*Thought some mind find this interesting*
Nate
The Lagging Income of the Middle Class
By: James Surowiecki
Posted Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2000, at 4:20 p.m.
E-Mail This Article
Sign Up for Free E-Mail Auto-Delivery
The Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
issued a joint study today called "Pulling Apart" that shows, on a
state-by-state and national basis, that income inequality in the United
States has continued to worsen in the past decade, building on a trend that
began in the late 1970s. Although the report focuses attention on the huge
gap between the top fifth of income-earning families and the bottom fifth, a
gap worthy of Brazil, the more striking numbers delineate the widening gap
between the top fifth of income earners (and, within that group, the top 5
percent in particular) and everyone else.
Between the late 1970s and the late 1990s, for example, the top fifth saw
its average real income rise by about 35 percent, while the fourth fifth
(closest to the top) saw real income rise 13 percent, and the middle fifth
saw real income rise just 7 percent. As a result, the top fifth now averages
about twice as much as the second fifth, and three times as much as the
middle fifth.
Now, you might say to this, so what? In the first place, these groups are
not static. Not everyone in the top fifth in 1998 (the last year of the
study) was there in 1988, nor will everyone there in 1998 be there in 2008.
(Though a much higher percentage will be than won't.) In addition,
inequality itself is a tricky problem. If remedying inequality comes at the
expense of overall growth, then it's possible that the poor and middle class
will end up worse in absolute terms even if their relative position
improves.
In general, after all, the best remedy for poverty, and the best way to lift
people into the middle class, is not income redistribution but rather
economic growth. Although many critiques of globalization and free trade
depend, at least implicitly, on Marx's immiseration thesis, which held that
growth in a capitalist economy inevitably impoverished most while enriching
a few, the experience of most capitalist economies, and especially those in
the Third World, has demonstrated exactly the opposite. A 1996 World Bank
study of more than 30 fast-growing economies showed that in nearly all of
them, growth did not meaningfully change income distribution, and that even
the poorest fifth of income-earners reaped absolute benefits from economic
growth. (The study did show that in countries that adopted land reform
growth was more equitable.)
Unfortunately, the United States does not fit well into that study. On the
contrary, the remarkable thing is how narrow the benefits, even in absolute
terms, of the boom of the last 15 years have been. Remember, the middle
fifth of income-earning families saw its real income rise just 7 percent in
20 years, and just 2 percent in the last decade. The second fifth saw its
real income actually drop since the late 1980s, while the poorest fifth saw
its income stay relatively steady.
These statistics are, of course, subject to question. If the Consumer Price
Index really overstates inflation, then those real income numbers should be
higher. After-tax numbers, because the federal income tax is progressive,
would not be as striking. And the past couple of years have seen
real--although still small--wage increases for most workers, increases they
did not enjoy for most of the 1990s.
Still, the economic inequality we now have in the United States is of a
magnitude we have not witnessed since before the New Deal. And what's
remarkable is that it's happening at a time when unemployment is at historic
lows and when economic growth is much faster than most economists thought
possible. Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, pooh-poohing the new study,
said that the best solution to the problems it raises--assuming they are
problems--would be to cut the capital-gains tax, spurring greater
investment. But it seems implausible that putting more money in the stock
market or in venture capital funds will affect income inequality at all.
More to the point, if the economy grows any faster than it is now, Fed
Chairman Alan Greenspan will just slam on the brakes. In terms of growth and
employment, this is probably as good as it gets. And as good as it gets is
actually making income gaps wider, rather than narrowing them.
Whether economic inequality of the magnitude the United States now has
should matter to a society is, of course, a matter of principle, and not
logic. (Paul Krugman made a good case for its importance.) And we should not
let concern over inequality obscure the lessons of the last 20 years: the
virtues of deregulation, competition, entrepreneurship, and, above all, the
allocation of capital by markets, not planners. But as Congress heads into
its latest round of budget planning, and as Dubya tries to offer up his
latest "middle-class" tax cut, it's probably worth remembering who's
actually in the middle class, and whether those who are a long way out of it
really need yet another break.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:02:40 PST