A Slow-Blooming Problem

Abandoned buildings in the Bronx, New York City, USA (David Gonzalez)

For decades America has suffered a festering internal rot. The same principle of capitalism interwoven with the core principles of the United States also continues to tip the scales of society and feed a growing instability. This great poison is none other than “wealth inequality.” The self-interest that drives capitalism also pushes the most powerful members of society to continue taking bigger and bigger pieces of the economic pie at the expense of the rest of the nation. There is no natural counterbalance, no “correction” policy to reverse the issue, it is merely a facet of capitalism that the United States has suffered and even, at times, accelerated.

Wealth inequality has been increasing in the United States for decades. This is not a political statement, and it’s not debatable on any serious basis. Should one analyze publicly available information from the U.S. Census Bureau, one would see that since 1967 the top 95th percentile has seen their household income more than double, while those at the median to bottom percentiles have seen roughly a 50% increase (“Historical Income Tables”). Furthermore, by this same data those at the top make more than three times the wealth of those at the median, with the richest of the rich such as Elon Musk making $40 million dollars while his wealth is in “decline.” Whatever one’s views, it is a material fact that wealth inequality exists in America and it’s been increasing over time.

Yet, who cares? Many would argue that success for some doesn’t hurt anyone else, and people should have the freedom to pursue economic success. However, those who hold this view must contend with some criticisms. First, there are the obvious moral conundrums, the wealthy who chose not to share their wealth do so while, according to recent estimates, 183,000 people died of poverty in the United States in 2023 (David Brendy et al). These are people with the power to save some of these lives and yet choose to use their freedom not to. Yet, that is ultimately a moral issue and one which people could readily dismiss depending on their views. Of greater note is the flaw in the original premise. Increased economic success for the wealthy does often harm those lower on the economic ladder. The recent “One Big Beautiful Bill” makes several tradeoffs in favor of the wealthy at the expense of the many, such as section 70120 which increases possible tax deductions to $40,000 while raising the bar for Americans to access Medicaid and increasing the stringency of requirements. These policies which favor the wealthy over the poor are of course supported by said wealthy, who due to their wealth are also some of the most powerful people in the country.

This power imbalance is also part of why there is no natural counter to wealth inequality. A number of elements can reduce or even hamper the growth of wealth inequality such as monopoly-busting, economic policy, and cultural views; however, should the wealthy be too drastically uncomfortable in their situation, they can use their wealth to leave the country and take their assets with them. Alternatively, the wealthy can search for methods to game the system, such as outsourcing jobs to foreign countries with lax labor laws or using their wealth to promote more amenable policies and ideologies. There is no systemic force in capitalism which pushes wealth away from the wealthy and towards the disempowered, only pressures which thwart attempts at further wealth and slow down the rate inequality increases.

Stepping back from the pessimism, for most Americans this is more of an existential issue. Wealth inequality has been increasing for decades, and will continue to increase. While it’s likely to eventually reach a breaking point, that point will almost certainly come slowly, with economic warnings which could let people prepare. The best any single person can do is support their community and if passion strikes their heart, delve deeper into activism and self-education to better empower themselves. The worst effects manifest invisible pressures rather than hard limits, such as the increased likelihood of poor people turning to drugs or crime, which then further stigmatizes them and cements their economic status. However, even statistics do not create an absolute rule. People can still reach economic success, climb out of poverty, and resist corporate influence to reach their life goals.

Wealth Inequality: a Lyrical Viewpoint

“The Message” by Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five (1982)

[embed]

When talking about wealth inequality, it’s easy to label such inequality as an abstract concept unrelated to anything real. Thus arises the need to contextualize wealth inequality within our society. “The Message” opens, “Broken glass everywhere / People pissing on the stairs, you know they just don’t care / I can’t take the smell, can’t take the noise / Got no money to move out, I guess I got no choice.” Is an encapsulation of life at the bottom of the economic ladder. In verse 5, the narrative follows a child born into this hellhole and describes the desperation, discrimination, and violence all cultivated in such an environment. Thus when people talk about addressing wealth inequality, this is the pain they want to address.

Informal South African Settlement, near Cape Town, South Africa. (Shutterstock Photo)

“How Much A Dollar Cost” by Kendrick Lamar (2015)

[embed]

“How much a Dollar Cost” features Kendrick’s avatar, sitting in his luxury car, refusing to give an apparently homeless man 10 rand, South African currency. Over the course of the song, the man repeatedly asks for a small sum of money: “I want a single bill from you \ Nothin’ less, nothin’ more.” Kendrick repeatedly refuses the man, eventually getting angry at his begging. The mini-story ends when the man reveals he’s god and that the price of a dollar is Kendrick’s spot in heaven. Ultimately, the message becomes clear in the outro: “I washed my hands, I said my grace / What more do you want from me? / Tears of a clown, guess I’m not all what it’s all meant to be / Shades of grey will never change if I condone / Turn this page, help me change to right my wrongs.” In the end, Kendrick’s actions condone the suffering and grey morality of our world. Kendrick sits in a position of power, literally the seat of a luxury car, and refuses to help others, to provide a suffering man 10 rand. This attitude is unfortunately all too common amongst the elite, for whom a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” worldview is also a convenient method to absolve themselves of any moral responsibility to help the impoverished.

