Academic Research Paper Final

A
Comparison of Economic Inequalities 1
A Comparison of Economic Inequalities
Between Minority Groups in the United States and United Kingdom
Meaghan R. Morrell
University of South Carolina Columbia

A Comparison of Economic Inequalities 2
Abstract
Quality of life is dependent upon individual factors that determine an individuals life.
However, when faced with societal factors that place an individual at a disadvantage from the
start, it becomes difficult for individuals to overcome such. The majority of those faced with
societal disadvantages are typically minority groups that come from low-income backgrounds.
The following paper conducts a comparative analysis of these disadvatages in United States and
United Kingdom, while looking at census data collected from the following areas of: economic
inequality and the role of the Gini coefficient, the lasting effects of the Thatcher and Reagan
Administrations, health disparities and mortality rates, an individuals role in the workplace, and
access to housing and education. The following data suggests minority groups predominantly
make up the bottom tiers of the socioeconomic system and are often placed at a disadvantage
without means of social mobility. Because of these factors, often their quality of life is greatly
depreciated overtime because of exposure to disadvantages in many areas pushing these
individuals to work harder compared to the majority.

Introduction
As society becomes more modernized, the race to modernization is one that is difficult to
endure. The race to modernization not only comes thresholds that need to be achieved, but
environmental factors with significant impacts. The United States (US) is often characterized as
an individualistic nation with exceptional work ethic (Gao, 2015). According to a survey
conducted by Pew Research Center, Americans were more likely to conclude hard work pays
off compared to 43 other nations (Gao, 2015). The United Kingdom (UK) ranks similarly
according to this survey, considering the amount of GDP it yields compared to its counterparts.
However, this survey also asks a pool of individuals how their day is, which in turn provides a
glimpse into individual outlook on life and moods. The results revealed 41% of Americans were
more optimistic compared to 27% of Brits (Gao, 2015). The underlying and undefined question
that lies within this survey is simple: does work ethic vary in minority groups compared to the
majority in the US and UK?
A minority group is often described as a subordinate group whose members have
significantly less control or power over their lives than members of a dominant or majority
group (Schaefer, 2013). To add to these unfortunate statistics, these groups face
disproportionate opportunities when it comes to education, housing, economic necessities, and
health which in turn affects their overall quality of life compared to the majority. In order to
investigate these areas, one must first understand how society functions, along with the concept
of social mobility. Social mobility refers to having the flexibility to move between social
classes established by society through wealth and self worth (Swanson, 2016).
More often than not, social mobility is thought of as the upper, middle and lower classes
in society, but according to research, social classes, or socioeconomic statuses, are much more

than just that. When looking at the entirety of the world, an individuals socioeconomic status is
often stratified into 5 categories based on income and percent of people who fall into that
category (richest, second, third, fourth, poorest). Figure 1 represents stratified socioeconomic
data compiled into a champagne glass-like graphic from the 1992 UNDP Human Development
Report (Champkin, 2014). It is referred to as a champagne graph because champagne is what
wealthy individuals tend to drink, and the narrow representation the figure portrays bears the
weight of the privilege above them. In theory, when the glass becomes full, the champagne
would trickle down to the bottom of the glass meaning when the rich become richer, some of it
would trickle down to the poor. Instead, that is not the case in society; the top just becomes
richer.
Figure 1. Global Economic Disparities, 1992. Reprinted from The Champagne Glass Effect
(p.41), by J.Champkin, 2014, Significance.

In the US and the UK, socioeconomic status is stratified the US often stratified into 6
categories, with the UK having 7. (Savage et al., 2013). In the US, the six classes that portray
socioeconomic status are portrayed in the Gilbert model, developed by Dennis Gilbert as a way
to categorize people based on income. The model is divided into 6 social classes (top to bottom):
capitalist class, upper middle class, middle class, working class, working poor class and
underclass. The members of the elite are the top tier of the class system, consisting of 1% of the
population making over $750,000 annually. These individuals have tremendous influence on
newspapers, political agendas, and television stations and are often segregated from the rest of
society. Following comes the upper middle class, making up 14% of the population making
$70,000 or more, much of their income being contributed to higher education. These individuals
are able to purchase materialistic items to expose their wealth status and contribute to the idea of
the American Dream. The middle class comes next, consisting of 30% of the population,
making over $40,000 annually. Following the middle class comes the working class, also
consisting of 30% of the overall population, making over $20,000 annually. Following the
working class comes the working poor and underclass, the working consisting of 13% of the
population making $20,000 or less with the underclass making $13,000 or less and making up
12% of the population (Gilbert, 2015). Figure 2 portrays the composition of socioeconomic
status in the US.

Socioeconomic Status in the

United States*
Based on entire population of permanent residents
1%
Capitalist Class
12% 14%
Upper Middle Class
13% Middle Class
Working Class
30%
Working Poor
30%
Underclass
Figure 2. Socioeconomic Status in the United States. Adapted from The American Class
Structure in an Age of Growing Inequality by D. Gilbert, 2015.
According to a survey conducted by BBC in 2013, the UK is considered to be composed
of the following classes in the following order (top to bottom): elite, established middle class,
technical middle class, new affluent workers, traditional working class, emergent service sector
and precariat. The members of the elite are considered to be the top tier of society, 6% of the
overall population that consists of individuals with the highest economic and social capital.
These individuals tend to hold occupations in areas such as information technology, finance and
economics, medicine, law or higher-level education. Below the elite closely follows the
established middle class, which consists of 25% of the overall population and still yields high

economic and social capital. Individuals in this category work in professional areas such as town
planning, engineering, therapy, and teaching. After the established middle class comes the
technical middle class, making up about 6% of British society with high economic capital,
moderate cultural capital and holding occupations in areas such as aircraft, science, social
science and business administration.
Socioeconomic Status in the

United Kingdom*
Based on 160,000 individuals surveyed
Elite
6%
15%
Established Middle Class
Technical Middle Class

25%
New AfKluent Workers

19%
Traditional Working Class
6% Emergent Service Sector
14% Precariat
15%
Figure 3. Socioeconomic Status in the United Kingdom. Adapted from The American Class
Structure in an Age of Growing Inequality by D. Gilbert, 2015.

The new affluent workers follows with moderate economic capital and good social
capital, making up nearly 15% of the British society composed of people who hold jobs as
electricians, postal workers, retail cashiers, kitchen assistants and quality assurance technicians.
Next follows the traditional working class with poor economic capital and emerging social
capital, which makes up about 14% of British society and consists of job areas such as truck
drivers, cleaners, and care workers. Behind the traditional working class follows the emergent
service sector composed of about 19% of British society with poor economic capital and low
cultural capital with jobs in areas such as the food industry, customer service, and nursing. Lastly
follows the precariat, with little or no job security, making up about 15% of British society with
poor economic capital and no social capital. Jobs in this area include carpentry, shopkeepers,
retail cashiers, and van drivers. Figure 3 portrays the composition of socioeconomic status in the
UK in percentages.
Social mobility easily ties into socioeconomic status in the sense that it looks at minority
groups on an individual basis and their ability to progress among the ladder of mobility.
Figures 4 and 5 represent the breakdown of ethnic minority groups in the UK in 2001 and 2011
according to census data published by BBC and the Office for National Statistics.

