Final answer:
Wealth inequality in the United States is deemed by some as not detrimental because it's thought to motivate individuals to pursue the American Dream and contribute to the economy. Relative poverty in the U.S. refers to less wealth relative to the wealthiest, not a lack of basic necessities. Concerns about the impacts of redistributive policies also play a role in this perspective.
Step-by-step explanation:
Wealth inequality in the United States is a complex issue. Some argue that wealth inequality is not detrimental because it reflects a system where individuals can work hard and achieve the American Dream. The idea is that by having the potential for large income and wealth accumulation, it motivates individuals to innovate and contribute positively to the economy. This links to the notion of relative poverty in the U.S., which refers to having less wealth compared to the wealthiest in society, rather than absolute poverty, which denotes a lack of basic necessities to live.
Moreover, many Americans are reluctant to support redistributive policies over fears it might undermine this dream. They worry that such policies could lead to their hard-earned success being taken away. The Federal Reserve Bank's Survey of Consumer Finance, which is published every three years, gives us quantitative data on wealth distribution and allows us to measure inequality through tools like quintile measurements. It shows that wealth distribution is indeed more unequal than income distribution due to the accumulation of income disparities over time.
Nevertheless, it's essential to recognize that the argument about whether wealth inequality is detrimental depends largely on personal values and perspectives on the fairness and functionality of the economic system.