Inequality For All (Jacob Kornbluth, 2013): USA

Reviewed by Richard Caine. Viewed on DVD.

inequality-banner

Directed by Jacob Kornbluth, Inequality for All (2013) focuses on the views from Robert Reich, a former US Labor Secretary, about the increasing widening of income and wealth gap in regards to class and social status. The short documentary focuses on how the US has changed over the past 30-40 years with regards to growing wealth and incoming equality. Reich explains in his speech at UC Berkeley how the US governmental system doesn’t encourage a closing of the gap regarding income and wealth inequality.

    The film raises questions about stagnating wages in the middle class, and also the issue of taxation between different brackets of income. One of the main questions that is asked is how much should we tax the wealth. The majority of the United States didn’t realize how society was being reshaped to fix the upper class after the Great Recession. This lead to many American’s working more hours than normal, with no increase in wage. From the 1970’s, the synchronization between wages and hours increased to a point where it was beneficial to work more because of higher wages. However; after the Ronald Reagan Administration occurred, the hours of work continued to increase but the wages not reflecting. The wages actually decreased, leaving many professions who work between 60-70 hours a week earning some what $40,000 a year. The progression of inequality is still evident due to the top 400 earners in the country being taxed a similar amount to those of a middle class.

The film discusses a vary amount of topics in the US society, it questioned the role of government and their institutions in maintaining an equitable opportunity amongst citizens regardless of their levels of wealth and income. The text further highlights the growing power and influence of the 1% over the domestic and political environment. Following the 1970’s and the deregulation of the financial sector orchestrated by the Reagan Administration that advocated for a ‘hands off’ approach from government.


About this entry