Population in England and Wales, 2001
91.3% White
4.4% South Asian
0.4% Chinese
2.2% Black
1.4% Mixed Race
0.4% Other
Figure 4. Population in England and Wales, 2001. Census 2001. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk.
Population in England and Wales, 2011
86% White
2.2% Mixed/Multiple Ethnic

Groups
7.5% Asian/Asian British
3.3% Black/African/Caribbean/
Black British
1% Other Ethnic Group
Figure 5. Population in England and Wales, 2011. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from
https://www.ons.gov.uk.

The data for Figures 4 and 5 vary simply because the Office for National Statistics changed their
requirements within a 10 year period. In the UK, when referring to race, or the skin color of an
individual, the census bureau uses race and ethnicity interchangeably. This is due in part to the
White British majority making up nearly 90% of the population in both surveys and minority
existence being so miniscule. The US is known to be a melting pot of various diversities, being
founded on the idea actually. Hence, the US has a much more tedious breakdown and
explanation behind minority groups. Also, each of these pie graphs yield a +/- 0.1 error margin.
Population in the United States, 2000
0.1 White
2.4
5.5
0.9
3.6
Black or African American
12.3 American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other PaciKic

Islander
75.1
Other
Two or More Races
Figure 6. Population in United States, 2000. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from www.census.gov.

Population in the United States, 2010
0.2 2.9 White

6.2
0.9 4.8
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska

12.6 Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other

PaciKic Islander
72.4
Other
Two or More Races
Figure 7. Population in United States, 2010. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from www.census.gov.
In the US, one also has the ability to indicate two or more races without being specific
when filling out census data. In 2010, there was a greater trend in selecting such because of such
individuals learning they can indicate more than one race. Even though the populations vary
across the United States and United Kingdom, the following data indicates minority groups do
exist. Before one can analyze the effects of various political factors on a population, it is vital to
determine the political makeup of that society. This paper will investigate the effects of political
administration, access to education, quality of housing, economic development and disposition of
health in the minority groups gathered from the information previously stated, in the United
States and United Kingdom in regards to the overall quality of life yielded.

Methodology
Proportion of Households Earning Below 60% of Median

Income in the UK by Race
60%
51%
48% 48% 47%
50% 44% 45% 43% 43%
41% 41% 41% 40% 41% 39%
40% 37%
30% 23% 23% 24% 23% 23%

22% 23% 21% 21% 20%
19% 20% 20% 21% 20%
20%
10%
0%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
White Ethnic Minorities
Figure 8. Proportion of Households Earning Below 60% of Median Income, 2010. Retrieved
from DWP, http://www.poverty.org.uk/.
Year White African Asian and Hispanic

American Pacific
Islander
1994 11.7% 30.6% 14.6% 30.7%
1995 11.2% 29.3% 14.6% 30.3%
1996 11.2% 28.4% 14.5% 29.4%
1997 11.0% 26.5% 14.0% 27.1%
1998 10.5% 26.1% 12.5% 25.6%
1999 9.8% 23.6% 10.7% 22.7%
2000 9.5% 22.5% 9.9% 21.5%
2001 9.9% 22.7% 10.2% 21.4%
2002 10.2% 24.1% 10.0% 21.8%
2003 10.5% 24.4% 11.8% 22.5%
2004 10.8% 24.7% 9.7% 21.9%
2005 10.6% 24.9% 10.9% 21.8%
2006 10.3% 24.3% 10.1% 20.6%
2007 10.5% 24.5% 10.2% 21.5%
2008 11.2% 24.7% 11.6% 23.2%
Chart 1. Poverty among minorities in the US from 1994-2008, 2013. Retrieved from the US
Census, https://www.census.gov/.

Proportion Below Poverty Line by Ethnicity in the US

32.50%
27.50%
22.50%
17.50%
12.50%
7.50%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
White African American Asian and PaciKic Islander Hispanic
Figure 10. Proportion Below Poverty Line by Ethnicity in the US (definition of poverty defined
at source). Data retrieved from the US Census https://www.census.gov/.
The chart and figures above contribute to the breakdown of minority groups living within
poverty. In order to better understand the following information and investigated areas, one must
understand the proportion of populations living in poverty level in the UK and US. As the information
shows, in the UK, minority groups make up nearly twice as much of the population living in poverty.
As for the US, African American and Hispanic minorities yield the highest percentages of minority
groups living in poverty. Granted with the information provided in terms of those living within means
of poverty, minorities make up the majority base of those living within means of poverty.

Year US Gini UK Gini US Share of UK Share of
(Disposable (Disposable Top 1% in Top 1% in
Income) Income) Gross Gross
Income Income
1980 38.6% 25.7% 8.2% 6.3%
1981 39.6% 26.3% 8.0% 6.7%
1982 40.8% 26.1% 8.4% 6.9%
1983 41.3% 26.8% 8.6% 6.8%
1984 41.2% 27.0% 8.9% 7.2%
1985 41.6% 28.2% 9.1% 7.4%
1986 41.9% 29.1% 9.1% 7.6%
1987 41.2% 30.5% 10.8% 7.8%
1988 41.6% 32.3% 13.2% 8.6%
1989 42.2% 32.7% 12.6% 8.7%
1990 42.0% 33.9% 13.0% 9.8%
1991 42.0% 34.1% 12.2% 10.3%
1992 42.7% 34.0% 13.5% 9.9%
1993 43.8% 34.0% 12.8% 10.4%
1994 43.8% 33.3% 12.9% 10.6%
1995 43.5% 33.3% 13.5% 10.8%
1996 44.0% 33.3% 14.1% 11.9%
1997 44.3% 34.1% 14.8% 12.1%
1998 44.2% 34.8% 15.3% 12.5%
1999 44.3% 34.6% 15.9% 13.2%
2000 44.3% 35.3% 16.5% 13.5%
2001 44.8% 34.9% 15.4% 13.4%
2002 44.5% 34.5% 15.0% 13.0%
2003 44.7% 34.0% 15.2% 13.2%
2004 44.9% 34.0% 16.3% 13.3%
2005 45.2% 34.6% 17.7% 14.3%
2006 45.4% 35.1% 18.1% 14.8%
2007 44.5% 35.8% 18.3% 15.4%
2008 45.1% 35.7% 17.9% 15.4%
2009 45.8% 35.7% 16.7% 15.4%
2010 45.6% 33.8% 17.5% 12.6%
2011 46.3% 34.1% 17.4% 12.9%
Chart 2. US and UK Gini and the US and UK Share of Top 1% in Gross Income (red
extrapolated), 2017. Retrieved from Chart Book of Economic Inequality.

