Documentary Analysis: Inequality For All
I believe that with most things in life, this documentary contains both aspects that I agree with and disagree with. While most things can seem black and white on paper, like someone’s economic stance, life is most certainly grey. The documentary Inequality for All has an obvious leftist, or liberal, stance. That is not to say that what it contains is any more true or fake than one that is made by a more conservative counterpart, but it is important to note that it won’t paint the whole picture because it is trying to force an obviously “grey” issue into black and white terms. The same aspects hold true for the article, it is rightist or conservatively biased article which is taking the wrong approach to painting the economic picture. As for which article I agree more with, I would have to pick the documentary, but to say that it has my full support is a stretch. The documentary brushed upon many parts of the economy, from what drives spending, to taxes, and the the effects of various economic policies (see the virtuous vs. vicious cycles). It, in my opinion, rightfully stressed the importance of what we call “the middle class” as the
…show more content…
biggest contributors in the economy. In the documentary’s leftist perspective, the solution to a better economy is to raise the minimum wage and tax the top 1%. They claim that doing so would result in a stronger economy, but obviously leave out a lot of details that could potentially alter someone’s opinion on the matter out of their favor. I actively kept this bias in mind as I formed my opinions on the subject.
Taxing the rich and increasing pay among workers is, in my opinion, the best long-term solution for the economy.
The reason why I view it as a long term solution is because raising taxes and increasing pay unfortunately comes with some short-term consequences. Raising the minimum wage, for example, would cause a sudden job loss. As the article put it, “a jump in the minimum wage is likely, as the Wall Street Journal has noted, to reduce total jobs, with unskilled minority workers bearing the brunt of the losses.” Unemployment always slows, halts, or even reverses economic growth, so it’s impossible to believe that raising the minimum wage would be the perfect solution to a better economy as the documentary states. Still, I believe that taxing the 1% and raising the minimum wage would greatly benefit the economy in the long
run.
As for how this policy would affect my life and economic status if put into effect, I don’t think that I would notice a difference. My parents are certainly not in the top 1%, so if the tax went up on only those people we shouldn’t notice a difference. The minimum wage in Connecticut is already higher than the federal minimum, so even if we were making minimum wage, which we aren’t, than we wouldn’t see an increase in pay either. However, some would say that the increase in tax and minimum wage would drive out employers, and thus the employees would be laid off, including my parents. Both sides, however, refuse to acknowledge the middle ground on this issue. What if the taxes and minimum wages were increased very, very gradually over a period of time? This solutions would prevent the sudden shock of increased expenses by the companies caused by increasing the minimum wage, while still providing continuous growth of the economy. If the documentary’s economic plan was instituted in this manner, I do not think I would notice any changes in my economic status other than the continuous growth of the economy.
biggest contributors in the economy. In the documentary’s leftist perspective, the solution to a better economy is to raise the minimum wage and tax the top 1%. They claim that doing so would result in a stronger economy, but obviously leave out a lot of details that could potentially alter someone’s opinion on the matter out of their favor. I actively kept this bias in mind as I formed my opinions on the subject.
Taxing the rich and increasing pay among workers is, in my opinion, the best long-term solution for the economy.
The reason why I view it as a long term solution is because raising taxes and increasing pay unfortunately comes with some short-term consequences. Raising the minimum wage, for example, would cause a sudden job loss. As the article put it, “a jump in the minimum wage is likely, as the Wall Street Journal has noted, to reduce total jobs, with unskilled minority workers bearing the brunt of the losses.” Unemployment always slows, halts, or even reverses economic growth, so it’s impossible to believe that raising the minimum wage would be the perfect solution to a better economy as the documentary states. Still, I believe that taxing the 1% and raising the minimum wage would greatly benefit the economy in the long
run.
As for how this policy would affect my life and economic status if put into effect, I don’t think that I would notice a difference. My parents are certainly not in the top 1%, so if the tax went up on only those people we shouldn’t notice a difference. The minimum wage in Connecticut is already higher than the federal minimum, so even if we were making minimum wage, which we aren’t, than we wouldn’t see an increase in pay either. However, some would say that the increase in tax and minimum wage would drive out employers, and thus the employees would be laid off, including my parents. Both sides, however, refuse to acknowledge the middle ground on this issue. What if the taxes and minimum wages were increased very, very gradually over a period of time? This solutions would prevent the sudden shock of increased expenses by the companies caused by increasing the minimum wage, while still providing continuous growth of the economy. If the documentary’s economic plan was instituted in this manner, I do not think I would notice any changes in my economic status other than the continuous growth of the economy.