« Government Brings Out the (Undisciplined) Kid in Us | Main | The Next Generation» Don Boudreaux
August 19, 2008
Inequality Chart Contest
Russell Roberts
Recently, Don welcomed Muirgeo back to the comments section of the blog and I noticed a mere 242 comments were made in response. I started reading and stopped when I got to the posting of a chart by Muirgeo. I recognized the chart immediately and stopped reading any further into the comments. So forgive me if some people have responded already.
Muirgeo's comment on the chart is:
"Anyone care to take a shot at explaining this data and how it's consistent with libertarianism?" I'm not quite sure what to make of this comment. But I've seen the chart before and I've thought it would make an excellent basis not for a blog post, but rather for a course on how to think about numbers. Certainly the authors of the chart and the authors of the study that the chart is based on, see something wrong with an era where economic growth goes disproportionately to the richest 1%. The implication of these authors (I am not indicting Muirgeo here so let's stay away from that) is that something has gone terribly wrong with the American economy. Perhaps they are right. And of course there are many things that have been done since 1976 that were wise and many things that have been unwise.
Numerous folks believe, however, that the economy has become too unregulated, too unfettered, too free market since 1976 and that that is what explains the pattern of the data in the chart.
So here's the contest:
Write ONE sentence explaining ONE thing that is wrong with concluding that these numbers are evidence that the US economy has become more tilted toward the rich at the expense of the poor.
You can submit more than one sentence. But only one at a time. So each comment can have only one sentence. Any comments containing references to Muirgeo or others will be deleted.
I will take the best sentences and post them (with the author's names) along with the chart along with comments of my own if there is anything else to be said.
At that point, Muirgeo (and others) will have the opportunity to defend the chart or critique the critiques.
Particularly diligent contestants will want to consult this source for further information on how the numbers were generated.
UPDATE: There are now more than 200 comments so I am closing the contest. Tomorrow, August 21, I hope to post the best sentences with some commentary.
Posted by Russell Roberts in Data | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e5540f4cae8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Inequality Chart Contest:
Comments
The people in the first set of numbers are not the same people in the second set of numbers, rendering the data irrelevant.
Posted by: Esox Lucius | Aug 19, 2008 5:37:51 PM
It doesn't taake into account skilled vs. unskilled labor or immigration or migration between groups.
Posted by: jorod | Aug 19, 2008 5:38:46 PM
Immigration heavily skews the data for the poor to become poorer because quite a few of the immigrants arrive in a state of poverty.
Posted by: Esox Lucius | Aug 19, 2008 5:39:47 PM
The data usually counts illegal immigrants as poor, they are either illegal or they are American poor but they can't be both.
Posted by: Esox Lucius | Aug 19, 2008 5:41:29 PM
The data assumes that the rich are doing something to make poor people poor, which if there is no mechanism, then the data is irrelevant.
Posted by: Esox Lucius | Aug 19, 2008 5:43:01 PM
It doesn't indicate the relative responsibility for economic growth between the two groups.
Posted by: Billy | Aug 19, 2008 5:44:42 PM
If most people work to achieve happiness, not to become in the top 1% of wage earners, then this graph could just as easily be chronicling the point at which US citizens are satisfied with their effort and subsequent pay.
Posted by: Esox Lucius | Aug 19, 2008 5:46:13 PM
Income is either consumed or reinvested, so income statistics conflate consumption benefiting the individual receiving income with investment benefiting people more generally.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Aug 19, 2008 5:48:37 PM
Percentages tell us nothing about the size of the pie.
Posted by: Adam | Aug 19, 2008 5:51:32 PM
The data assumes that there is a zero sum level of wealth that is being consumed by a tiny fraction of the population.
Posted by: Esox Lucius | Aug 19, 2008 5:53:34 PM
The chart says nothing about the wealth gains made by the bottom 90% from one period to the other as goods previously considered luxury became affordable to most.
Posted by: Methinks | Aug 19, 2008 5:55:18 PM
A naive interpretation of the data assumes that much of the rising income of the top one percent is consumed at all.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Aug 19, 2008 5:56:19 PM
The data assumes that if the spread between the numbers weren't so great, then the poor would be better off, but as in the case of North Korea, India, China or Russia (20 years ago) a relatively flat spread usually means poverty for all, not prosperity.
Posted by: Esox Lucius | Aug 19, 2008 5:56:26 PM
The data says nothing about wealth, as opposed to income, whereas one could be wealthy and have no income.
Posted by: Esox Lucius | Aug 19, 2008 5:59:49 PM
By the way, I reserve the right to argue the other side of this debate as well, because the issue is far from simple.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Aug 19, 2008 6:00:14 PM
The data has no capacity for incorporating effort or risk taken by any of these groups, making a conclusion based on these graphs, premature.
Posted by: Esox Lucius | Aug 19, 2008 6:02:19 PM
The meaningful gains of the top one percent grew more than 20% between '46 and '76, but more affluent people in the later period realized more of their gains in a form qualifying legally as "income" for income tax purposes.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Aug 19, 2008 6:05:33 PM
The bottom 90% does not constitute the poor, the top 1% may constitute the rich, and the remaining 9% should not be ignored.
Posted by: Preston | Aug 19, 2008 6:09:24 PM
Throughout the twentieth century, progressively more wealth takes the form of monetary "income", as people barter less, as they cease growing their own food, as they labor more for corporations, as women enter the paid labor force, with some women paying other women to tend their children while they earn wages otherwise, and so on.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Aug 19, 2008 6:11:22 PM
If this were womens' gymnastics we would eliminate the top 10% and the bottom 10% to find out who is really better (off).
