It's also worth pointing out that percents are zero sum, meaning for an extra percentage point to go into any bin, it means another bin has to lose this percentage point. For income, though, if person A gets a dollar raise, no one has to take a pay cut of a dollar.
Ken
· 1 year ago
It's also worth pointing out that percents are zero sum, meaning for an extra percentage point to go into any bin, it means another bin has to lose this percentage point. For income, though, if person A gets a dollar raise, no one has to take a pay cut of a dollar.
dave smith
· 1 year ago
I don't understand (ok, I do) why demographics don't completely dominate any discussion of income inequality.
Another fact in the last 20 ro 30 years would be the delay of marriage that creates many one income households in the low income range.
Mesa Econoguy
· 1 year ago
Thanks Russ.
Please see here for a far better explanation than mine....
Very interesting debate!
spencer
· 1 year ago
Actually demographics should have produced a rise in average income over the last 30-40 years. The biggest change in income stems from people aging and because of the aging of the baby boomers the average age of the population has been rising since 1960.
floccina
· 1 year ago
Spencer are considering the fact that there are more retired people now.
esoxlucius
· 1 year ago
WOOHOO! I win the kindle. Or was it a scholarship to GMU, I can't remember...
Charlie
· 1 year ago
"The main factor, presumably, is an increase in the divorce rate over the period."
Whoops, another victim of the divorce myth. Here is Justin Wolfers setting you straight at MR.
This is really good. Should we now expect he-who-shall-not-be-named to update his blog entry, LOL???
Dave
· 1 year ago
Charlie, the divorce rate may be declining, but a smaller percentage of adults are getting married in the first place. So, the point that fewer adults are cohabiting, which is what is relevant here, could still be valid, even if it wasn't phrased correctly.
Sorry about the multiple postings. Technical differences over here.
Charlie
· 1 year ago
"How important is this effect? I don't know."
-Russ
Are you just making a methodological complaint or are you arguing that inequality hasn't risen over the period in question?
If it is the latter, if I post data showing increases in within group inequality, will that change your opinion at all? Will you have a post saying "Inequality has risen"?
My point is that the answere to the question I quote at the top is known. If presented with that new data, will you opinions/beliefs about anything change?
Charlie
SteveO
· 1 year ago
And I get nothing. I will go hang my head in shame.
Congrats LCJoe.
Dr. T
· 1 year ago
I was surprised that you ignored my observation: the entire metric (gross income) is poor. The true metric should be adjusted income (income + government subsidies - all taxes).
The main point about changes in household composition is important, too, but using the wrong income measure is, in my opinion, a bigger problem.
Martin Brock
· 1 year ago
Decreasing household size accounts for some of the decline in the rate of increase in household income for the bottom 90%. I've made this point myself for years. The starkest change in the chart is the ten-fold increase in the rate of increase for the income of the top one percent, and Russ hardly addresses this change at all. Why is that? Discussing the income of very wealthy people is simply taboo?
All Comments
It's also worth pointing out that percents are zero sum, meaning for an extra percentage point to go into any bin, it means another bin has to lose this percentage point. For income, though, if person A gets a dollar raise, no one has to take a pay cut of a dollar.
It's also worth pointing out that percents are zero sum, meaning for an extra percentage point to go into any bin, it means another bin has to lose this percentage point. For income, though, if person A gets a dollar raise, no one has to take a pay cut of a dollar.
I don't understand (ok, I do) why demographics don't completely dominate any discussion of income inequality.
Another fact in the last 20 ro 30 years would be the delay of marriage that creates many one income households in the low income range.
Thanks Russ.
Please see here for a far better explanation than mine....
Very interesting debate!
Actually demographics should have produced a rise in average income over the last 30-40 years. The biggest change in income stems from people aging and because of the aging of the baby boomers the average age of the population has been rising since 1960.
Spencer are considering the fact that there are more retired people now.
WOOHOO! I win the kindle. Or was it a scholarship to GMU, I can't remember...
"The main factor, presumably, is an increase in the divorce rate over the period."
Whoops, another victim of the divorce myth. Here is Justin Wolfers setting you straight at MR.
"URL Label"
"The main factor, presumably, is an increase in the divorce rate over the period."
Whoops, another victim of the divorce myth. Here is Justin Wolfers setting you straight at MR.
"URL Label"
This is really good. Should we now expect he-who-shall-not-be-named to update his blog entry, LOL???
Charlie, the divorce rate may be declining, but a smaller percentage of adults are getting married in the first place. So, the point that fewer adults are cohabiting, which is what is relevant here, could still be valid, even if it wasn't phrased correctly.
This is the link cited in the comments at MR for data.
"The main factor, presumably, is an increase in the divorce rate over the period."
Whoops, another victim of the divorce myth. Here is Justin Wolfers setting you straight at MR.
"URL Label"
"The main factor, presumably, is an increase in the divorce rate over the period."
Whoops, another victim of the divorce myth. Here is Justin Wolfers setting you straight at MR.
"URL Label"
Sorry about the multiple postings. Technical differences over here.
"How important is this effect? I don't know."
-Russ
Are you just making a methodological complaint or are you arguing that inequality hasn't risen over the period in question?
If it is the latter, if I post data showing increases in within group inequality, will that change your opinion at all? Will you have a post saying "Inequality has risen"?
My point is that the answere to the question I quote at the top is known. If presented with that new data, will you opinions/beliefs about anything change?
Charlie
And I get nothing. I will go hang my head in shame.
Congrats LCJoe.
I was surprised that you ignored my observation: the entire metric (gross income) is poor. The true metric should be adjusted income (income + government subsidies - all taxes).
The main point about changes in household composition is important, too, but using the wrong income measure is, in my opinion, a bigger problem.
Decreasing household size accounts for some of the decline in the rate of increase in household income for the bottom 90%. I've made this point myself for years. The starkest change in the chart is the ten-fold increase in the rate of increase for the income of the top one percent, and Russ hardly addresses this change at all. Why is that? Discussing the income of very wealthy people is simply taboo?