Tag Archives: income inequality

See America’s income inequality grow during 1979-2011, a driver of Campaign 2016

Summary: To understand this election we must see the accumulated stresses which produced the insurgencies in both parties. Rising income inequality — “the hollowing out” of the middle class and rise of the 1% — is probably the biggest, yet still poorly understood (until recently conservatives denied it). This great study by one of our top economists describes the dismal picture, essential for us to understand if we are to begin the reform of America.

Income growth by quintile — and by percentile for the top quintile

Income Growth 1979 - 2011

Growth of income and welfare in the U.S, 1979-2011

By John Komlos. Published by the NBER, April 2016
Excerpts. Red emphasis added.


{These} estimates have to be considered preliminary. Nonetheless, there are a few consistent patterns in which we have confidence that they will survive successive improvements.

These include most vividly what in the colloquial is referred to as the “hollowing out” of the middle class. The lower-middle class 2nd quintile and the middle class 3rd quintile fared the worst in all specifications: their income increased at a rate of between 0.1% and 0.7% per annum (Figure 1). In contrast, the only group whose income grew remarkably was the 5th quintile and especially the top 1% whose income registered an astonishing growth rate of between 3.4% and 3.9% per annum, reaching an average value of $918,000 by the end of the period under consideration.

Somewhat surprising is the consistently positive growth of the income of the lowest quintile. The poorest group registered an income growth estimated to be between 0.5% and 1%, i.e., consistently above that of the 2nd and 3rd quintiles, and equaling that of the 4th quintile (Figure 1). This is all the more surprising insofar as their net transfers decreased over time while those of the three middle class quintiles increased by as much as $9,000 per annum (Table 4).

… However, it is astounding that the relative income of the rest of the 5th quintile besides the top 1% did not experience such humongous growth. Only the top 1% increased enormously from a factor of 21 to a factor of 51, a surge of no less than 144%.

… Another recurring pattern is that the income of the 2nd and 3rd quintiles consistently lagged behind the other quintiles. This is referred to in conventional parlance as the “hollowing out of the middle class”. … According to the low estimates, it would take about 600 years for incomes in the 2nd quintile to double and on the order of a millennium for welfare to double. These are growth rates that are reminiscent of those that prevailed prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Continue reading

A guaranteed minimum income: faux solution for the new industrial revolution

Summary: Solutions are proposed as the shockwave of the new industrial revolution becomes visible on the horizon. Naturally, we first get small and comfortable ones — such as a guaranteed minimum income, which guarantee high and growing levels of inequality. We might even implement these, leaving the resulting social turmoil for the next generation. First of 2 posts about the GMI.

Our future if we distribute technology’s gains via welfare.
Well-fed, well-dressed menials bow before the aristocrats.

Servants Bowing to their betters

Photo by ullstein bild via Getty Images.

First, the new industrial revolution was debunked. When it become too obvious to ignore, the coming destruction of jobs was denied. Now that too has become obvious — so attention turns to easy solutions. Most commonly recommended is a guaranteed minimum income — a greatly expanded welfare system. For example…

Productivity has risen, but the gains went to profits (not workers ), then flowed through to the top few percent of households, leaving little for the rest.

Continue reading

The battle of institutions vs. technology = rising wage inequality

Summary: Although denied for years, by now rising inequality is acknowledge even by conservatives — so the debate shifts to its causes and remedies. The “standard” answer points to the “invisible hand” of “market forces”. New cutting edge research shows that this defense, much like the earlier denials, does not match the facts. This post excerpts from a important new paper by Tali Kristal and Yinon Cohen in Socio-Economic Review.We cannot fix what we do not understand.

Scales of Income Inequality

The causes of rising wage inequality:
the race between institutions and technology

Tali Kristal and Yinon Cohen, Socio-Economic Review, in press
Excerpt posted with the authors’ generous permission


Many inequality scholars view skill-biased technological change — the computerization of workplaces that favours high-skilled workers — as the main cause of rising wage inequality in America, while institutional factors are generally relegated to a secondary role.

The evidence presented in this article, however, does not support this widely held view. Using direct measures for computers and pay-setting institutions at the industry level, this article provides the first rigorous analysis of the independent effect of technological and institutional factors on rising wage inequality.

Analysing data on 43 US industries between 1968 and 2012, we find that declining unions and the fall in the real value of the minimum wage explain about half of rising inequality, while computerization explains about one-quarter. This suggests that much of rising inequality in the USA is driven by worker disempowerment rather than by market forces — a finding that can resolve the puzzle on the diverging inequality trends in USA and Europe.
Continue reading