A Tale of Two Countries

by Brian on March 14, 2006

“Brad DeLong”:http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/03/income_inequali.html quotes “Paul Krugman”:http://krugman.page.nytimes.com/b/a/251584.htm on income inequality in America. (Note the Krugman link is behind the TimesSelect firewall.)

One of the truly strange features about discussions of inequality is the way people shy away from talking about the extent to which the gains from rising inequality have gone to a tiny, wealthy elite … A few days ago Steve Pearlstein of the Washington Post — a good guy, and sensible — wrote about income inequality. As I did in my column just a few days earlier, “Feeling No Pain,” he emphasized the “retrospective income” distribution data released by the I.R.S. (Paper at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04asastr.pdf. Tables at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04asastr.xls.) As he pointed out, those data show that the share of income received by the top 10 percent of taxpayers rose from 33 percent in 1979 to 44 percent in 2003 … But Pearlstein stops there, leaving the impression that everyone in the top 10 percent was a big winner. In fact, there was hardly any rise in the share of income going to people between the 90th and 95th percentiles: almost all the gain went to the top 5 percent. And most of the gain went to a very small elite. The income share of the top 1 percent went from 9.6 to 17.5 percent, accounting for more than 70 percent of the top decile’s gain. The income share of the top 0.25 percent went from 4.9 to 10.5, accounting for a bit more than half the total gain.

Today “this story about income inequality in Australia”:http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/so-it-emisem-the-rich-what-gets-the-pleasure/2006/03/14/1142098463260.html was on the front page of The Age online.

Appearing to contradict claims that Australia is now a more egalitarian society, research by the Australian National University and Oxford University has concluded that the richest 1 per cent of the population has almost doubled its share of national wealth. The report, by ANU economist Andrew Leigh and Oxford’s Sir Anthony Atkinson, found that the wealthiest 1 per cent of Australians now took 9 per cent of national income, compared with a 5 per cent share in 1980.


Now I don’t know enough to know whether they are comparing apples with apples here, and it might be that the definitions of income are different enough to make comparisons meaningless. But if they are comparing like with like, it is striking that the same effect, doubling the income share going to the top 1% over the last 25 years, is headline news in Australia and not news in America, even though the outcome of this in Australia is only to raise the Australian top 1% to where the American top 1% was, relatively speaking, in 1980.

One other very surprising statistic from the IRS report that Krugman links to.

The share of income accounted for by the top 1 percent of the income distribution has climbed steadily from a low of 9.58 percent (3.28 for the top 0.1 percent) for 1979 to a high of 21.55 (10.49 for the top 0.1 percent) for 2000. With the recession and, then, the stagnating economy of 2001 and 2002, this share had declined to 16.89 percent (7.10 for the top 0.1 percent) for 2002.

That seems to me to be a really massive drop from 2000 to 2002. Now this is pre-tax income, and I imagine the Bush tax cuts will have made up for some or all of that. But it does suggest we shouldn’t read too much into year-to-year numbers. And, of course, it was good and proper of Krugman to use the most recent numbers available, not numbers from a couple of years earlier that may have made his case look superficially stronger.

{ 177 comments }

1

lemuel pitkin 03.14.06 at 12:49 pm

Well, income for those at the top is primarily capital income rather than wage income. So very sensitive to the stock market and in general to profits, which are much more cyclical than wages.

2

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 12:57 pm

Are these top 0.1% the same people from year to year? Top 10 super-wealthy American wealth gainers from last year (I’m omitting people who lost vast amounts of money like Warren Buffet and the Walton family members–they clearly aren’t driving the equality issue by losing money):

In order

Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Michael Dell, Sheldon Adelson, Steve Ballmer, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Abigail Johnson, Anna and Barbara Cox.

Of these the top seven are self made billionaires. Bill Gates was from the upper class (though not even close to the elite upper class Krugman was talking about). Paul Allen I can’t tell but appears to be from middle class from what I can see. Michael Dell middle class family. Sheldon Adelson I can’t find any biographical information so to give you all the benefit of the doubt I’ll pretend that proves he was from the upper class. Steve Ballmer middle class (arguably lower middle class). Sergey Brin and Larry Page, middle class or upper middle class whatever you call sons of college professors (outside chance at the very bottom of the upper class I suppose but I doubt it for an immigrant math professor).

So out of the tip-top seven we don’t have anyone from the elite class Krugman is talking about. Add in Abigail Johnson and the Cox sisters and we get 3 out of 10 from the elite class Krugman is talking about. So 3 out of 10 help his thesis directly, 1 maybe and 6 definitely not. Most of the top inherited wealth Americans I saw on the Forbes list saw their wealth decline so they obviously aren’t fueling the statistic.

Now maybe Krugman really wants to say that except for computer wealth, the US hasn’t grown much in the past couple of years. That might even be true. But that doesn’t mean that there is some nefarious super-elite hogging all the money. Well some might call Gates nefarious, but that is a vastly different story.

