Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Beyond Vietnam” speech touched upon the dangers of our nation’s increasing materialism, instructing us to “shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society.”

Years later, this idea is just as relevant, if not more so. Our nation is facing the potentially dangerous problem of income inequality. There are constantly debates over the topic of raising the minimum wage, and with good reason: Between 1979 and 2009, the wealthiest 5 percent of American families saw income increases of 72.7 percent, while the lowest income group in America saw a decrease of 7.4 percent in income. Meanwhile, in the same time frame, productivity has increased by 90 percent.

These issues combined have caused a huge wealth gap in America. This is primarily due, of course, to the selfish materialism of those higher-ups who prefer to have millions of dollars for themselves while the very citizens that work for them barely have enough to feed themselves.

While this conflict has not yet become violent, it could do so quickly. Think of the French Revolution in the 18th century. It was caused by the poor finally rebelling against the rich who oppressed them. Already, in the present, there are some forms of rebellion, albeit nonviolent. The Occupy Wall Street Movement has protested this income inequality.

While there are many different viewpoints on the subject, one solution to this issue is simple in theory: Those with more must give to those with less.

If the millionaire CEOs, whose incomes have more than quadrupled since the 1980s, would be willing to sacrifice some of their money so that the workers could just afford to live, the conflict could be solved. Raising the minimum wage and allowing workers a higher income is the simplest and easiest solution that would have good results for all. While it seems clear that this idea would not be