The table extracted from the Chart Book of Economic Inequality details the Gini
coefficient for the US and compares it directly with the UK (Atkinson, 2017). The methodology
observes disposable income for all households and attempts to estimate the likely distribution of
income equality in that society. In describing the chart, a Gini coefficient is bound by 0 and 1 (in
probabilistic terms) with 0 highlighting perfect equality (ie. an evenly distributed disposable
income) and 1 signaling the exact opposite where one household generates all the income.
(Ballas, 2004). It is a measure commonly used by the World Bank and other multinational
institutions as a unifying comparison to contrast vastly different economies and compare their
equality levels (Ballas, 2004). The table also includes an extra metric to underline income
disparity in monitoring the proportion/share of gross income owned by the top 1% of households
in terms of wealth. One would assume that the Gini coefficient and share owned by the
wealthiest should be positively correlated in that a more unequal society in theory has wealthy
individuals owning a more disproportionate share of gross income. Including both measures
provides greater validity as the statistics reinforce the economic intuition behind them. An
interesting trend captured on the table and most notably in the graph reveal that throughout 1980-
2011 [loosely speaking] the Gini coefficient and US share owned by the top 1% were higher than
the same measures for the UK; translating to the US exhibiting higher income inequality than the
UK. Numerically, the US began 1980 with a Gini coefficient of 0.386 and by 2011 this has risen
to 0.463, while likewise the UKs Gini coefficient rose from 0.257 to 0.341. Although in both
cases the USs coefficient is larger, the UKs income inequality is growing at a more significant
rate. The USs richest 1% owned close to 20% (17.4%) by 2011 to the UKs 12.9%. These
disproportionate figures should be alarming to those households stuck in the lower and middle-
class struggling to simply meet their living costs and provide a disposable income over

subsistence. Inequality has been aided by the economic prosperity of the Western economies
during this period of financial deregulation and globalization which greatly helped businesses cut
their operation costs at the expense of the employees (Hopkin et al., 2016). Further, the dot-com
bubble and recession of 2008 in particular have been instrumental in perpetuating inequality as
there were many foreclosures during the sub-prime mortgage crisis and obtaining credit for
business and personal reasons has become far more problematic for those that need it most. In
addition, private interests have skewed income, weakened welfare, and trade unions, which in
turn has contributed to this outcome (Hero, 2016). Indeed, there were periods in which inequality
fell compared to the previous year in question, but the long-term view and consensus is that
inequality is continuing to grow and is a problem that needs addressing. The Gini coefficient has
worsened as a result of tax cuts, welfare retrenchment and curbs on trade union power (Hero,
2016). This has come about not due to lobbying power of stakeholders but as a result of market
liberal agenda of leadership in the US and UK (Hero, 2016).
US/UK Gini & Inequality Measures
50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1981
1982
1989
1991
1992
1999
2001
2002
2009
2011
1980
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1990
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2000
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2010
US Gini UK Gini US Top 1% Share UK Top 1% Share
Figure 11. US & UK Gini and Inequality Measures in Gross Income (red extrapolated), 2017.
Retrieved from Chart Book of Economic Inequality.

Is it possible to attribute ethnic/socio-economic characteristics to those minority groups that have
been left behind? Is it the case that non-white groups are struggling for their next paycheck while
wealthier white groups are absorbing a greater share of economic wealth? This paper simply
observes statistics to monitor patterns in a variety of different theatres to attempt to make a
judgement about economic inequalities. An uncontroversial trend which has come to light from
the Labour Force Survey and ONS Census in the UK is that the growth rate of individuals
identifying as non-white has far outstripped that of the white ethnic group (Model, 1991). The
Asian/Asian British/Other Asian category in particular has grown enormously over 30 years by
1525%; however, the same can also be said concerning the mixed race, Asian/Asian British
Bangladeshi and Other categories. This explains that the UK has endured a period of mass
immigration; these individuals have added to the supply of labor relative to labor demand, in turn
suppressing wage growth and keeping real incomes low (as many individuals are forced to
accept a minimal wage since employers can otherwise choose someone else to perform the same
profession). Indeed, in recent years inflation in the UK has been higher than wage growth
resulting in negative real wages. Since these groups tend to work harder for less income in an
environment in which they have no bargaining power, perhaps the bottom portion of the Gini
curve has grown in line with migration numbers. A similar trend has emerged in the US
economy; notably, the Hispanic and Asian populations have grown by 240% and 295%
respectively. Whether immigration statistics play a role in helping to determine income,
inequality remains to be seen - but through supply and demand, the argument makes economic
sense in that a higher supply of labor should likely result in lower wages being offered, as there
are more job candidates to select from. This line of reasoning does not apply for the higher
skilled-workers that can command their own wage. In Trends in Poverty and Income, a static

spatial microsimulation model is used to add factors not given enough appreciation in UK census
data - such as marital status and race to add validity to statistics concerning income inequality
(Ballas, 2004). This study claims that adding these measures improves the estimates to correctly
approximate income inequality in the UK.
Public sector deficits have grown in the US and UK as a result of the fall-out of the
financial crisis and subsequent recession (Mullard, 2011). This has occured due to the large-scale
government funded bailouts of major banks and insurance companies and from the effect of
automatic stabilizers. This is the concept stating that when unemployment increases, a higher
proportion of the labor force claims unemployment benefits and drawing funds from the
government, thereby increasing the public sector deficit. There was also a concomitant decline in
the value of housing prices as the financial bubble was fuelled by speculation and eventually
burst when a market correction led to a re-assessment of the fundamental value of these assets
(Mullard, 2011). Since then, the UK government has become committed to reducing the deficit
by 80m on the premise of preserving the UK governments credit rating; however, the yield
curve reveals that there is little sentiment that the UK will default on its debt obligations
(Mullard, 2011). There has been an emerging debate concerning the role of the government and
whether its actions during the crisis were justified given there are many welfare programs such
as Medicare or the NHS in the UK that struggle annually for funding. Should the government
avoid crowding out the private sector and deregulate services, or should it play an active role in
regulation, tax policy and spending on welfare programs to close the gap of income inequality?
Evidence above suggests that as a result of this broadly neo-liberalist policy to deregulate
markets in favor of scrapping employee protection (such as trade union power), there has been an
effect on augmenting income disparity and inequality (Mullard, 2011). Post WWII income grew

in the UK, but since financial deregulation due to Reagan and Thatcher, the concentration of
wealth has increasingly been taken by the top 1% of earners, and income disparity has, therefore,
grown. Remaining disparity in income after years of integration has been attributable to
adaptability to culture (Model, 1999). From 1971, the UK stopped accepting foreign national
workers as the labor shortage gap closed and the main reason for travelling was for seeking
asylum (Model, 1999). There was a wrongly held belief at the time as a result of lack of
integration that some cultures did not take pride in their work or were lazy; consequently there
was hiring discrimination amongst employers, principally due to a lack of understanding of
different cultures (Model, 1999).
In determining a persons worth in society, it is vital to grasp an understanding of the role
of policy making and party leaders political agendas. The 1979 election win of Margaret
Thatcher and the new Conservative party had a significant impact on political policy making in
the United Kingdom and the United States. Thatcher was born into the British elite. She attended
Oxford, continued to withhold the elite status by marrying wealthy businessman Dennis
Thatcher, and continued to maintain her status by keeping close ties to other British elites
(Gideon, 2016). Shortly after Thatcher was in office, cutbacks in areas associated with living
conditions and standards took a turn for the worse. The fact that US President Ronald Reagan
won the election in 1980 did not help either. Both political leaders contributed to the
retrenchment of the welfare state in their choice of policy reforms - which in turn led to the
identification of the welfare state being battered financially (Pierson, 2007). In diplomacy,
Reagan and Thatcher forged a close relationship, which many scholars argue in turn had a lasting
effect on their mirrored political agendas and policies (Pierson, 2007). When describing the role
of inequality and the idea of social mobility, it is important to understand the meaning of a

