The world will never be completely equal. And maybe it shouldn’t be — let me explain.

Egalitarianism, the idea of equality for all, certainly seems morally right. Or at least “inequality” seems offensive or wrong. After all, inequality often carries the weight of injustice, exclusion, and privilege. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: Not all inequality is inherently the enemy.

A functioning society requires some degree of inequality — ideally economically. While inequality based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is unjust, not every hierarchy is harmful. Some social stratification exists to incentivize work, reward talent, and motivate ambition.

Monetary motivation is dependent on the culture of a nation, and in the U.S., financial success is tied to identity and self-worth. In a study of human behavior, more than half of American participants quit an assigned task when there was no monetary incentive to continue, yet in Mexico, 90 percent of the participants continued completing the task. This suggests that financial incentives take precedence over psychological needs in the U.S., playing a crucial role in productivity.

So, perhaps the issue isn’t inequality itself but the degree of it.

In terms of economic prosperity,about 61 percent of Americans believe there is “too much” economic inequality, with the wealth gap between the upper class and lower class continuing to widen. And generationally, people are either getting poorer or making no progress on the social ladder. In fact, in Iowa City, the change in income between citizens born in 1978 and those born in 1992 decreased by 4.6 percent.

“We first must see whether there is a change in inequality every four years,” University of Iowa Economics Professor Hennadige Thenuwara said. “Some government administrations like to take certain actions, like cutting taxes to benefit the rich. Through such fiscal policy, some hope there will be trickle-down effects to the masses and will stimulate the economy. But the question is whether it happens or not.”

It doesn’t. The “trickle-down effect” has proven to make matters worse, as the middle class continues to slowly disappear in the U.S. Although this has spread a sense of discomfort among Americans, there is still an absence of urgency of addressing it. Only about 40 percent of Americans believe tackling economic inequality should be a
top priority.

Yet, President Donald Trump won the 2024 election with his “economic policy.” If American voters are concerned about the economy, why do their concerns not extend to those living in economic poverty?

The Trump administration’s funding cuts and his increased tariffs have already set a precedent for greater economic impact – with the privileged scrambling to protect their wealth and status.

We might say we value equality, but we also value advantage — especially when it’s ours. Because people thrive on inequality.

Or, to clarify, advantaged people thrive on an excess of inequality.

To them, equity — the idea of giving more support to those who need it — feels like a threat. It’s viewed through a zero-sum lens: If someone gains, someone else must lose. And when you’re the one at the top, that loss
feels personal.

In a perfect world, we would only need to strive for equality. But we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in one shaped by history, power, and self-interest. Poverty could very well be mitigated through policy, but when it is the advantaged in charge of making such change, there will always be a gap.

Take affirmative action, for example. The goal of it was to counteract systematic exclusion of minorities in education and employment. It sought to level the playing field not by granting unfair advantages but by recognizing that not everyone starts from the same place. It was a move toward equity — not just equality.

Yet, the backlash was severe. As of 2023, only 30 percent of total Americans approve of affirmative action. And the highest amount of disapproval was shown by white people, at almost 60 percent.

Their primary concern was the belief that affirmative action only benefits people of color at the expense of white Americans. The same concern is applied to raising the minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage is a clear step toward economic equity. But efforts to do so are frequently met with the argument that it will hurt businesses, raise prices, or “reward laziness.” Even some middle-income workers resist, feeling they’ve “earned” their way above minimum wage and don’t want others to “catch up” without the same struggle. About 38 percent of Americans oppose the increase of minimum wage to $15 an hour, and among them, white Americans are most opposed at 48 percent.

If it isn’t clear enough, I’ll reiterate. The common denominator in the opposition of these policies and others like them is privilege—and the instinct to protect it, especially by those
in power.

“In the end, it is about whether economic policies are effective or ineffective,” Thenuwara said.

But when political officials refuse to pass legislation to directly meet economic needs, effectiveness becomes irrelevant. By then, it is a matter of power and desire.