3

Matt McGrattan 03.14.06 at 1:14 pm

The top 0.1% of Americans does not equal the list of ten individuals that you have chosen. It equals somewhere in the region of 100,000 families.

So choosing those ten people and claiming this somehow refutes the claim that the financial elite is doing rather better than everyone else is a pretty dumb (at best) claim to make.

4

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 1:16 pm

“The top 0.1% of Americans does not equal the list of ten individuals that you have chosen. It equals somewhere in the region of 100,000 families.”

The ten individuals I have chosen represent a huge percentage of the wealth gain we are talking about. If you want to take them out of the equation the inequality statistics don’t look so exciting. Choose one way or the other–not both.

5

abb1 03.14.06 at 1:20 pm

What diference does it make if they are from a middle-class family or not? They are the elite now.

Joseph Stalin came from a poor humble provincial family and became a self-made dictator of a large country, does it make it better somehow?

6

Matt McGrattan 03.14.06 at 1:27 pm

And you know that these 10 individuals make up the majority of the wealth gain of the top 0.1%, how?

7

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 1:31 pm

Do the math.

8

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 1:33 pm

Also, I would like to note that my method of focusing on the tip top of the ‘elite’ is precisely the method Krugman endorses in his article. So in addition to “do the math” I also suggest “read the article”.

9

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 1:34 pm

“What diference does it make if they are from a middle-class family or not? They are the elite now.”

Because it speaks to the question of how wealth is EARNED as opposed to how it is DISTRIBUTED.

10

JR 03.14.06 at 1:38 pm

Sebastian and Matt seem to be talking about morality, or mobility, or something other than inequality. This is not a debate over whether the US economy is “fair.” The New York Marathon is “fair,” but there is one winner and 29,999 losers. That is not the model of a healthy economy. The point is that our economy is directing more and more of its productivity into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of individuals, while the vast majority sees no benefit at all from the increasing wealth of the nation.

11

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 1:38 pm

If you want to track the changing fortunes of the top billionaires in the US you can get the numbers from Forbes for years 1996-2006.

12

matt butler 03.14.06 at 1:42 pm

Nothing in Krugman’s argument makes reference to family background: we are talking about income inequality here, not income mobility. If the poor are unconscionably poor (relative to the wealth of the society), what does it matter that there is some turnover of individuals from year to year?

13

abb1 03.14.06 at 1:44 pm

Sebastian, there is no way a mortal being can EARN $100 million, let alone $100 billion. It’s simply impossible.

There are exactly two possibilites (or a combination of them) for this to happen:
1. the economic system allowed you exploit a very large number of workers
2. the economic system allowed you overcharge a very large number of customers

That’s all there is to it.

14

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 1:45 pm

“This is not a debate over whether the US economy is “fair.” The New York Marathon is “fair,” but there is one winner and 29,999 losers.”

If the US economy was 99.99997% losers per you analogy, I would be more worried. It isn’t. I think it would be very difficult to put people who are losing ground over any medium term look at above 20% and depending upon how you measure things it may be as low as 10%. (Unless they have retired. I fully expect retired people to have negative wealth indicators over time. That makes sense when you aren’t working. So far as I’m aware, there isn’t a generally accepted right to die with more wealth than you had when you stopped working). Of those who are “losing” under certain indicators, you find that the loss is very slight and quite possibly offset by gains in other areas.

15

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 1:46 pm

“If the poor are unconscionably poor (relative to the wealth of the society), what does it matter that there is some turnover of individuals from year to year?”

But they aren’t. And your parenthetical is so huge as to be the thesis.

16

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 1:53 pm

Sebastian, there is no way a mortal being can EARN $100 million, let alone $100 billion. It’s simply impossible.

There are exactly two possibilites (or a combination of them) for this to happen:
1. the economic system allowed you exploit a very large number of workers
2. the economic system allowed you overcharge a very large number of customers

Abb1,do you know why baseball stars earn a lot of money? I doubt it, so I will explain. They provide a small benefit (a couple of cents worth of enjoyment per player per game at most) to a VAST number of people. Multiply the number of cents by the number of games and the number of people benefited and you get a very nice salary. If I could provide just one dollar worth of value to every person in the United States, I could EARN more than $220,000,000. Your rich people must be stealing from someone idea is economically ignorant.

(Which is not to say that some rich people might not people stealing from someone. I’m sure some are.)

17

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 2:01 pm

Sebastian, do YOU know why Bill Gates “earned” all that money? It’s almost all rent from government-fiat “intellectual property”. And that even though Microsoft’s original contributions to the advancemtn of its industry amount to squat.

P.S. Baseball players only “earn” that much money because they have a good union and because the legal system- i.e. the government- decided to invalidate a private contract clause (remember the reserve clause?) Before those two things became true, they were already providing benefit to plenty of people- but they were paid (compared to now) squat.