welfare state as an economic and political contribution (Pierson, 2007). The welfare state is
considered an influential countercyclical tool in producing deficits in times of recessions and
yielding surpluses in periods of economic boom (Pierson, 2007). Thatcher and Reagan both
argued that high tax requirements of mature welfare states discouraged investment and people
attaining work, hence their choosing to destabilize social expenditures without providing any
cushion for individuals who were at the bottom of the ranks of socioeconomic status which
in turn were many minority groups. The following figure goes on to provide evidence in the
inequality gap that rose during the Reagan Administration (1981-1989) and Thatcher
Administration (1979 1990) distributed by disposable income. To understand this from a
percentage, 100% yields perfect inequality, while 0% yields perfect equality. In the United
Kingdom, the Gini rate increased by 8.59% within 11 years, while in the United States, it
increased by 4.25% in the same time period. The people who were hit the hardest in terms of
policy effect were those who relied on public housing and social welfare which in turn were
mostly minorities. In the United Kingdom, the proportion living below the poverty line went
from 13% to 43% while child poverty more than doubled during the Thatcher Administration
(Pierson, 2007). Thatcher contributed to the tax rates of the top spiraling down from 83% to
40% by the end of her Administration. In the United States, Reagan slashed the tax rate of the
top from 70% to 28% by the end of his Administration. As stated previously, those who were
hurt the most from these policies were those who made up the largest proportion of the
population and were at the bottom of socioeconomic status in the United Kingdom and United
States minority groups.

US/UK Gini CoefKicient for Reagan/Thatcher Administration

41.9 42.2 42
41.3 41.2 41.6 41.2 41.6
41 40.8
39.6
39 38.6
37.75
37
35
33.9
33 32.7
32.3
31 30.5
29 29.1
28.2
27 26.8 27
26.3 26.1
25 25.31 25.7
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
UK Gini US Gini
Figure 12. US & UK Gini and Inequality During the Reagan and Thatcher Administration,
2017. Retrieved from Chart Book of Economic Inequality.
Some scholars argue in order to overcome reliability on social welfare programs or government
help, one must turn to accumulating ones own debts while working to take on responsibility.
One would agree the most important factor for overcoming debt troubles and meeting interest
payments on loans seems to be fundamental ability to save; however, those with a higher saving
ratio can actually meet payments on loans. The major issue with this concept is that those with
lower incomes have a lower savings ratio and have no way of increasing their incomes but likely
need external financing the most (Lenton, 2014). 12% of individuals do not own a bank account
due to living in the wrong area or having no transaction history to review (Lenton, 2014).
Traditional lenders and banks exploit this by charging a high interest rate - since the loan is
riskier than for a wealthier individual with an established background (Lenton, 2014). As a
result, a substantial amount of individuals use credit unions or informal saving groups to
accumulate savings for major purchases (Lenton, 2014). Those with a higher education level and
savings ratio seemingly have escaped from poverty trap as a result of paying off their loans,

while those opposite to this are stuck in a poverty trap perpetuating the gap in income equality
and contributing to sustained disparity in society (Lenton, 2014).
The Theil Index is another form (alongside the Gini coefficient) of presenting evidence
that inequality between races accounts for rising share of income inequality (Hero, 2016). Hero
decomposes those surveyed into between and within groups to study income inequality at
national level and state level in the United States. On a national level, as inequality has risen,
race inequality not only remains an important determinant, but has become increasingly
important. On a State level, racial share contributing to economic disparity has also risen,
especially for the states with high historical immigration. Historically, US policy for the Obama
years focused on economic factor related disparity. However, this has largely missed the point of
addressing racial disparity, which remains an unavoidable determinant of income inequality.
Policy that addresses closing racial inequality should help to overcome income inequality in a
society, since racial inequality has risen on a national and state level at the same time that the
Gini coefficient and disparity have grown also (Hero, 2016).
Ethnicity Age Standardised Illness Age Standardised Illness

Ratio (1991) Ratio (2001)
Bangladeshi 1.20 1.15
Black African 1.05 0.78
Black Caribbean 1.29 1.14
Black Other 1.00 1.05
Chinese 0.53 0.58
Indian 1.11 1.08
Other 1.00 0.83
Other Asian 0.70 0.70
Pakistani 1.27 1.25
White 1.00 1.00
Chart 3. Health Inequality by Racial Ethnicity in England and Wales (women), 2013. Retrieved
from Evidence of the 2011 Census. http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/

Ethnicity Age Standardised Illness Age Standardised Illness

Ratio (1991) Ratio (2001)
Bangladeshi 1.53 1.11
Black African 0.88 0.69
Black Caribbean 1.16 1.07
Black Other 1.01 1.03
Chinese 0.50 0.51
Indian 0.96 0.89
Other 0.90 0.83
Other Asian 0.64 0.64
Pakistani 1.34 1.10
White 1.00 1.00
Chart 4. Health Inequality by Racial Ethnicity in England and Wales (men, red: constant ratio
assumed over time to account for missing data), 2013. Retrieved from Evidence of the
2011 Census. http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/
In terms of methodology, the data has been acquired from excel spreadsheets derived
from the 1991 and 2001 Census completed in England and Wales (the majority of the UK in
terms of population). The census obtains information regarding how many people in each age
group by ethnicity have a LLTI (Limiting Long Term Illness) and then computes an expected
value for each age group: 0-15, 16-64 and 65+ the probability of them falling ill using the
England and Wales rates. Then, the Age Standardized Illness Ratio takes the ratio between the
number of who have a LLTI and the expected number of people falling ill in that ethnicity.

Age Standardized Illness Ratios for

Women in England and Wales
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Illness Ratio 1991 Illness Ratio 2001
Figure 13. Age Standarized Illness Ratios for Women in England and Wales 1991 & 2001, 2013.
Retrieved from Evidence of the 2011 Census. http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/
Age Standardized Illness Ratios for Men in

England and Wales
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Illness Ratio 1991 Illness Ratio 2001
Figure 14. Age Standarized Illness Ratios for Men in England and Wales 1991 & 2001, 2013.
Retrieved from Evidence of the 2011 Census. http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk

Since gender play a major role in determinant of health and life expectancy, it only makes sense
to separate health inequality by males and females. The fact that both white males and females
maintain an illness ratio of 1.00 means that it is easy to compare the health of their ethnic
counterparts to effectively an index. If the ethnic minority group has an illness ratio greater than
1, their health can be said to be worse than the white ethnic group. Largely speaking, a trend has
emerged which shows that health over time has improved for almost every ethnic group by at
least some amount (as we would expect) with the exception of the Black Other group for both
men and women. Some ethnic groups actually have a better health standing than the White
group; the Chinese and Other Asian groups in particular, are far less likely to be in the LLTI
category than their white counterparts, a pattern we see for men and women. What is quite
reassuring is that health does seem to be improving relative to the white group and by absolute
terms from 1991-2001. With more resources, it would be interesting to see if this is due to
differing diet, exercise or lifestyle choices, why for example is the Black Other groups illness
ratio increasing for both men and women over time? Loosely speaking, it is evident observing
the graphs that there is inequality in health amongst ethnic groups reflecting on this measure,
however this gap appears to be slowly closing which could be due to a range of different factors.

