Post on 22-Jul-2020
Income inequality and American business
Christopher JencksHarvard Kennedy School
HBS Discussion on 2/13/2014
2Sources: Economic Report of the President, 2013; Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P-60,-245, Table A-2.
Growth of median household income and per capita personal income: 1969 to 2012 (1969 = 100)
104111
121 120110
128
159
189
223 223
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
1969 1979 1989 1999 2009
2007 2012
Adjusting for inflation, mean personal income per capita more than doubled between 1967 and 2007, while median family income rose 20%
3
Median income was lower in 2012 than in 1989
$48,520 $51,681 $56,080 $55,627$46,449
$51,071
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
1969 1979 1989 1999 2009
Median income at business cycle peaks:1969 to 2007
Annual increase: 1969-2007 = 0.48% 1969-2012 = 0.22%
(in 2012 CPI-U=RS dollars)
(2012)
4
Is our problem inequality or poverty? Lately, both.Two measures of bottom quintile's mean income: Purchasing power and ratio to population mean
(both shown as percent of 1967 level)
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
1967
= 1
00
142
119108
80
1974-76
Purchasing power(1967 = 100)
Ratio to overall mean(1967 = 100)
1999
1967 mean = $9,419. Share of total personal income = 4.0%. Source: CPS, Series P-60-167, Table B-2 .
5
Household income is more unequalthan hourly wages
90/50 ratio 50/10 ratio
1973
All households 2.08 2.85
M&F Wages 1.91 1.91
2007
All households 2.49 3.43
M&F Wages 2.33 1.94
Wage data from Economic Policy Institute
Household inequality from 40,000 feetCPS Gini coefficients for US households'
pretax money income: 1967 to 2012
Gini = (0.0015)x(Year) - 2.6241r = 0.979
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
Gin
i coe
ffici
ent
0.4160.477
Measurement changes
Published for 1967-92
Adjusted to match post-1993 series* Published for 1993-2012
* Neither CBO nor IRS data suggest that inequality rose between 1992 and 1993, so the 4.8% increase in the CPS Gini between 1992 and 1993 is probably all spurious. The adjusted estimates inflated all pe-1993 Ginis by 4.8%.
Trend in 90/50 ratio: Rising skill premiums?
90/50 income ratios for households, by age: 1967 to 2012
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
Rat
io
90/50 ratio:Age 18 and over
90/50 ratio:Children under 18
2.682.54
2.06
1.89
Measurement changes
Ratios are based on percentiles of total household income, adjusted for household size by dividing total household income by tgher square root of household size. Household income is converted into 2012 dollars using the Implicit Price Deflator for Personal Consumption Expenditure from the National Income and Product Accounts. Source: Tabulations by Anny Fenton using the March Current Population Survey. File=Fenton CPS ratios with Jan 2014 AF edits (65+ head of HH incl) 011014 FINAL.
50/10 ratio: Less marriage? Lower male wages?50/10 household income ratios for individuals, by age: 1967 to 2012
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
Rat
io
Children under 18
Adults 18 and over
3.44
4.11
2.93
2.66
Measurement changes
4.38
3.26
Ratios are based on percentiles of total household income. Incomes are adjusted for household size by dividing total household income by tgher square root of household size. Household income is converted into 2012 dollars using the Implicit Price Deflator for Personal Consumption Expenditure from the National Income and Product Accounts. Source: Tabulations by Anny Fenton using the March Current Population Survey.
9
The return of the super-rich: Globalization? Computers? Tax cuts? Deregulation? Insider trading? A culture of risk-taking? And greed??
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Rat
io to
mea
n fo
r all
hous
ehol
ds
Top 0.1 percent
Next 0.9 percent
Source: Paris Top Incomes Database. Paris detailed percentiles for US (HBS Fig 3)
12.76.5
11.7
Ratio of pretax personal income means within the top one percent to the mean for all households, excluding capital gains: 1923-2012
55
19
1973
8882
19282012
10
5
5
5
3
21
17
14
8
7
6
27Spain
Italy
France
Great Britain
Germany
Sweden
Australia
United States
Norway
Canada
Netherlands
Ratio of those who agree or agree strongly to those who disagree or disagree strongly that "income differences in this country are too large."
How do ordinary citizens feel about all this?