Normally I expect more intelligent arguments from you, Sebastian. I guess you’re having an off day. Or maybe sucking up to the wealthy takes some points off the ol’ IQ.

18

francis 03.14.06 at 2:01 pm

Possible inequalities worth discussing:

income
wealth
growth in income
growth in wealth
economic mobility
job mobility
political power
access to high quality health care
access to high quality education
Risk of disaster

Now, what Krugman is arguing is that there is tremendous inequality in growth in income (GI). GI inequality is demonstrated by the fact that the top five percent of wage earners captured all the new income generated in each year.

Given that GI inequality exists, the relevant question is whether it matters. Is SH correct that any attempt by the govt to change labor laws / otherwise reduce GI inequality will lead to a reduction in the overall growth of society? That is an empirical question that needs a lot more analysis before we can simply assume that we are living in the best of all possible worlds. (hat tip Moliere.)

Other relevant questions worth answering are whether the other inequalities listed above exist, what are the consequences of their existence and whether those consequences can be remediated without causing more problems than you’re solving.

19

abb1 03.14.06 at 2:02 pm

If you can provide just one dollar worth of value to every person in the United States, then a right-functioning capitalist system should take care of creating so much competition for you that you’ll have to struggle to stay in business only dreaming about all those millions. That’s assuming the economic system works as it should, which, of course, it doesn’t.

20

Urinated State of America (M.A. Cantab) 03.14.06 at 2:12 pm

Matt asked

“And you know that these 10 individuals make up the majority of the wealth gain of the top 0.1%, how?

Seb answered:

“Do the math.”

And the math was?

21

Commenterlein 03.14.06 at 2:15 pm

“Baseball players only “earn” that much money because they have a good union and because the legal system- i.e. the government- decided to invalidate a private contract clause (remember the reserve clause?) Before those two things became true, they were already providing benefit to plenty of people- but they were paid (compared to now) squat.”

The reserve clause created monopoly power for the team owners and allowed them to extract the rents created by their players. That was deemed necessary since all the teams were losing money originally. Doing away with the reserve clause stopped this exploitation of players by the owners, and allowed the players to capture what they are actually worth to their teams.

So Sebastian is right on this one – if you allow baseball players (or soccer players, if you want to look at a very different contracting system with similar outcomes) who private a small benefit to many people to extract a significant fraction of that benefit then it adds up to a very large sum of money. Pointing to the unions is a red herring as well, unions raise the wages of the players at the bottom of the system, but certainly not at the top.

22

Commenterlein 03.14.06 at 2:21 pm

“If you can provide just one dollar worth of value to every person in the United States, then a right-functioning capitalist system should take care of creating so much competition for you that you’ll have to struggle to stay in business only dreaming about all those millions. That’s assuming the economic system works as it should, which, of course, it doesn’t.”

So in your opinion Henry Ford shouldn’t have died really rich? How about Andrew Grove, Gordon Moore, Thomas Watson?

23

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 2:22 pm

So what? The union creates monopoly power for the players and lets them extract much more of the proceeds than they could if they bargained individually with the owners. The owners lost their monopoly power only when the courts would no longer let them enforce it. And who gets monopoly power and is able to extract rent depends ENTIRLELY on the rules of the game as drawn up by the government by way of its legal system. Where there are great fortunes you will nearly always (I’m only unsure about the “nearly”) find monopolies validated and enforced by laws backed by the state’s monopoly of violence. Sebastian, and you, are off in la-la land here.

So spare me the fairy tales about “free-market capitalism”. The real-world discussion is about how and for whose benefit the rules of the game get made, because it’s those rules that determine who gets what.

24

abb1 03.14.06 at 2:25 pm

I don’t know, it seems to me the baseball things is a result of cronyism and lack of competition as well.

25

abb1 03.14.06 at 2:26 pm

Yeah, what Steve said.

26

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 2:27 pm

By the way, commenterlein, suppose Henry Ford had had to pay for all the road construction that created demand for Ford cars- how rich would he have died then?

27

Henry 03.14.06 at 2:30 pm

Sebastian – as we social scientists like to say, the plural of anecdote isn’t data. If you want to argue with Krugman’s account, go to the aggregate data, and show how he’s wrong in the aggregate. The claim is that aggregate figures show patterns of increasing inequality in outcomes. Your counter-assertion is strictly speaking irrelevant, or, as Matt says, is a dumb claim. And replying without bothering to refer to the stats that they make up a “huge percentage” of the overall gains is equally dumb. There are numbers out there – go and use them. Or continue to fight it out here with abb1 if you like – your debate seems to be going at about the intellectual level that your initial comment deserved.

28

Commenterlein 03.14.06 at 2:32 pm

Steve,

How does a free-agent player have “monopoly power”?

