> Even after taxes and transfers, there has been close to zero growth for working-age adults in the bottom 50% of the distribution since 1980. The aggregate flow of individualized government transfers has increased,but these transfers are largely targeted to the elderly and the middle-class (individuals above the median and below the 90th percentile). Transfers that go to the bottom 50% of earners havenot been large enough to lift their incomes significantly."
> "... our data show a sharp divergence in the growth experienced by the bottom 50% versus the rest of the economy. The average pretax income of the bottom 50% of adults has stagnated at about $16,000 per adult (in constant 2014 dollars ...) . As a result, the bottom 50% income share has collapsed from about 20% in 1980 to 12% in 2014. In the meantime, the average pretax income of top 1% adults rose from $420,000 to about $1.3 million, and their income share increased from about 12% in the early 1980s to 20% in 2014. The two groups have essentially switched their income shares, with eight points of national income transferred from the bottom 50% to the top 1%. The top 1% income share is now almost twice as large as the bottom 50% share, a group that is by definition 50 times more numerous. In 1980, top 1% adults earned on average 27 times more than bottom 50% adults before tax, while they earn 81 times more today. Second, government redistribution has offset only a smallfraction of the increase in pretax inequality."
In what way does it matter that Warren Buffet has X times my income and Y times my assets, if he drives the same kind of car and lives in about the same kind of house? It means he has more power than me in a capitalistic system, sure. But is that really so wrong or unfair? I think it’s actually kind of a good thing: most people would just consume like crazy and ruin the planet if they came into that kind of money...
At what age can you retire?
Can you afford education for yourself and your children? Can you afford the home in the district with the good schools? How much debt will you and your children be in after finishing college?
What are the odds you go bankrupt from a medical incident, even with "insurance"?
"Consumption" of cars, electronics, restaurant meals, etc. are not the really significant economic expenditures in a persons life. It's those big items that create debt slaves and crippling economic anxiety.
Let me pick on that one in particular. Let's suppose that we redistributed all the assets in the country evenly (never mind how). Doing so did not increase the number of homes in districts with good schools. So not everyone can have them, no matter how much money everyone has. Who's going to get those houses? Not everyone who has school-aged kids.
Or take college. Redistribute all the money, and it won't change the number of college classrooms. Who's going to get to go? Not everyone.
Same with beach houses. There are more people who want beach houses than there are beach houses. Redistribute all assets evenly, and it may change who has the beach houses, but it won't change the fact that more people want them than have them.
If everyone had the same amount of money, these things would still be allocated on the basis of who's willing to pay the most for them - that is, who's willing to give up the most other things in order to get that thing.
Remove money entirely, and these things will still be allocated somehow - by who gets luckiest in the lottery, or who has the best political connections, for example. There is no system that magically makes there be as many beach houses as there are people who want them. So there will always be the problem of how scarce resources are allocated.
Though that's arguably a better situation from the equality perspective. Right now we have people who are allocated everything they want and others who are allocated none of what they need. Taking redistribution to a monomaniacal extreme is probably a bad idea for well understood reasons, but that doesn't mean that redistribution doesn't have its place.
Education is counted in measures of consumption.
Can you afford the home in the district with the good schools?
Housing is counted in measures of consumption.
How much debt will you and your children be in after finishing college?
To the extent that this debt reduces one's ability to purchase other things, it's counted in measures of consumption.
Yes, yes, none, and none.
All of those relatives come from countries with massive inequality (compared to mid 20th century), no wealth taxes, and paltry inheritance taxes.
Don’t confuse America’s exceptional dysfunction with a failure of capitalism.
Crazy to think we might consume ourselves into fundamentally altering our ecosystem and causing mass migrations and death if we didn't have all of those rich guys around.
Where does that leave democracy?
> I think it’s actually kind of a good thing: most people would just consume like crazy and ruin the planet if they came into that kind of money...
That bears a striking resemblance to some anti-democratic rhetoric I've seen. For instance, one of the rationales the CCP gives for the lack of multi-party democracy in China is that the Chinese people would use their political power irresponsibly, so it's better for everyone that the [insert positive adjectives here] party have a monopoly on political power.
> if he drives the same kind of car and lives in about the same kind of house?
Most wealthy people don't behave like Warren Buffet.
> It means he has more power than me in a capitalistic system
Which allows him to shape the system however he chooses, and as is the case this is usually in favor of the power holder.
> But is that really so wrong or unfair? I think it’s actually kind of a good thing: most people would just consume like crazy and ruin the planet if they came into that kind of money...
In other words, poor people can't be trusted with money so they should remain poor and deprived?
If you honestly believe that people can't be trusted with their money then why not have a system where people aren't as reliant on money? (e.g. free health care, free basic housing, free public transportation) In such a system you don't have to worry about people abusing wealth they can't control.
These are not nitpicks. What you measure drastically changes the results. Piketty and Saez presented their own revision to their data in 2018 that shows starkly different results than the 2013 data everyone cites: http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/PSZ2018QJE.pdf
For example figure 3 shows that when you account for tax transfers, the bottom 50%’s share of income is only a few points lower than in 1960, though significantly lower than the peak of about 25% in 1970. It also shows that, contrary to common assertions, the bottom 50% income has grown consistently since 1960 adjusted for inflation. Figure 1 shows that the labor share of income has been flat since 1940 when you account for benefits. (Put another way, capital’s share of income is flat.)
The data about returns to capital are particularly important. Supporters of wealth taxes and capital taxes tend to point to rising inequality as the justification for such approaches. But if the returns to capital aren’t increasing as a fraction of the economy, that argument gets harder. Of course there may be other arguments in favor of such taxes, but those seem less well developed.
The point the Economist article makes well is that inequality is hard to measure, and the simple definition used by Piketty and Saez’s initial analysis is inadequate. For example, there is a whole school of libertarian thought that, even if you believe the government should be in the business of redistribution, the best approach is to maximize growth through a free, deregulated economy and then tax individual incomes to provide generous welfare benefits. Most of the developed world has moved in that direction over the last 30 years. Under Piketty and Saez’s 2013 model, which excludes tax transfers, you can’t accurately describe inequality in a country that uses such a model.
Moreover, there are additional analyses showing that, when you look at consumption rather than income (which accounts for both tax transfers and falling prices from globalization) inequality is basically unchanged since the 1970s: https://voxeu.org/article/consumption-and-income-inequality-.... That is to say, the bottom 10% get to consume about the same fraction of total production as they did half a century ago. Of course there are downsides to consumption measures too, insofar as the data is sparser for incomes at the top. (The measure above includes money spent on mortgages for mansions, but not private yachts, for example.)
But just because something is easy to measure (pre-tax income) doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to measure!