Posted by: Preston | Aug 19, 2008 6:11:30 PM
The composition of U.S. households has changed from 1946 through 1976 and through 2006.
Posted by: Ironman | Aug 19, 2008 6:12:33 PM
The idea of a top 1% of a population is misleading, as individual people and families are constantly moving into and out of that group; more specifically, those who take risks and succeed stay or move in, while those that take risks and fail drop out.
Posted by: Roger Fan | Aug 19, 2008 6:13:59 PM
This chart compares a very large group to a relatively small group so you can expect extraordinary numbers at the far end of the distribution.
Posted by: Tom Kelly | Aug 19, 2008 6:15:41 PM
There is inconsistency in the data because these numbers are for households and not individuals and will be affected by changes in the marriage and divorce rate.
Posted by: Ross | Aug 19, 2008 6:19:24 PM
the people in the top 10% and the bottom 90% change every year (so within the two measured periods, let alone between them, rendering the data even less relevant).
Posted by: Methinks | Aug 19, 2008 6:19:43 PM
535 Congressmen and Senators spent over three trillion dollars last year, roughly six billion apiece, but income statistics don't reflect their influence at all.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Aug 19, 2008 6:20:14 PM
It costs a lot more to be rich these days.
Posted by: BoscoH | Aug 19, 2008 6:20:53 PM
US income data does not include redistribution of income from higher earners to lower earners, understating some of the income of the "bottom" 90% of earners.
Posted by: Methinks | Aug 19, 2008 6:22:36 PM
Pre-tax income distribution is not equivalent to wealth distribution.
Posted by: steep | Aug 19, 2008 6:22:55 PM
Three million individuals receiving a million dollars apiece would also spent three trillion dollars, thirty million individuals receiving a hundred thousand apiece would spend as much, so how much more effectively are 535 politicians at spending money than millions of individuals?
Posted by: Martin Brock | Aug 19, 2008 6:24:33 PM
Three million individuals receiving a million dollars apiece would also spend three trillion dollars, and thirty million individuals receiving a hundred thousand apiece would spend as much, so can 535 politicians spend this volume of money more usefully than millions of individuals?
Posted by: Martin Brock | Aug 19, 2008 6:26:55 PM
This chart creates the false impression that you are in one group or the other when there is a significant (99-90= 9%) of households missing from the chart.
Posted by: Tom Kelly | Aug 19, 2008 6:27:33 PM
Besides obscuring income movement of people over time in that period, the sampling size of the comparison is groups is also too bottom heavy in that we are looking at 1% of the population vs. the other 90% and such comparisons do show gains of transient income groups within that 90%.
Posted by: John V | Aug 19, 2008 6:28:10 PM
Chart says nothing about the middle 89% of the population.
Posted by: Oil Shock | Aug 19, 2008 6:28:22 PM
Income data from the IRS does not take into account benefits such as health care which has been steadily making up a larger percentage of total compensation.
Posted by: Ross | Aug 19, 2008 6:29:37 PM
There are more winner take all tournaments (emerging from free association in the marketplace) with audiences large enough to support big prizes today than in the period from 1946 to 1976.
Posted by: BoscoH | Aug 19, 2008 6:30:48 PM
The first time series on this chart appears not to make sense as the national average is higher than either group, so the missing 9% must have done real well then.
Posted by: Tom Kelly | Aug 19, 2008 6:31:35 PM
On a consumption note, the chart ignores growth in marginal income by saying nothing about the costs of goods purchased by the poor over the periods.
Posted by: John V | Aug 19, 2008 6:31:49 PM
Number of people per household and number of earning members per household have changed drastically over the years and those changes might not be uniform across different income brackets.
Posted by: Oil Shock | Aug 19, 2008 6:32:29 PM
The national comparison is "per capita" while the group data is "per household"- not a good idea to have mixed metrics.
Posted by: Tom Kelly | Aug 19, 2008 6:33:41 PM
Historically speaking, weren't there also wage controls in place during the war that prevented real wage gains from being realized until they were lifted? (not sure about this one)
Posted by: John V | Aug 19, 2008 6:35:58 PM
Presumably, income of the top 1% is spent, invested, or saved, thus creating more "national income" to be distributed among those in the bottom 90%.
Posted by: BoscoH | Aug 19, 2008 6:36:35 PM
household composition changed over time as well.
Posted by: John V | Aug 19, 2008 6:37:03 PM
Income shifting (from corporate tax returns to individual returns) has exaggerated the growth of top incomes, while excluding a third of personal income (including Social Security and other transfer payments) has exaggerated the top groups income share.
Posted by: muirgeo | Aug 19, 2008 6:42:33 PM
Percent changes in total income are irrelevant, so a revised chart should show percent changes in spendable income (gross income plus government support minus all local, state, and federal taxes).
Posted by: Dr. T | Aug 19, 2008 6:43:15 PM
Rich people have feelings too and since they have most of the money we should try not to hurt them.
Posted by: muirgeo | Aug 19, 2008 6:44:49 PM
Large % of people don't file income tax return, which is the source of this data.
Posted by: Oil Shock | Aug 19, 2008 6:49:31 PM
[in Haiku form] Hidden C-corp wealth -- Since '58 moves to S -- Household returns grow
Posted by: Coyote | Aug 19, 2008 6:50:44 PM
Even setting aside such factors as changes in household size (overall and within groups) and technological innovation, even the richest 1% in 1946 did not have the standard of living that the bottom 90% have today.
Posted by: Dave | Aug 19, 2008 6:52:18 PM
Poorer households are more likely to receive government handouts and hence more broken families.
Posted by: Oil Shock | Aug 19, 2008 6:52:30 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