Hint – he doesn’t. Plenty of people willing to play at current salaries, and the teams are entirely free to pick anyone they like. What the unions does is enforce minimum wages, but that’s a different issue.

Look at soccer if you want evidence from an entirely different and international contracting system with equally large salaries for the top players.

29

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 2:35 pm

Here’s a hint for you, itty-bitty commenter- the bargaining power of that free agent depends in very large part on the government-enforced terms of baseball’s collective bargaining agreement. Without the union’s ability to go to court to punish the owners for collusion, they would make short work of the first few players with the temerity to try to hold out for big paydays, and the reast would fall into line pretty quickly.

30

Barbar 03.14.06 at 2:35 pm

That was deemed necessary since all the teams were losing money originally.

Eh, could you elaborate on this? Like was this really necessary at all?

31

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 2:38 pm

P.S. GI don’t know much about soccer, but my impression is that you won’t see journeyman soccer players earning the kind of money that journeyman baseball free agents have been getting- only the big stars who really do have a significant impact on revenues. That’s an example of how the detailed rules by which a market system operates have a great influence on income distribution.

32

abb1 03.14.06 at 2:39 pm

So in your opinion Henry Ford shouldn’t have died really rich?

Well, how rich was he when he died, anywhere close to Paul Allen? I doubt it.

33

Commenterlein 03.14.06 at 2:40 pm

Steve,

I don’t know whether you don’t want to understand me or whether you can not: Yes, the government ended the team owners monopoly power over players. No, that does not imply that now the players have monopoly power, even though you seem to think so.

Instead of calling other people itty-bitty you might want to brush up on basic microeconomics.

34

Commenterlein 03.14.06 at 2:41 pm

“don’t know much about soccer, but my impression is that you won’t see journeyman soccer players earning the kind of money that journeyman baseball free agents have been getting- only the big stars who really do have a significant impact on revenues.’

That’s why I keep saying that the baseball union has had a large impact on the salaries at the bottom of the distribution, as opposed to at the top.

35

Commenterlein 03.14.06 at 2:44 pm

Barbar,

“Eh, could you elaborate on this? Like was this really necessary at all?”

I don’t know, probably not. From what I have been reading about early professional baseball, it was the explanation for the reserve clause advanced by the team owners.

36

Walt 03.14.06 at 2:46 pm

A union isn’t monopoly power? My Econ 101 textbook lied to me yet again!

37

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 2:48 pm

You object to “itty-bitty”? I take it you don’t know what your own nom de net means??

That’s why I keep saying that the baseball union has had a large impact on the salaries at the bottom of the distribution, as opposed to at the top. We’re agreed on that, but you don’t seem to understand what that phenomenon does to arguments like Sebastian’s. How wealth is distributed is not the result of some automatic market magic operating like the laws of physics, but can be very different in systems that equally deserve to be called markets but which operate according to different rules. So let’s talk about the rules, their impact on society, and the kind of society we want- not on moral fairytales about the “earning” of immense wealth which could not possibly be earned, in any meanigful use of the word, by the efforts of a single individual.

38

Commenterlein 03.14.06 at 2:50 pm

Walt,

The point was that the union has little to no influence on the salaries negotiated by the top free agents, which is where our discussion started.

39

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 2:54 pm

commenterlein, you have not established that at all. Prove to me that, where “collusion” by the owners can be effectively prevented, the top free agents would not be paid even more if the owners were saving money on the contracts of lesser players. Or conversely, under a different set of rules, that they would not be earning less than now if the owners could get together in a back room and set a ceiling on the salaries they were willing to offer, without being hauled into court by the union.

40

Bruce Simon 03.14.06 at 2:57 pm

Am very interested in sports analogies to all kinds of socal issues (affirmative action, income/wealth inequality, etc.). My questions are about the implications for academia, as news of this filters through the media.

I don’t have them in front of me, but several Census Bureau and Labor Bureau reports from the early 2000s indicate college graduates today should “expect” (on average) about a million-dollar-lifetime-earnings boost over high school graduates. I’ve seen Malcolm Gladwell (in “Getting In“) discuss how this “BA bonus” is actually quite unevenly distributed (he gets into disagreements over whether individuals or institutions account more for the inequalities). Have any of the smart people debating whether inequality amounts to inequity or iniquity here seen any other discussions of this angle on Brian’s post?

What happens to the traditional view of college as a key to upward mobility if most of the benefits of a BA are going to those graduating from the Harvards and the Amhersts of the US (assuming they are for the sake of argument)? What happens to debates over privatizing public higher ed? Do colleges still play a role in helping their graduates earn more? All? Some?

41

Commenterlein 03.14.06 at 2:59 pm

Steve,

My German is pretty decent, no worries.

Ok, here is my last attempt to explain it:

Sebastian’s point (somewhat expanded) is that the highest paid baseball players are paid so much because they provide a valuable benefit to a very large number of people, and that with reasonably free negotiations the providers of such benefits are able to get their hands on the economic rents they create. This point is entirely correct.