Ethnicity Percentage with Health Ratio to White
Coverage
White 88% 1.00
Asian Americans 82% 0.93
Native Hawaiian or Pacific 80% 0.91
Islander
African American 79% 0.90
Hispanics 68% 0.77
American Indians and 68% 0.77
Alaskan Natives
Chart 5. Percent of Minorities with Health Coverage, 2010. Retrieved from
https://cdn.americanprogress.org
Ethnicity 2005 2007 2009
White 5.76 5.63 5.33
African American 13.63 13.31 12.40
American Indian 8.06 9.22 8.47
Asian or Pacific 4.89 4.78 4.40
Hispanic 5.62 5.51 5.29
Chart 6 . Health Coverage by racial ethnicity in the US (2005, 2007, 2009 data), 2015.
Retrieved from US Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Report.
https://www.cdc.gov/

Infant Mortality by race in US (per 1,000 births)
Hispanic
Asian/ PaciKic
American Indian
African American
White
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
2009 2007 2005
Figure 15. Infant Mortality Rate in the US (2005, 2007, 2009 data), 2015. Retrieved from US
Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Report. https://www.cdc.gov/
When comparing the health care system of the two economies, the UK is fortunate in that they
have a nationalized health care service provided by the public sector - which is funded through
government tax revenue paid for with income taxes. In contrast, the US health care system is
completely privatized in that one must purchase health insurance and pay a yearly premium in
order to be covered for accidents, illness etc. or otherwise be levied with exorbitant hospital and
medical fees. The white group is significantly more covered with insurance than their ethnic
counterparts, this could reflect the unaffordability of health insurance as paying health care
premiums could absorb a larger share of the persons income. The Hispanic populace in
particular is 24% less covered than the comparative white group. However despite this, the
Hispanic infant mortality rate (per 1,000 births recorded) is largely similar across the same time
period to the white ethnic group, signaling that they do not need as much health coverage to
obtain the same rate of infant mortality as whites. However, what is worrying is the significantly

greater (in statistical terms) mortality rate amongst African Americans compared to all other
ethnic groups. The group is only 10% less covered than whites but this has led to
disproportionate increase in infant mortality. This could perhaps indicate that health troubles
came about that health insurance simply did not cover and could be another signal of
unaffordable health care. A transition to a health care system more so similar to the UKs
nationalized service might help to close this gap in health inequality in the US, which is far
greater in ethnic disparity terms to the UK. In the US, mortality rates are strongly associated with
income deciles, with mortality falling for higher income deciles (Lynch, 1998). There are
diminishing returns of income to health in that income helps the wealthy only so much then it
becomes not as important. The highest marginal contribution to health from one additional dollar
of income is for the lowest income decile for those stuck in poverty that cannot afford health
insurance or basic healthcare. A sensitivity analysis shows that a 10% increase in income (from a
distribution of income) improves mortality by 4%. A reduction in the Gini coefficient by 20%
goes as far to reduce premature mortality by around 18-20% (Lynch, 1998). The majority of
these hypothetical gains would contribute to a higher life expectancy for those in the lower
income bands. If healthcare and life expectancy rates among the bottom tier of the
socioeconomic class were a priority to the US, there would be an active government action to
increase cash transfers to these lower income groups or classes through a higher tax rate by
taxing corporations or individuals at the top income bands strictly to benefit health outcomes. In
determining health inequality, it is not the amount of absolute income that is important but the
disparity of income levels (Lynch, 1998). Central finding, a term that explains how more
equitable societies have a better aggregate level of health outcomes, explains why those in China,
Bangladesh and India, after 30 years old, have a higher survival rate than those in Harlem, New

York City (Lynch, 1998). Those living in metropolitan areas with high income inequality have a
greater age adjusted mortality rate than those with low areas with low inequality but a lower
average income. (Lynch, 1998)
According to a research study analyzing discrimination in the US workplace, it was
discovered many companies use names of applicants to attribute which race the applicant is
(Alba, 2016). Researchers looked at projected call-back rates by grouping certain racial groups
and monitoring the rate at which employers call them back for a job vacancy. The results showed
that to get one call-back from an prospective employer, an African American man had to make
out 15 job applications, while for a white American man with similar skills and background had
to make only 10 applications to get a call-back from a prospective employer. This highlights the
deep-rooted hiring discrimination in the US; similar results were yielded when observing call-
back rates for women (Alba, 2016). Research has shown strong association of work satisfaction
to income levels, and those who earn more are indeed happier; however, what matters in regards
to this study is relative income to other individuals (Mikucka et al., 2017). In years of growing
income inequality during the period of 1997-2008 in the US, job satisfaction fell on average by
34% for working men. This came at a time when executive compensation as a proportion to
business operating profit was growing year on year in the lead up to the financial crisis (Mikucka
et al., 2017). . Job perks such as insurance and a healthy pension package is strongly correlated
with success and job satisfaction. Jobs with poorer incomes offering less generous package leads
to less job satisfaction and poorer health as a result. In the US, part time job offerings grew from
17% in 2007 to 20% in 2009, offering little flexibility for those with families who desperately
need insurance coverage (Mikucka et al., 2017).

The figures below yield a detailed breakdown of the UK and US population in terms of racial
ethnicity. Unfortunately, since the UK and US have witnessed immigration from different ethnic
groups, it would be infeasible to use a single table (similar to the Gini coefficient table) to
compare the two demographics. Firstly for the UK, it is evident without any further analysis that
the population has grown from 53.1 million to 63.1 million from 1981 to 2011 according to
census estimates, a positive growth of 18.9%. If a researcher looks deeper into the demographic
we see that some ethnic identities have grown significantly greater than others. The white ethnic
group has grown a mere 7.9% over the period from 51m to 55m, representing a huge portion of
the total population and by far the ethnic majority in the UK. If we contrast this to any other
growth figure, the rate of change of the white population has been dwarfed by any other
ethnicity. Those individuals in the population that identify as mixed race have grown by 476%,
the Bangladeshi group has grown by 769%, Other Asian British has grown the most at a startling
pace of 1525%. This table alone shows a vastly evolving demographic since this is only a period
of a mere 30 years. In the 1950s and 60s the UK was more open to foreign born workers
immigrating to the UK for economic reasons. As a consequence, the society saw an influx of
immigrants from a variety of backgrounds but mostly those represented in the census data and
this has been growing at an exponential rate ever since as many join to reunite with families and
establish themselves in the new society.