11
Market Gini
Disposable Gini
Percent reduction
Sweden 2000 0.375 0.238 36.5Finland 2000 0.352 0.233 33.8Denmark 1997 0.345 0.237 31.3Norway 2000 0.337 0.236 30.0Germany 2000 0.360 0.254 29.4Australia 1994 0.396 0.293 26.0Great Britain 1999 0.450 0.341 24.2Canada 2000 0.380 0.300 21.1United States 2000 0.436 0.363 16.7Switzerland 1992 0.332 0.297 10.5
MEAN 0.376 0.290 23.0
How have legislators responded? Reduction in market income inequality among working-age households due to taxes and transfers in ten rich democracies
Source: Kenworthy and Pontusson (2006)
12
Effects of rising inequality in rich democracies
Economic growthShort-term: small but positive. Long-term: unclear
EmploymentHaven’t found (or done) any research
Life expectancySmall but negative cross-nationally in LISEffects limited to infants and males 35-59?
13
Effects of rising inequality in rich democracies
Disparities in children’s economic prospects.
Strong theoretical reasons to expect less mobility when parents resources are more unequal.
But no good evidence of such effects so far.
Maybe too soon to say.
14
Effects of rising inequality in rich democracies
Disparities in children’s test scoresWider in more unequal countries, but effect
of within-country changes is unclear.Widened a lot in US for post-1980 cohorts.
Mostly due to rising absolute effect of parental income, not to change in parental income dispersion.
Macro versus micro effects of inequality
15
Effects of rising inequality in rich democracies
Disparities in political influenceMeltzer-Richard theorem predicts that demand for
redistributive government spending will rise as the fraction of voters with incomes below the mean rises, but
1. Rising inequality allows the very rich to exert more influence on the political views of the less affluent (Fox News) and politicians (K Street).
2. Rising inequality may lower turnout more among the less affluent. Passivity, vote suppression, disenfranchisement of felons, no path to citizenship.
16
Political effects of high inequality in the past
If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it.
Woodrow Wilson (1913:286)
We must make our choice. We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.
Louis Brandeis, quoted in Dillard (1941)
17
An agenda for the private sector
1. It is unreasonable to expect most businesses not to pursue profits or to give away a larger share of profits than the law or the market requires to either workers or good causes.
2. However, a democratic government’s job is not to maximize business profits but to protect the public interest. That inevitably means making rules that limit what business can do by regulating wages, hours, safety, labor unions, and other business practices.
18
An agenda for the private sector3. If business does not like being seen as a predatory
enterprise, it needs to accept such rules as a legitimate feature of democracy.
4. It also needs to refrain from trying to undermine or change such rules covertly.
5. Business should not be expected to do good, but it should be expected to abide by both the law and community norms, and to do no harm.
6. A good rule of thumb is that business should not be doing anything that it wants or needs to hide from public view or from public officials.
19
The End
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1913 1923 1933 1943 1953 1963 1973 1983 1993 2003 2013
Perc
ent o
f per
sona
l inc
ome
Top 1%
19.6%
8.2%
1928
Top 0.1%
19.3%
8.8%
1964
2.0%
8.0%
1986
2.9%
9.1%
Pretax income shares of top 1% and 0.1%, excluding capital gains: 1913-2012
The 100 year overview
21
Percent of pretax income going to families in the top decile, excluding capital gains: United States, 1923-2012
1
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
91
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Rat
io to
mea
n ho
useh
old
inco
me
Top 0.1 percent
99th to 99.9th
95th to 99th90th to 95th
Source: Paris Top Incomes Database. Paris detailed percentiles for US (HBS Fig 3)
The return of the super-rich: Globalization? Computers? Tax Cuts? Deregulation? Cultural Change?
The 50 year overview: The top 1% is different
Income shares of top 1%, next 4%, and next 5% of US families:,before taxes and excluding capital gains: 1960 to 2012
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
Perc
ent o
f tot
al p
erso
nal i
ncom
e
8.3%
Top 1%
Next 4%
Next 5%
12.7%
11.1%
9.1%
13.5%
12.0%
19.3%
16.4%
12.4%
1986
2012 share
1962 share
1986 share
Wages are not as unequal as household incomes
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007
Ratio of estimated hourly wages at the 90th, 50th, and 10th percentilesof the combined US distribution for men and women: 1973 to 2007
1.91
2.33
1.9450/10 ratio
90/50 ratio
1.91
2.07
2.03