The point that the unions have raised the salaries of the lower paid players, and thus contracted the income distribution, is also correct. It doesn’t in any way invalidate Sebastian’s or my argument though.

You have the last word.

42

Marcus Stanley 03.14.06 at 3:01 pm

Look, “earning” is entirely a social and not a natural concept. All production and creation is social, who we choose to give the credit and resulting wealth to is a collective decision. Any inventor, artist, or athlete you care to name, no matter how original or creative, is resting their achievements on a long history of work and creation by others before them, many of whom are anonymous and not wealthy. The shoulder of giants and so forth. Abb1s point was a rhetorical one — no one person’s share of the social creation is really large enough to justify them to get over $100 million as a reward. Sebastian’s response to it entirely missed the point. What does it mean for Michael Jordan to create $1 worth of value for every basketball fan? Well, Jordan’s skills wouldn’t have been entertaining to people unless the game of basketball had been invented and popularized, unless everyone had TV sets installed in their homes…on and on it goes. To say that MJ himself created $1 worth of value for X million people already assumes all the necessary social structures.

It’s perfectly possible to disagree with abb1 by simply saying “nyah nyah, I think MJ is such a terrific, fun player that he deserves over $100 million worth of toys”. It’s a judgement call. Abb1 is just saying that our society’s judgements on who deserves what have gotten way out of whack.

43

abb1 03.14.06 at 3:04 pm

I protest. Sebastian and I (and the others) are arguing at an extremely high intellectual level here.

And we don’t need no freakin numbers, this is about concepts. Steve LaBonne got it exactly right – the arbiter (government) establishes and enforces the rules; the rules determine how the system will function. The rich manage to bribe the arbiter, the rules are changed or go unenforced, the rich get more and more.

What say the intellectuals?

44

Commenterlein 03.14.06 at 3:06 pm

Steve,

Just a quick reaction to your last post:

Nobody denies that laws and other institutions shape negotiations and outcomes. My entire academic work evolves around these issues.

What I am arguing is that even coercion- and collusion-free negotiations based on secure property rights will often lead to very uneven outcomes, in that the creators of the largest benefits will reap vast amounts of money. Top-of-the-line sports stars are simply a pretty good example of that. It follows that one cannot deduce that coercion or collusion must have been a factor simply based on uneven outcomes, which is what you and other commenters seem to be doing.

And now you really have the last word.

45

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 3:13 pm

commenterlein, you are still not getting that there isn’t a neutral meaning to the phrase “reasonably free negotiations”. The owners would love to be “reasonably free” to get together in the back room and present a united front on salary offers- i.e. they would argue that to rfestore fairness and “neutrality”, they ought to have their own monopoly power to cancel out the union’s monopoly power. The only reason they can’t do that is the collusion clause in the CBA, and in turn the only reason they agreed to that is a political gun pointed at their heads- the threat of revocation of their broader antitrust exemption. And I think there is every reason to believe that salaries of the top free agents would in fact be lower if the owners could successfully collude. The rules under which particular markets operate right now are not part of some unchangeable Platonic order of things.

46

Marcus Stanley 03.14.06 at 3:15 pm

The real issues here is 1) how unequal human contributions to social wealth really are, and 2) how much of that inequality is created by being given access to particular roles in the social hierarchy that other people could have performed almost as well, vs. genuinely irreplaceable skills.

Both of these points are complex, the first because people tend to isolate out a small piece of total social creations (Michael Jordan’s play separated out from the social work of inventing, popularizing, communicating the sport). The second is even more often ignored. If Michael Jordan had died young, everyone else would have moved up one slot and someone else would have taken the role of “best player” in the NBA. How much would b-ball fans have lost (a good amount).

I agree with commenterlein that regardless of how we measure it contributions to society are quite unequal. But how unequal? No one is arguing that in a just society there wouldn’t be rich people.

47

abb1 03.14.06 at 3:18 pm

I think the entertainers like Michael Jordan or Britney Spears or those ball players is a red herring. Basically, Michael Jordan is not a person, it’s a brand. And the real person named Michael Jordan isn’t gonna make anywhere near billion dollars, because he is basically irrelevant, he’s nobody.

48

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 3:18 pm

Our posts crossed, but I really have nothing to add. For the record I do not make any claim that the existence of monopoly power cen be inferred merely from looking at the distribution. On the contrary, I gave concrete examples of how monopoly power operates in particular circumstances. I would like to see carefully argued examples of great wealth where neither monopoly power nor public investment were major factors in its acqusisition. Perhaps some could be found, but they don’t include any of the examples discussed thus far here. (We haven’t even gotten into the relation of sports team revenues to public investment in stadia and government regulation of telecommunications…)

49

anon 03.14.06 at 3:19 pm

Zonealarm is a firewall. TimesSelect is a paywall.

