Accordingto the findings of Christina Fong, it has been established thatpeople who work hard and take risk are less likely to encourageredistribution of wealth to the poor. On the other hand, a majorityof white people support wealth distribution to the poor because theybelieve economic systems are flawed and therefore they are unfairdeterminant of how people earn their wealth. In this essay, theauthor will delve into the subject of group inequality in relation towealth and income. The author will discuss how the accident of birthcontributes to inequality and finally, the author will look at twooptions of individuals living in different countries and how theirincome fairs.
Therereally cannot be a specific measure of how much inequality is unfair.This is because the inequality can be caused by a myriad ofvariables. To start with as Christina Fong admits that most people orgroups of people who are well off are reluctant to share or havetheir income distributed to the poor it is indeed interesting thatthe same group feels that there some injustice or unfairness in thesystem. For instance, just a few years ago, the U.S which is thewealthiest nation on the face of the earth experienced the worstrecession in recent history. The recession left thousands of peoplehomeless due to the subprime mortgage crisis in the country. In otherwords, people who owned a home had suddenly become homeless sincethey could not afford to pay their mortgages any longer[ CITATION Bia08 l 1033 ].The fact remains that inequality cannot be determined by the nationalincome but it can also be a result of failed systems.Therefore, as much as inequality can be determined by an “accidentof birth” it can also be a by-product of systems that had been putin place by the government or its agencies.
Inreference to the graph on group inequality one of two options needsto be made. In the first alternative, one can choose their decile butnot their country of birth. In the second option, one can choosetheir country of birth and not their decile. The two optionsdefinitely have their advantages and disadvantages but in order tomake a choice between the two alternatives the question of inequalityneeds to be answered. In the first option, the notion of accident ofbirth would not favor an individual this is because the country ismore likely to be poor and hence increasing their chances ofinequality. This would mean that an individual might either becomepoor or wealthy depending on the systems that are put in place by thegovernment. In the second option however, one can choose theircountry of birth but unfortunately they cannot choose their decile.This would mean that an individual has a better chance of not dealingwith group inequalities since the nation of preference is alreadywealthy. This would suggest that an individual has a better chance ofmaking in in life despite being in the lowest decile. In my opinion,I would prefer the second option. This means I would prefer to choosea country but not the decile. This is because a wealthy or successfulnation translates to less flawed structures and also the “accidentof birth” is in favor of individuals in such countries. In thefirst option, there might be more cases of inequality as compared tothe second option and therefore upward mobility would be a challengefor individuals born in such countries. In addition, chances are thatthe same inequality which worked for individuals may work againstthem at some point in the future.
Bianco, Katalina M. "The Subprime Lending Crisis: Causes and Effects of the Mortgage Meltdown." 2008. business.CCH. 5 June 2016 <https://business.cch.com/images/banner/subprime.pdf>.