Kanye West at the Met Gala, New York City, USA (GQ, John Shearer/Getty)

“New Slaves” by Kanye West (2013)

[embed]

“New Slaves” evokes powerful and painful imagery with descriptions of slavery and racial oppression. The first verse opens, “My mama was raised in the era when clean water was only served to the fairer skin,” which makes it somewhat surprising to learn that Kanye first performed this song for a private audience at the Met Gala, the peak of high fashion. In fact, much of the song is rooted in Kanye’s own experiences and his inability to break into the fashion world. Lyrics such as “Doin’ clothes, you would’ve thought I had help, but they wasn’t satisfied unless I picked the cotton myself” position Kanye as the slave. The concept is reinforced with another line: “Y’all throwin’ contracts at me, you know that niggas can’t read.” These words weave together broader discrimination with Kanye himself, or more accurately, Kanye’s frustrations as a millionaire superstar saying he’s not seeing the success owed to him, while performing at the Met Gala. Kanye is emblematic of the profound disconnect between the rich and poor. Kanye probably has real grievances with the system and he very well could’ve seen more success if not for racial discrimination at the top echelons of society. However, from the lowdown perspective, Kanye is talking like a rambling lunatic, yelling from the peak of success how he’s not getting an even bigger slice of the pie.

Reflection

I am not excited to publish this article. In fact, I’m riddled with anxiety and second thoughts. If you haven’t been able to tell by now, I’m a young “plucky” college kid with a political conviction and the desire to say something about it. The shadows of my mind whisper that I have yet to sufficiently develop my economic knowledgebase or that I’ll join the endless content farm “idiot college kid wrong about everything.” I’m still publishing it, because at the very least, Cunningham’s law might further my education. But on a more serious note, I want to make the world a better place. I have sworn an oath to myself to be a good person and work towards a better world, and I can’t do that if I sit quietly in fear of being wrong. And so I’m talking about what I think is important in pushing towards a better world.

I truly believe a great number of our societal problems stem from poverty and wealth disparity. I truly believe that capitalism is an ultimately unstable system poisoning our earth and eroding our social bonds And I truly believe that we must develop a better system if we want to build a better world — the same world I will soon inherit, and the next generation will inherit, and so on so forth. I want to push people, maybe even you the reader, into combining our fragmentary social influence towards the goal of a better tomorrow. I want people to become more politically aware, to search for perspectives outside their comfort zone on the way to developing a broader worldview, and to contribute what’s reasonable for them toward whatever movement they think will make the world a better place. Wealth inequality may not have any structural counters, but fairer distribution has been achieved through legislative and especially collective action. History could’ve never been shaped by “great men” without the soldiers, advisors, wives, and friends around them— every soul matters.

• Arrington, Jodey. “Text — H.R.1–119th Congress (2025–2026): One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Congress.gov, 4 July 2025, www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text.
• Brady, David, et al. “Novel Estimates of Mortality Associated with Poverty in the US.” JAMA Internal Medicine, vol. 183, no. 6, Apr. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.0276.
• Heatherly, Charles L. Mandate for Leadership. The Heritage Foundation, 1981.
• “Historical Income Tables: Income Inequality.” The United States Census Bureau, 2023, www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-inequality.html.
• Jessop, Bob. “Neoliberalism.” The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization, edited by George Ritzer, vol. 3, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, pp. 1513–1521. Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedias in Social Science. Gale eBooks, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3700800387/GVRL?u=mcc_chandler&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=16688cc4. Accessed 20 Oct. 2025.
• Kotz, David M. “Neoliberalism, Inequality, and Capital Accumulation.” The SAGE Handbook of Neoliberalism, edited by Damien Cahill, et al., SAGE Reference, 2018, pp. 427–445. Gale eBooks, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX7495500049/GVRL?u=mcc_chandler&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=96b517b1. Accessed 15 Oct. 2025.
• Myall, James. “How Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Further Enriches the Rich and Immiserates the Poor — MECEP.” MECEP, 8 July 2025, www.mecep.org/blog/how-trumps-big-beautiful-bill-further-enriches-the-rich-and-immiserates-the-poor/.
• Spruiell, Stephen. “Reagan-Era Deregulation Did Not Lead to the Financial Crisis.” Deregulation, edited by Dedria Bryfonski, Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010677209/OVIC?u=mcc_chandler&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=45e9b67c. Accessed 20 Oct. 2025. Originally published as “Blame Not the Deregulator: It Was Market Distortions That Created the Bubble,” National Review, 6 July 2009, p. 16.