50

Commenterlein 03.14.06 at 3:20 pm

Steve,

I am breaking my word for the second time.

I think we have narrowed our disagreement down in a very usefyl manner. You say:

“you are still not getting that there isn’t a neutral meaning to the phrase “reasonably free negotiations””

That’s exactly what I disagree with. I define “reasonably free negotiations” as a situation without coercion and collusion and with clearly defined and enforceable property rights. Even in such a situation, Michael Jordan or David Beckham would make tens of millions.

51

Commenterlein 03.14.06 at 3:22 pm

usefyl = useful

52

Robert 03.14.06 at 3:23 pm

Commenterlein (in comment 28) is ignorant of microeconomics. Baseball players sell a differentiated product. One top player does not sell the same commodity as any other top player. By the theory of monopolistic or imperfect competition, which ignores the fact that markets are institutions, they cannot operate in a perfectly competitive market. Top players have monopoly power. (Mayhaps Chamberlein concedes this point of mainstream microeconomics in comment 41?)

And, yes, markets are institutions defined by rules, some of which are set by government. Different rules result in different outcomes. So any attempt to justify income distribution as the outcome of “free” markets is just balderdash.
As others have said.

By the way, this fellow is arguably the best in the world at what he does:

http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/PhotoAlbums/SU2004/MPowell.jpg

But because of culture, which arguably cannot be neatly separated from economics, Mikey doesn’t get paid all that much.
“Hunger is hunber, but the hunger gratified by cooked meat eaten with a knife and fork is a different hunger from that which bolts down raw meat with the aid of hand, nail, and tooth…”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm

53

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 3:24 pm

You really think “property rights” are a brute fact of physical nature rather than the product of a socially agreed-upon set of rules?? Because if not, your last comment really is just a tautology.

54

Commenterlein 03.14.06 at 3:32 pm

Property rights are obviously a complex issue.

For our purposes here, I mean essentially “the ability to sell one’s products or services to whomever one likes, and the ability to exclude others from the benefits of one’s products or services”. And no, they are not a fact of physical nature, they are an institutional precondition for a well-functioning market.

Ok, I really should be doing some real work now. Thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it and I think I learned something.

55

abb1 03.14.06 at 3:33 pm

Top players have monopoly power.

But are the top players really the best players in the world? Or are they simply made into a brand and shielded against competition of a fair number of people who can play just as well or better?

56

abb1 03.14.06 at 3:35 pm

I mean, is Britney Spears really the greatest singer who has monopoly power because of her incredible talent and skill?

57

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 3:36 pm

“Abb1s point was a rhetorical one—no one person’s share of the social creation is really large enough to justify them to get over $100 million as a reward.”

Right, this is a purely rhetorical assertion. Abb1 asserts that giving $1 of value to 220 million people isn’t worth $220 million dollars. He asserts that giving $1 of value to 220 million people shouldn’t be 1 times 220 million because $220 million is an amount that he asserts is not what people ‘can’ earn.

Henry, you can get the numbers from Forbes–as I mentioned. I also note that I am doing exactly what Krugman does in picking an arbitrary number of people to prove his point. The article, if you have read it which I seriously doubt, is premised on the idea that focusing on the normal sociological strata of top 20% or top 10% doesn’t give you the ‘real’ picture. He arbitrarily picks the numbers which he thinks prove his point. I am picking the top 10 performers–who by far produce more of the wealth than any other large segment of the top 0.1%–just as he is focusing on the top percentage of the top performers of the top 10%. Why is it wrong to focus on the top earners? They earn far more than anyone else in their tier. That is true whether or not you compare the top 25% of the whole, the top 25% of the top top 25%, the top 10% of the top 25%, the top 1% of the whole, the top 10% of the top 10%, the top 1% of the top 10%, or the top 0.01% of the top 10%. The plural of anedote isn’t data, but data mining isn’t the same as analysis either. And that is your real complaint–I didn’t pick anecdotes to suit my thesis, I mined the data in exactly the same way Krugman did. With exactly the same substantive result. The pathetic thing is that you criticize me without even noticing it in Krugman. There might be a term for that too–confirmation bias. I’m sure you’ve heard of it.

58

Barry 03.14.06 at 3:40 pm

“A union isn’t monopoly power? My Econ 101 textbook lied to me yet again!”

Posted by Walt

Lock-out, and hire replacements. Union over with; even if some of the owners cheat on their collusion, this should convert things back to individual negotiations. Individuals negotiating with company owners, that is, which some might find a tad bit unbalanced.

59

abb1 03.14.06 at 3:41 pm

Does Michael Douglas has monopoly power because he is an extremely talented actor or because he is the son of Kirk Douglas?
Angelina Jolie?
Jamie Lee Curtis?
Kiefer Sutherland?
Charlie Sheen?

