Income inequality is not a bad thing

I challenge to rebutt the arguments for round 2 by Pro. 1. Pro says in his first argument that ``so it is in a free society. People are different in many ways- in their values, their work ethic, their talent, their choices, etc. Why is it that we expect them to get the same results ? `` I believe the important thing is that a free society is a society, in which a social justice is difficult to maintain. We understand that we live in a free and capitalistic society, in which we can find a fierce competition among people to get higher wages and higher social status. As a result, a winner and a loser emerge and the income inequality takes place. However, this is not a reasonable and acceptable for creating a sound, peaceful, democratic and socially justified society. Pro expresses his opinion about immigrants. For example, the United States accepts many immigrants from all over the world. He says that ``both the entrepreneur and the hard- working immigrants are engaging in perfectly reasonable, legal, ethical behaviour that increases the economic output of society.`` It is true that they have been contributing to the vitality and competitiveness of American economy for many years. However, we must keep in mind that some of the immigrants can not suceed in attaining their American Dreams. Low-skilled, less educated immigrants must accept unreasonable labor conditions and low-wages. Therefore, this situation produces income inequality. Moreover, it triggers social unrest and anti-social movements which we have seen in many big cities in the world recently. For example, Occupy Movement is fresh in our memory. The slogan was ``We are the 99percent.`` As Pro says, ``individual incomes, determined by no single authority but by millions of free and voluntary transactions.`` This is a destiny of a free society. Income gap between the rich and the poor is widening. This is socially bad and detrimental to the welfare of many people. Therefore, the authority like the government must offer a livelihood protection to help the poor people who are urgently seeking for economic and financial aid. 2. Pro argues in his second argument that ``there used to be a time when only the rich could afford refrigerators, air conditioning and TVs- things that can really improve a person`s standard of living-, but that time is long gone. Capitalism and mass production have made all of these things affordable to the lower classes.`` It seems this opinion is wrong. For example, these days the lower classes in America receive less wages and unstable employment opportunity. Many of them are part-time workers or the unemployed. Therefore, they are compelled to spend less and unfortunately their propensity to saving is very low. So, they can not afford expensive goods which the rich people can get. Moreover, Pro points out that ``it is consumption, not income, which determines material well-being.`` In my opinion, higher and stable income is basically indispensable for material well-being. They are foundation for stable consumption. 3. Pro points out in his third argument that income inequality often makes the rich poorer and the poor poorer. When this situation takes place, the rich face a less serious situation than the poor. The reason is that the rich tend to have more savings and other financial assets like land or real estate. On the other hand the poor have less savings. If serious recession or financial crisis might happen, the life of many poor people would be broken down. The poor is seriously damaged mentally and physically. For example, in the U.S. ``from 1980 to 2010, income inequality increased. The top 20percent of earners in the U.S. in 2010 earned almost 50percent of the total income while the bottom 15percent earned less than 4percent.``(http://www.businessdictionary.com....) The important thing is that income inequality is bad for a society. We must keep in mind that a free society has a potentiality that economic and social disparity between the rich and the poor emerge.