The editors of the Washington Post remark on income inequality in the United States:
Consider the distribution of income across the entire spectrum. This is often measured by the Gini index, which represents how the actual distribution of income deviates from the line of perfect equality, where everybody gets the same. It ranges from zero in a perfectly uniform society to 1 in a society in which all income accrues to the top dog. Mr. Auten and Mr. Splinter estimated that between 1970 and 2019, America’s Gini rose from about 0.42 to 0.54, before taxes and transfers. Including the effect of government redistribution, it rose from 0.35 to 0.42.
This speaks well for American redistribution — pushing back against market forces driving up inequality. But the numbers are also pretty similar to preexisting work. The Luxembourg Income Study, which estimates inequality based on survey data (rather than official government data, as Mr. Auten, Mr. Piketty et al. do), finds that the U.S. Gini index rose from 0.40 to 0.51 before taxes and transfers over this period and from 0.32 to 0.39 after redistribution is added in.
America’s story might be due for some reinterpretation. Perhaps the very rich do not take quite as large a slice of the pie as many thought. Still, the “new†version of the United States remains a remarkably unequal place, more so than most other industrialized countries. According to data from the Luxembourg study, Norway’s Gini, after adding in taxes and transfers, is 0.28; Canada’s is 0.29, Germany’s is 0.30 and Britain’s is 0.30. Of the 38 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only four are more unequal: Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico and Turkey.
I have a number of thoughts on this. The first and, possibly, the most important is what is fair? Are equal and fair the same thing?
Let’s say there are two workers with the same job titles and responsibilities. The first comes in late, leaves early, and is slapdash in his work. The second comes in early, leaves late, and is unfailingly conscientious. They’re paid the same amount. That is equal. Is it fair?
Second, I was unaware that Norway, Canada, Germany, or Britain shared 2,000 mile land borders countries where the typical household income was a quarter theirs. In fact I believe we are the only country in the world with that distinction. It’s not too much of a leap to suspect that has some impact on incomes at both the low and high ends.
Third, we import very large numbers of very intelligent, highly educated, hardworking people into the United States at wages considerably higher than in their country of origin. That, too, is bound to have some impact on incomes both at the high end and the low end.
All of that said I will admit to being very uncomfortable with the incredibly high incomes being realized by some. When they can be related to supply, demand, and output, that’s completely reasonable. When it can’t it isn’t and that will be the case far too frequently. I have no idea how to remedy that but I’m open to suggestions. Please don’t suggest the tax system. If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the last 40 years it’s that our political leaders are allergic to taking money away from their donors. At least without giving them even more.
1) You should always look at income AND wealth inequality.
2) I am not sure how much of the increase in inequality is due the wealthy having more money of having more poor people. Think its the former but to sure.
3) We have to have some inequality otherwise few would work or work very hard. It’s mostly about the degree of it. It’s pretty clear that once people are up in the billions they can singlehandedly control a lot of govt policy and a lot of the media.
Steve
My point is that the two are interrelated. One of the reasons the gazillionaires are gazillionaires is that people at the low end are being paid less because there are more of them. That increases corporate profitability which leads to people bidding stock prices up and rising stock prices are a good part of why the ultra-wealthy are ultra-wealthy.
Most people are sheep.
Manoj Bhargava is a billionaire who sold millions of folks next to nothing at $3 a pop, hour after hour, day after day.
Having about the same effect as a cup of coffee, five hour energy shots are successful in the main because of aggressive marketing, especially payments for product placement, which is not new but I suspect he was able to outbid competitors because of higher profit margin.
No one needed the product, they could have kept their money in their pockets but, most people don’t make the connection between incremental savings and future prosperity.
Americans are poor people who spend a lot of money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-hour_Energy
Grey is right that there is a behavioral aspect. That is where there is a breakdown between fairness and equality.
Yes, Grey is correct. The poor also spend disproportionately on alcohol, cigarettes, lotto tickets and potato chips. Should others be forced to have their income redirected to pay for this?
You can’t solve income or post income inequalities, under the false guise of fairness, but in defiance of human nature and personal choice.