And all the rest of them.

60

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 3:49 pm

Steve Labonne, your excursion into monopoly power is a red herring. Baseball players have a “monopoly power” over their labor only in as much as any worker has a “monopoly power” over his own labor. It is true that Laborer X has a complete monopoly over his own labor, but that is an astonighingly unuseful way of thinking about it.

If a baseball player gives 1 million people 50 cents worth of entertainment 100 times per year he has earned 50 million dollars under any normal definition of ‘earn’. This goes directly to Abb1’s silly comment about no one being able to earn $100 million. It isn’t about government coercion, it is about giving 1 million people a little bit of fun. It isn’t about monopoly rents. It is about doing something which touches 1 million people. You may personally not think that giving a million people a little bit of fun is worth much. Fortunately for you, you don’t have to pay if you don’t want to. You may not personally think that using computers is worth money, but apparently you do use computers.

61

abb1 03.14.06 at 3:50 pm

Sebastian, what does it mean – “giving $1 of value to 220 million people”?

You can sell a toothbrush that cost you $1 to 220 million people for $2 and make 220 million dollars.

But in a well-functioning capitalist system the competition will force you to charge $1.01 and you’ll only manage sell to 10 million people, so you’ll only make 100 thousand dollars.

If you can sell it to 220 million people for $2, then something’s wrong with the system – that’s what I’m talking about.

62

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 3:51 pm

“Does Michael Douglas has monopoly power because he is an extremely talented actor or because he is the son of Kirk Douglas?”

Micael Douglas doesn’t have monopoly power at all. You may have noticed that other actors get hired all the time. Do you think that “Monopoly Power” means “Things I don’t like”?

63

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 3:53 pm

“But in a well-functioning capitalist system the competition will force you to charge $1.01 and you’ll only manage sell to 10 million people, so you’ll only make 100 thousand dollars.”

Sure, over time. But I’ll make $220 million the first time (from something new that people want) and then other people will provide this thing that people want for cheaper. In the long run I can’t make more money without providing something even better. In the medium run, I provided something new that people wanted and it became very cheap. Where exactly is the problem you are trying to point to?

64

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 4:01 pm

Sebastian, I’m sure you’ll have no trouble convincing the “top” players to leave the union and thereby torpedo it in an effor to get more money for themselves and shaft the more ordianry players, since according to you their ability to capture their current slice of the revenue pie has nothing to do with the union’s countervaliling power against owner collusion. And of course, in a state of nature that did not include antitrust laws, the bargaining power of those players vis a vis the owners also wouldn’t suffer at all. Right. I don’t think the red herrings reside on my plate…

And you haven’t even begun addressing your other favorite example, computer jillionaires like Gates. Where exactly would they be without the monopoly rents which they can extract as a result of being granted “intellectual property” rights by the government?

65

abb1 03.14.06 at 4:07 pm

Micael Douglas doesn’t have monopoly power at all.

If he doesn’t – how does he manage to be paid millions for acting. Why don’t they hire a better actor for a fraction of what they’re paying to Michael?

But I’ll make $220 million the first time

That is not how it works, though, this is not how people get rich. They get rich by squashing competition or by squeezing the labor or both.

66

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 4:10 pm

“Micael Douglas doesn’t have monopoly power at all.

If he doesn’t – how does he manage to be paid millions for acting. Why don’t they hire a better actor for a fraction of what they’re paying to Michael?”

Because some fairly large subset of people will go see a movie with Michael Douglas for whatever (mysterious to me) reason. That isn’t monopoly power. That is market draw. If you think draw and monopoly are the same thing you should justify that assumption better so everyone else can understand why you use them interchangeably.

67

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 4:10 pm

P.S. By the way, when do we get to see the numbers to support this assertion?: The ten individuals I have chosen represent a huge percentage of the wealth gain we are talking about. You were asked that way back in #6- you really ought to deliver.

68

Jack 03.14.06 at 4:18 pm

Sebastian, if 220 million people are each given a dollar of value for a dollar each and the 220 million dollars are given to one person, the mass has lost and gained nothing while the one person is presumably much better off. On the other hand if the one person gave a dollar of value to 220 million people and received nothing for it, 220 million people would be better off by a dollar and one person would be no better or worse off than before. Most models of welfare say that the world is a better place after the second model. I would be happy with the mass paying 50 cents each for a dollar of value. I don’t see that anyone has a right to all surplus created by their activity but it is in any case a logical impossibility. What is desirable is that there be fair bargaining.

In addition Bill G’s dad might well have been one of the top 5 per cent and the family wealth played a crucial role in the founding of Microsoft. The wealth Bill G earned last year was not earned from modest beginnings and may have had little to do with his activities over the year. The Bush tax cuts must have beena windfall to the tune of maybe tens of billions of dollars to Bill G personally and, because spending has not fallen, will have to be made up by other, poorer, taxpayers. You cannot argue that he needed this tax cut as an incentive to create and innovate since he did that under a harsher tax regime. That is Bill G’s wealth gain last year was not “earned” but the result of fortunate investment the previous year (Choose Paul Allen instead if you want a clearer example).

