormous inequality, for example, health care. America is unique among advanced countries in not recognizing access to health care as a basic human right, meaning that if you are a poor American, your prospects of getting adequate, let alone good, medical care they are worse than in other advanced countries. For example, public hospital healthcare is free for all Australian citizens and permanent residents of Australia. A combination of Medicare, private health insurance and personal payments covers the cost of treatment as a private patient in a public or private hospital. This fact shows that American healthcare is not as efficient as Australian healthcare. While American citizens have to worry about paying for healthcare, Australians don't have to worry. Recent studies have shown that Stiglitz believes that if we offered more opportunities to the poor, including better education and an economic system that guaranteed access to decent-paying jobs, perhaps we would not spend so much on prisons but rather give the poor a possibility. to seize new job opportunities, in turn making our economy more productive. On the off chance that the money reaches those with low livelihoods, there will certainly be higher total spending, more jobs and essentially a more entrenched economy. Furthermore, if wage dispersion continues to tilt in favor of people with low wages, there will be an increase in the economy's capacity for development. Unemployment would be fundamentally lower and there would therefore be a self-sustaining cycle of more grounded movement. Many will agree with him that we must not eliminate inequality but rather moderate it and restore the American dream. Refutation of the Opposite Position Stiglitz had many good points, however, I'm not sure I agree with all of his statements. The first problem with Stiglitz's argument, in my opinion, is when he claims that many children who grow up in poverty never end up living a life outside of poverty. This has been demonstrated by many famous people such as Jennifer Lopez who grew up in the Bronx in an apartment and is now worth $300 million, Tom Cruise who grew up close to poverty with an abusive father now worth $380 million, Justin Bieber who grew up with a single mother living in low-income housing and is now worth $200 million, and Mariah Carey who grew up on Long Island where her family struggled financially after her parents' divorce and is now worth $510 million dollars. Stiglitz is automatically assuming that because the child comes from a poor family, he will not be able to break out of his poor lifestyle and create a better lifestyle to live in. Another point I disagreed with was when Stiglitz stated that.