Ethnicity in UK: by 1981 (000s) 2011 (000s) % Change
group
White 51,000 55,010 7.9%
Mixed Race 217 1,250 476%
Asian/Asian British 727 1,452 100%
Indian
Asian/Asian British 284 1,175 314%
Pakistani
Asian/Asian British 52 452 769%
Bangladeshi
Asian/Asian British 92 433 371%
Chinese
Asian/Asian British: 53 861 1525%
Other Asian
Black/African 608 1,905 213%
British/Caribbean
Other 60 580 867%
Total 53,093 63,118 18.9%
Chart 7. Ethnicity in the UK by group, 2011. Retrieved from Labour Force Survey (1981) and
ONS Census (2011).
Likewise for the American populace, although growth figures have not been as explosive as in
the UK society, there seems to be a largely equivalent trend for the white ethnic group to grow at
a slower rate than for non-white ethnic groups. The total population grew by approximately 37%
from 226.5 million to 310.2 million 1902-2010, a roughly equal time period to the UKs census.
Due to ethnicity only being reported in a time inefficient and costly census, this is the closest
period which we can compare the two demographics although there should be some small
margin of error in the estimates. The white group over the period of 1980-2010 grew by 11%
which is comparatively tiny compared with the growth rate for the black/African American
ethnic group which grew at 45.3% but the largest changes came from Hispanics and Asians at
240% and 295% respectively. Loosely speaking, the Asian immigration will have been as a
result of economic liberalization of China, South Korea, and Japan which has helped them to
grow into quickly emerging economies close to the economic frontier. Unfortunately, there is

inefficient data to say something meaningful about the Native Hawaiian group due to the
statistics department of the US government defining Asians and Native Hawaiians under the
same category. Similarly, not enough data is available to construct a separate category for two or
more races, perhaps due to not many individuals identifying in this way in the 1980s.
Ethnicity in US: by 1980 (000s) 2010 (000s) % Change

group
White 180,906 200,853 11%
Black 26,142 37,985 45.3%
Hispanic 14,609 49,726 240%
Asian 3,563 14,083 295%
Native Hawaiian * 452 N/A
Native Indian 1,326 2,392 80.4%
Two or more races - 4,743 N/A
Total 226,546 310,233 36.9%
* Prior to 2000 Native Hawaiian category was assumed in Asian category
Chart 8. Ethnicity in the US in 1980 & 2010, 2011. Retrieved from National Center for
Education Statistics.
Undoubtedly, the demographic for the two economies went through some structural changes
during this time period. Before this time period there would not have been such a significant
presence of non-Whites in the economies, it might even be reasonable to hypothesize that the
economies were set up in such a way to further the interests of white groups in favor of non-
white groups. The US in particular had policies implemented that limited the rights of the
African-American population, it was only in 1964 that the Civil Rights Act came into law after
President Johnson ratified it. After this point, segregation remained at least in some mainly rural
areas and some states were slow to recognize the rights of all of its citizens. The laws can be
slow-moving but the people and their beliefs can be even more slow-moving. The existing white
group may have had pre-conceived views or opinions fed to them by the previous generations
and the infrastructure might have been set up in a way to segregate races and keep non-white

groups stuck in the lower socioeconomic classes and thereby furthering the economic inequality.
As a result from an increased rate of immigration of these groups, the problem has worsened and
no welfare structure might be in place to help these groups integrate into the US culture and
achieve economic prosperity.
Ethnicity City Suburban Town Rural Total

White 32.7% 57.7% 69.2% 75.0% 55.8%
Black 27.3% 14.9% 11.3% 10.3% 17.0%
Hispanic 32.2% 20.9% 15.4% 10.5% 21.2%
Asian 6.9% 6.0% 1.9% 2.1% 4.8%
Hawaiian/Indian 0.8% 0.6% 2.2% 2.2% 1.2%
Chart 9. Percentage Distribution of race/ethnicity for each locale for public
elementary/secondary students in US, 2008. Retrieved from National Center for
Education Statistics.
It is important to see what the effect of living in certain areas or living conditions has on
childrens educational outcomes. A novel dataset acquired by the National Center for Education
Statistics measures AP Scores for all students in the US taken in 2008. AP Scores have a range
of 1-5 with 5 being the hardest to achieve, a mean average is calculated for each ethnicity in this
study. The Black/African American students were far likely to score in the 1st quartile (48%)
than the other ethnic groups with Whites only 16% likely to score in this boundary.
Hawaiians/Indians, black African/American and Hispanic students were also less likely to score
a 5 to reach the 5th Quartile than the White or Asian demography. This study is interesting
because it can have a few insightful meanings. It is possible that the white and Asian groups can
afford a better education than their counterparts and therefore score higher, or perhaps it is due to

the location of the school in which case the students type of hometown matters. We see in the
table above that although a significant percentage of cities are made up of whites (32.7%), the
black and Hispanic groups are much more prevalent in the cities as opposed to more expensive
suburban areas or towns. The starkest difference is in rural areas which are approximately 75%
white. There may be a significant correlation between student living conditions and this affecting
their AP grades (capturing their educational attainment). Living in a poor neighborhood in a city
signals that the household may not be able to afford a commute to school or pay for an expensive
private education and may have no choice but to send the child to an overcrowded school in the
city where the student is less likely to learn as efficiently as in a smaller class with a higher
teacher: student ratio. This should be alarming to researchers as those who are forced to succumb
to poor living conditions due to family income will remain poor as their education suffers while
on the contrary those who can afford an adequate education will propel themselves to the higher
economic classes of society.
Ethnicity 1st Quantile 2nd 3rd Quantile 4th Quantile 5th

Quantile Quantile
White 16% 21% 27% 21% 14%
Black 48% 26% 15% 8% 3%
Hispanic 34% 24% 19% 14% 10%
Asian 17% 19% 23% 21% 20%
Hawaiian/Indian 29% 28% 23% 14% 6%
Chart 10. Percentage Distribution on Mean AP Score for US students by race/ethnicity,
2008. Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics.

Percentage of students eligible for Free School Meal: by ethnicity (2003)

White Irish Travell Any Gypsy/Ro Mixe India Pakista Banglade
British er of other ma d n ni shi
Irish White
heritag backgrou
e nd
14% 20% 58% 21% 52% 27% 12% 35% 50%
Any Black Black Any Chinese Any
other Caribbe Africa other othe
Asian an n black r
backgrou backgrou ethni
nd nd c
grou
p
21% 30% 42% 35% 11% 38%
Chart 11. Percentage of students eligible for Free School Meal, 2003. Retrieved from
Aiming High: Raising the achievement of minority ethnic pupils, DfES:
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/ethnicminorities/raising_achievement/ Ethnic
Minorities and the Labour Market, Strategy Unit: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/
Ethnicity Percentage achieving +5 Percentage achieving +5

A*-C A*-C (FSM)
Black Caribbean 34% 22%
Black Other 43% 24%
Pakistani 45% 33%
Black African 48% 27%
Bangladeshi 50% 42%
White 55% 22%
Indian 67% 43%
Chinese 75% 63%
Chart 12. Percentage of students grades, 2003. Retrieved from Aiming High: Raising the
achievement of minority ethnic pupils, DfES:
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/ethnicminorities/raising_achievement/ Ethnic
Minorities and the Labour Market, Strategy Unit: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/

