Conclusion Though it may seem formulaic — and, well, it is - the idea behind this structure is to make it easier for the reader to navigate the ideas put forth in an essay. You see, if your essay has the same structure as every other one, any reader should be able to quickly and easily find the information most relevant to them. The Introduction Want to see sample essays?
January Since the s, economic inequality in the US has increased dramatically. And in particular, the rich have gotten a lot richer. Nearly everyone who writes about economic inequality says that it should be decreased.
Almost by definition, if a startup succeeds, its founders become rich. No one should be. The solution to this puzzle is to realize that economic inequality is not just one thing.
It consists of some things that are bad, like kids with no chance of reaching their potential, and others that are good, like Larry Page and Sergey Brin starting the company you use to find things online. If you want to understand economic inequality — and more importantly, if you actually want to fix the bad aspects of it — you have to tease apart the components.
And yet the trend in nearly everything written about the subject is to do the opposite: Sometimes this is done for ideological reasons. Much of the time, perhaps most of the time, writing about economic inequality combines all three. The most naive version of which is the one based on the pie fallacy: Usually this is an assumption people start from rather than a conclusion they arrive at by examining the evidence.
Sometimes the pie fallacy is stated explicitly: But the unconscious form is very widespread. I think because we grow up in a world where the pie fallacy is actually true.
In the real world you can create wealth as well as taking it from others. A woodworker creates wealth. He makes a chair, and you willingly give him money in return for it. A high-frequency trader does not. He makes a dollar only when someone on the other end of a trade loses a dollar.
If the rich people in a society got that way by taking wealth from the poor, then you have the degenerate case of economic inequality, where the cause of poverty is the same as the cause of wealth. If one woodworker makes 5 chairs and another makes none, the second woodworker will have less money, but not because anyone took anything from him.
In the general case it consists of multiple ways people become poor, and multiple ways people become rich.
Which means to understand economic inequality in a country, you have to go find individual people who are poor or rich and figure out why.
When you use the would-have method with startup founders, you find what most would have done back inwhen economic inequality was lower, was to join big companies or become professors.
The reason he and most other startup founders are richer than they would have been in the mid 20th century is not because of some right turn the country took during the Reagan administration, but because progress in technology has made it much easier to start a new company that grows fast.
Traditional economists seem strangely averse to studying individual humans. It seems to be a rule with them that everything has to start with statistics. So they give you very precise numbers about variation in wealth and income, then follow it with the most naive speculation about the underlying causes.
But while there are a lot of people who get rich through rent-seeking of various forms, and a lot who get rich by playing zero-sum games, there are also a significant number who get rich by creating wealth. And creating wealth, as a source of economic inequality, is different from taking it — not just morally, but also practically, in the sense that it is harder to eradicate.
One reason is that variation in productivity is accelerating.
The rate at which individuals can create wealth depends on the technology available to them, and that grows exponentially. The other reason creating wealth is such a tenacious source of inequality is that it can expand to accommodate a lot of people.
Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them. Suppose new policies make it hard to make a fortune in finance. Does it seem plausible that the people who currently go into finance to make their fortunes will continue to do so, but be content to work for ordinary salaries?
The reason they go into finance is not because they love finance but because they want to get rich. In a zero-sum game there is at least a limit to the upside.
Plus a lot of the new startups would create new technology that further accelerated variation in productivity. And if you do, that core will be big, because it will have expanded to include the efforts of all the refugees.
Plus it will have a large Baumol penumbra around it:A largely residential, four-year teaching and research university, college located in Nacogdoches, Texas. Offers degrees at bachelor's, master's, and doctoral levels. Yes. All freshmen must submit official SAT or ACT scores—they must be reported directly to the university electronically or via the mail.
For international students, the TOEFL or the IELTS exam may also be required. The Purdue University Online Writing Lab serves writers from around the world and the Purdue University Writing Lab helps writers on Purdue's campus.
Welcome to NeuroCare Institute of Central Florida, P.A. The neurology practice of Hal S. Pineless, D.O., F.A.C.N.
combines extensive experience, compassion and the latest technology in addressing your neurological concerns. Our staff believes that the key to quality patient care is patient education and would like you to learn more about our services and about neurological topics by clicking.
A largely residential, four-year teaching and research university, college located in Nacogdoches, Texas. Offers degrees at bachelor's, master's, and doctoral levels. The essay should be between and words, be typewritten or computer generated, single-spaced, and include your full name as submitted on your application.