Public Healthcare
The United States Gini Index of 0.415 indicates that there is significant inequity taking place in the country, meaning equity is the macroeconomic goal the United States isn't achieving. The United States, as a whole, experiences great income and wealth disparity among its citizens, with the gap only continuing to increase. According to data collected by CNN, the top 1% in the United States currently hold 38.6% of the nation's wealth, up from 33.7% in 2007. Meanwhile, the bottom 90% now hold only 22.8% of the nation's wealth, down from 28.5% in 2007. In order to take action against such growing inequity, the United States could expand its policies to provide Universal Healthcare. The United States does offer some medical care to its poorest citizens through its Medicaid program, but it doesn't offer a publicly funded healthcare system to all its citizens, despite the fact that healthcare is a merit good, so providing it for those of low income as well as those in poverty will result in more equity taking place in a country. The downside of providing such a program, however, is financing. Since the federal government cut tax rates on various income brackets, it would likely struggle to find the revenue needed to fund free healthcare for all its citizens, as income tax revenues act as the government's biggest source of income. If the United States government were able to find other sources of income, introducing a public healthcare system will be effective in improving its 0.415 Gini Index , as seen in the diagram representing equity in the United States. The implementation of a public healthcare system will result in a shift of the United States equity line from L1 to L2, bringing total equity in the United States closer to the 45° line representing Perfect Equity, as a greater share of income in the country will be spread to a larger proportion of the population.
Government Subsidies
In order to ensure the unemployment rate in the United States continues to decrease, the United States government could subsidize firms in states with proportionally large unemployment rates. Subsidies by the United States government will reduce firms costs of production, leading to an increased number of people in the area being hired. The United States could specifically subsidize firms in the state's biggest industries, as they will have a large potential to grow. According to the United States Department of Labor, the states with the highest unemployment rates are Alaska, West Virginia, and New Mexico, as all three of them have rates above 5%, compared to the national rate of 3.9%. Subsidizing various firms in the major industries of these three states will therefore contribute to bringing the state unemployment rate down and hence the national unemployment rate. A possible downside of government subsidies, however, is the fact that it will likely lead to firms being inefficient in the industrial process, as they will not be as motivated to reduce costs and increase output. In addition to that, if the government chooses to go through with the subsidies it will have an opportunity cost, as the money used to subsidies these firms could have been spent to fund other projects. In spite of these possible downsides, the overall effect of government subsidies on unemployment in these three states is positive, evident in the diagram representing unemployment in West Virginia. Currently, the aggregate demand for labor in the state stands at ADL1, leading to a small number of workers being hired at Q1. With the government subsidies, assuming the aggregate supply of labor remains constant at ASL, the aggregate demand for labor will increase to ADL2, leading to a larger number of workers being hired at Q2.