The first item worth mentioning here when reflecting on the schooling system in the UK is that a
child who is deemed under the poverty line is eligible for a free school meal. This is commonly
used by researchers to indicate which households or groups are in poverty and highlighting
inequality. With the exception of Indians and Chinese ethnic groups by a small margin, the
majority of ethnic groups have a significantly higher proportion of students in their respective
categories that are eligible for a free school meal, indicating inequality. Bangladeshi,
Gypsy/Roma, and Traveller of Irish heritage groups are the most likely groups to be eligible for
the free meal and therefore the most likely impoverished. There is substantial evidence to
suggest that children who grew up in households in financial hardship are less likely to do well
in school due to their environment and expectations of their parents etc. This is illustrated in the
next table which shows that for every ethnic group, the percentage of students receiving a
standard 5A*-C grades or better in their GCSE qualifications/exams improves for those students
who are not eligible for a free school meal and grow up in wealthier households than for those in
poorer states of life. Interestingly, the percentage for white groups plummets from 55% to 22%
for those who are eligible for a free school meal. However, only 14% of white students are
eligible for a free school meal, so this simply shows that for the small figure who are eligible are
likely to be affected most amongst ethnic groups. Having said that, all the ethnic groups
outcomes are worsened when the household is put in financial constraint. This should help to
connect poverty to educational outcomes back to income inequality as those who cannot educate
themselves out of poverty by doing well in school are stuck in a perpetual cycle of poverty which
solidifies the state of inequality.

Figure 16. Percent of ethnic groups in under-occupied, overcrowded and required size
accommodation, 2011. Retrieved from England and Wales Census 2011.
Figure 16 represents visually the fact that in the UK, it is evident that certain ethnic groups are
clustered in areas with certain characteristics. Due to income inequality or more generally social
inequality ethnic groups tend to gravitate towards certain living conditions. In 2011, the census
in the UK documented what proportion of each race were living in under-occupied types of
accommodation, what proportion had the correct number of required bedrooms for the average
person, and what proportion of those ethnic groups had to live in overcrowded residences. It is
fair to say that the White British group are definitely the least likely to have to live in an
overcrowded residence, approximately less than 10% are currently living in overcrowded
conditions. This is heavily contrasted to the black African group who were close to 40% and are
forced into living in overcrowded residences. By this measure, conditions are almost just as bad
for the Bangladeshi and Arab groups who also have to live in overcrowded areas. Due to these
proportions, the other fact that comes from this census data is that White British and White Irish

are the most likely to be living in under-occupied residences compared with all other ethnic
groups. This highlights that White groups are the most able to afford large houses with a few
extra bedrooms than required; for example, it also illustrates economic inequality in another way
in the housing sector as those who are not able to afford the required space for a family have no
choice but to live in cramped conditions. Research has shown that this leads to the children of
those families not reaching their potential in school and other areas. The parents may be
struggling to meet the monthly living costs if they are already living in these conditions, they
may have less funds for the childs education or the child generally does not have access to the
network or resources to springboard him/herself out of the poverty trap.
In the same way, but perhaps more insightful because this source tracks home ownership
over time, this study shows the quarterly homeownership rates for different ethnicities for the
period of 1994-2016. This study is interesting because it reveals not only the distribution of
home ownership for a specific year but it also shows the general trend of homeownership across
time. For example, the recession of 2001 did not really affect homeownership rates which largely
stayed constant during 2001/2 after the dot-com bubble and 9/11 as the housing market was
largely insulated from those risks and speculation meant that house prices were continuing to
rise, meaning that there would be an extra incentive to own a house or take out a mortgage
instead of renting. After the sub-prime mortgage collapse however, there has been trend across
all races which suggests that renting has become more attractive relative to owning a house due
to the asset values falling, resulting in individuals foreclosing, less banks willing to offer
generous mortgage terms with teaser interest rates, and the real estate agents who would not
likely sell if they believe their properties are significantly undervalued. It is important to note
however, that in the same way as the UK economy, the White ethnic group holds the highest

proportion of total stock of housing relative to other races, this holds true for the entire 1994-
2016 period. Since housing can be thought of as an asset particularly if the individual owns it,
owning a house is a representation of net worth. Those who own houses have a higher net worth
than those groups that are renting. If the persons property rises in value then the person can
consume more against the value of their house because they have a larger stock of wealth. Those
who are renting are asset poor: this is a problem because a house can serve as a source of
collateral for which an individual can borrow money against. Those who need to borrow the
most likely do not have this form of tangible collateral to lend against and therefore would be
unable to obtain a loan with a suitable interest rate. It also highlights the fact that if certain ethnic
groups cannot afford to purchase a house, this represents another form of economic inequality
and disparity, as the White classes are able to afford more expensive houses or live in more
luxurious areas than their counterparts.

Figure 17. Quarterly Homeownership Rates 1994-2016, 2017. Retrieved from the National
Bureau of Economic Research.

Conclusion
Several areas of inequality were drawn upon in the investigative process in determining
whether economic inequality truly exists amongst minority groups in the US and UK. In the
investigative process, it was vital to be able to break down the socioeconomic status in regards to
the country it pertained to. In this research, it was obvious the range of socioeconomic status
varied, though many individuals may assume a socioeconomic class status is the same in all
areas of the world. Environmental factors play a dominant role in the determination of these
classifications, hence the need to analyze each of these areas on an individual basis. Once
understanding the breakdown of socioeconomic status in each of these countries, it was vital to
understand the breakdown of minority groups as they are also not the same in all areas of the
world. After each of these variables could be defined, conclusions could then be drawn based
upon the data provided from other academic sources. Each area investigated economic
inequality, political administration, health, housing, and education often referred to that of the
lower class or poverty level. In the US, the majority of those with a socioeconomic status of
poverty level were consistent over time in African American and Hispanic populations, as in the
UK, the minority populations were predominantly classified as Asian or Black. In turn, minority
groups were the ones most impacted by policy making over time and had much difficulty when
moving along the ladder of social mobility over time with lack of resources. Overall, the
outcome of the quality of life for minority groups is impacted significantly in regards to the
ladder of social mobility.
In summary, this paper has captured the economic inequality amongst ethnic groups and
the effect that being in a certain class has on life outcomes. It has addressed a number of
different areas: social, economic, health, housing, and political environment that take a different

angle of highlighting the same problem, which is inequality. Both in the US and UK we see a
wide disparity between ethnic groups in that ethnic groups are much more likely in both
countries to be living impoverished (based on income measures). We reveal that ethnic groups,
due to perhaps not being able to afford health insurance, are significantly less likely to obtain
health insurance and this helps to at least partially explain the differences in infant mortality for
example. However, to take a different measurement in health outcomes would likely obtain the
same results. Another determinant of poorer health outcomes is likely attributable to less
comfortable living conditions, as ethnic groups are less likely to live in under-occupied
residencies and are forced to cluster in unsafe, overcrowded living arrangements. Further, the
minority groups largely struggle to obtain the same grades (as shown by the GCSE and AP
results) most likely due to parents working, being in a poor overcrowded district or simply not
being able to afford a tutor, books etc. The effects of inequality are far-reaching and has a huge
impact on all areas of an individuals life and in aggregate will affect the performance of the
economy. Policies which help to close the income gap such as a redistributive tax on income
would help bring the Gini coefficient closer to perfect equality. In this way, parents would be
able to afford better living conditions, education for their children, and achieve their full
potential, on a more equitable and fair platform for the benefit of themselves and society.

