Wealth Inequalities

We also must look at the dominated occupations, so that we can rule out the argument that the gap is caused by the chosen jobs of each gender. Male dominated occupations tend to pay more than female-dominated occupations at similar skill levels, particularly in jobs that require higher educational levels. An example that they give is, among high-skilled workers, men in ‘software developers, applications and systems software’ occupations, a male-dominated field, earn $1,736 per week on average (compared with $1,457 for women), while women ‘elementary and middle school teachers’ occupation, a female-dominated field, earn $956 (compared with $1,096 for men). Occupational segregation needs to be taken down in order for the gender wage gap to be

Before I go into detail about the wealth inequality of these factors, an explanation of wealth inequality is needed. Wealth inequality can be described, according to Gardner and Abraham (nd), as the unequal distribution of assets within a population. Chang (2010, spring) adds to this definition by saying that Wealth is the value of one’s assets minus debts. Common debts include home mortgages, credit card debt, and loans. The United States exhibits wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation. I will explain the injustice of wealth inequality as it pertains to race, gender, and socioeconomic class.

Race

The issue of race as it pertains to wealth inequality is a reality in modern-day United States. One’s race can potentially determine how much wealth one can accumulate, as compared with those who represent the majority. Kochhar and Fry (2014, December 14) found that:

The Great Recession, fueled by the crises in the housing and financial markets, was universally hard on the net worth of American families. But even as the economic recovery has begun to mend asset prices, not all households have benefited alike, and wealth inequality has widened along racial and ethnic lines. (par.

The socioeconomic status of one, and one’s family, can have a significant impact on potential wealth. Collins (2013) found that, in the United States of America, The 1 percent (in terms of wealth) in the U.S. owns 35.6 percent of all private wealth, more than the bottom 95 percent combined. The top 1 percent also owns 42.4 percent of all financial wealth, which equates to more than bottom 97 percent combined. The 400 wealthiest U.S. individuals, that were included on the Forbes 400 list, possess more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans. Between 1983 and 2009, over 40 percent of all wealth gains flowed to the 1 percent and 82 percent of wealth gains went to the top 5 percent. The bottom 60 percent lost wealth over this same period. Additionally, he found that almost one fifth of the population, mostly located the bottom of the income ladder, have no wealth or savings. They may owe more than they own. Nearly 31 percent of black households and more than 13 percent of white households are “assetless,” possessing zero or negative net worth. This is a massive injustice, considering the massive amount of wealth that the top 1 percent possess. By 2001 the share of wealth owned by the top 1 percent of households was 33 percent. To join the richest 1 percent that year one needs to have at least $3 million in net worth. These facts lead me to the conclusion that