Bibliography
Alba, R., & Yrizar Barbosa, G. (2016). Room at the top? Minority mobility and the transition to
demographic diversity in the USA. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 39(6), 917-938.
Atkinson. (2017). Inequality by Country: US & UK. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from
https://www.chartbookofeconomicinequality.com/
Ballas, D. (2004). Simulating trends in poverty and income inequality on the basis of 1991 and
2001 census data: a tale of two cities. Area, 36(2), 146-163.
Bukodi, E., Goldthorpe, J. H., Waller, L., & Kuha, J. (2015). The mobility problem in Britain:
new findings from the analysis of birth cohort data. British Journal Of Sociology, 66(1),
93-117.
Census 2001. (n.d.). Retrieved March 5, 2017, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/census_2001/html/ethnicity.stm
2011 Census analysis: Ethnicity and religion of the non-UK born population in England and
Wales: 2011. (2015, June 18). Retrieved March 5, 2017, from
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/article
s/2011censusanalysisethnicityandreligionofthenonukbornpopulationinenglandandwales/2
015-06-18
Champkin, J. (2014). The Champagne Glass Effect. Significance,11(1), 39-41.
doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2014.00726.x
Gideon, C. (2016). 'Of course we do': inequality, the family, and the spell of social mobility.
Soundings (13626620), (64), 117-127.

Gao, G. (2015, March 12). How do Americans stand out from the rest of the world? Retrieved
March 5, 2017, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/12/how-do-
americans-stand-out-from-the-rest-of-the-world/
Gilbert, D. (2015). The American Class Structure in an Age of Growing Inequality. Los Angeles,
Calif.: Sage.
Hero, R. E., & Levy, M. E. (2016). The Racial Structure of Economic Inequality in the United
States: Understanding Change and Continuity in an Era of "Great Divergence". Social
Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 97(3), 491-505.
Hopkin, J., & Alexander Shaw, K. (2016). Organized Combat or Structural Advantage? The
Politics of Inequality and the Winner-Take-All Economy in the United Kingdom*.
Politics & Society, 44(3), 345-371.
Lenton, P., & Mosley, P. (2014). Financial Exit Routes from the Poverty Trap: A Study of Four
UK Cities. Urban Studies, 51(4), 744-762. doi:10.1177/0042098013493024
Lynch, J. W., Kaplan, G. A., Pamuk, E. R., Cohen, R. D., Heck, K. E., Balfour, J. L., & Yen, I.
H. (1998). Income Inequality and Mortality in Metropolitan Areas of the United States.
American Journal Of Public Health, 88(7), 1074.
Mikucka, M., Sarracino, F., & Dubrow, J. K. (2017). When Does Economic Growth Improve
Life Satisfaction? Multilevel Analysis of the Roles of Social Trust and Income Inequality
in 46 Countries, 19812012. World Development, 93, 447-459.
doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.01.002
Model, S. (1999). Ethnic inequality in England: an analysis based on the 1991 Census. Ethnic &
Racial Studies, 22(6), 966-990.

Mullard, M. (2011). Explanations of the Financial Meltdown and the Present Recession. The
Political Quarterly,82(2), 204-221. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923x.2011.02180.x
Pierson, P. (2007). Dismantling the welfare state?: Reagan, Thatcher, and the politics of
retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Savage, M., Devine, F., & Cunningham, N. (2013). A New Model of Social Class:? Findings
from the BBC's Great British Class Survey Experiment. Sage,215(1), 219-250.
doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.651
Schaefer, R. (2013). Racial and Ethnic Groups . Pearson College Div.
Swanson, A. (2016, October 10). US social mobility might be even worse than you thought.
Retrieved March 5, 2017, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/us-social-
mobility-might-be-even-worse-than-you-thought

Academic Research Paper Final

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Academic Research Paper Final

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A

Comparison of Economic Inequalities 1

A Comparison of Economic Inequalities

Between Minority Groups in the United States and United Kingdom

University of South Carolina Columbia

depreciated overtime because of exposure to disadvantages in many areas pushing these

individuals to work harder compared to the majority.

majority in the US and UK?

A minority group is often described as a subordinate group whose members have

disproportionate opportunities when it comes to education, housing, economic necessities, and

Report (Champkin, 2014). It is referred to as a champagne graph because champagne is what

(p.41), by J.Champkin, 2014, Significance.

status in the US.

Socioeconomic Status in the

13% Middle Class

Structure in an Age of Growing Inequality by D. Gilbert, 2015.

According to a survey conducted by BBC in 2013, the UK is considered to be composed

science and business administration.

Socioeconomic Status in the

Technical Middle Class

New AfKluent Workers

Traditional Working Class

6% Emergent Service Sector

Structure in an Age of Growing Inequality by D. Gilbert, 2015.

Population in England and Wales, 2001

Population in England and Wales, 2011

2.2% Mixed/Multiple Ethnic

Population in the United States, 2000

12.3 American Indian and Alaska Native

Native Hawaiian and Other PaciKic

Two or More Races

Population in the United States, 2010

0.2 2.9 White

American Indian and Alaska

Native Hawaiian and Other

Two or More Races

administration, access to education, quality of housing, economic development and disposition of

Proportion of Households Earning Below 60% of Median

30% 23% 23% 24% 23% 23%

White Ethnic Minorities

from DWP, http://www.poverty.org.uk/.

Year White African Asian and Hispanic

Proportion Below Poverty Line by Ethnicity in the US

White African American Asian and PaciKic Islander Hispanic

at source). Data retrieved from the US Census https://www.census.gov/.

extrapolated), 2017. Retrieved from Chart Book of Economic Inequality.

liberal agenda of leadership in the US and UK (Hero, 2016).

US/UK Gini & Inequality Measures

US Gini UK Gini US Top 1% Share UK Top 1% Share

Retrieved from Chart Book of Economic Inequality.

Is it possible to attribute ethnic/socio-economic characteristics to those minority groups that have

observes statistics to monitor patterns in a variety of different theatres to attempt to make a

respectively. Whether immigration statistics play a role in helping to determine income,

approximate income inequality in the UK.

was hiring discrimination amongst employers, principally due to a lack of understanding of

different cultures (Model, 1999).

In determining a persons worth in society, it is vital to grasp an understanding of the role

considered an influential countercyclical tool in producing deficits in times of recessions and

Administration (1979 1990) distributed by disposable income. To understand this from a

States minority groups.

US/UK Gini CoefKicient for Reagan/Thatcher Administration

2017. Retrieved from Chart Book of Economic Inequality.

and contributing to sustained disparity in society (Lenton, 2014).