69

abb1 03.14.06 at 4:26 pm

You say “market draw” I say “cronyism”. The guy manages to sell whatever he is selling at an extremely inflated price only because his father was a good actor. Cronyism is the opposite to anything “market”.

Anyhow, every successful entertainer quickly becomes a brand-name – and then his/her further success has no more relation to anything market than that of the guy who paints official Fidel Castro portraits.

70

Mike 03.14.06 at 4:32 pm

Abb,

So the oh-so-gullible Hollywood studios are paying Michael Douglas so much because his daddy told them to do so? Or because they are afraid of his daddy? What the heck are you talking about?

And brand names are sold in markets just like no-name products. An entertainer becomes a brand-name because consumers liked his or her products, and hence expect future products to be enjoyable as well.

You make no sense.

71

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 4:40 pm

“P.S. By the way, when do we get to see the numbers to support this assertion?: The ten individuals I have chosen represent a huge percentage of the wealth gain we are talking about. You were asked that way back in #6- you really ought to deliver.”

Read a little more carefully above, you can get the numbers from Forbes. They provide the list of billionaires 1996-2005. You can look and divide just like I can. Furthermore it is almost a mathematical certainty for the self-made billionaires. Barring marrying into wealth, you can’t move from the middle or even lower-upper classes to one of the richest people in the world without transitioning through a period of intense income growth. Any new people on the list (the google billionaires for instance) have to represent some of the greatest growth or else it is impossible for them to get there instead of someone else. That is especially true for the top seven people because none of them were born into the elite super-rich category. There are only 220,000 in the category that Krugman talks about. The only way the top earners could gain like Brin and Page without representing a huge portion of the total is if the a huge percentage of this category all had almost exactly the same growth. They didn’t, and if you think almost all of the 220,000 super-rich people are about the same in growth you shouldn’t be trying to call me out on fact-checking since that would mean you don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

Jack, I don’t suppose that baseball players capture all the value of all the entertainment they give. I’m pretty sure that a lot of it gets paid to television announcers, ballpark sweepers, popcorn vendors, etc. The point of my illustration was to show that-contra abb1–it is quite possible for individuals to earn hundreds of millions of dollars.

72

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 4:47 pm

You say “market draw” I say “cronyism”. The guy manages to sell whatever he is selling at an extremely inflated price only because his father was a good actor. Cronyism is the opposite to anything “market”.

Anyhow, every successful entertainer quickly becomes a brand-name – and then his/her further success has no more relation to anything market than that of the guy who paints official Fidel Castro portraits.

Draw in this context means that you appeal to enough people to get them to spend money to see your movies. The fact that you don’t see the appeal of Michael Douglas doesn’t mean that the appeal is non-existant. Just because I think he is a lousy actor doesn’t mean that everyone in the world goes to see movies for the same reasons that I do. For whatever reason, people like to see him in movies. Even if that reason is “I like to see movies with people from the Douglas family” if that gets people to the movies that is enough. The fact that you don’t get entertainment from seeing people in the Douglas family, or the fact that you don’t see the artistic merit of Michael Douglas doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. In matters of taste, people have their own taste. If they will pay for it, those who fulfill that taste get compensated. You may think it is unfair that people get paid for things you find non-entertaining. Fortunately for everyone who finds those things entertaining, you don’t get to make that decision.

73

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 4:56 pm

Nice try, Sebastian, but Forbes lists wealth (according to their estimates, whose accuracy is not necessarily above reproach) not incomes, and we’re talking about income inequality. Your handwaving “argument” (“the only way they can gain…”)for getting from one to the other is not impressive (and we haven’t even started discussing the rapid fluctuations which can occur in the paper “wealth” of guys like the Google founders, which makes your attempted slide from wealth to income even more precarious) and is not improved at all by the accompanying bluster, which appears to be an attempt to discourage further questioning so that you can get away with your assertion. Care to try again with actual income data? Or to admit that you just made stuff up?

74

abb1 03.14.06 at 4:58 pm

it is quite possible for individuals to earn hundreds of millions of dollars

Of course it’s possible – in the sense that it does happen. But it’s a clear indication of falure of the economic system.

Economic system that was supposed be sustained by small entrepreneurs competing for diminishingly small share of the market and responding to constant pressure for higher wages by introducing technological innovations.

75

Jaybird 03.14.06 at 5:00 pm

What are the top 5 or 10 countries with the “best” inequality stats?

Are they countries that people are trying to immigrate to in droves?

76

Henry 03.14.06 at 5:05 pm

bq. Henry, you can get the numbers from Forbes—as I mentioned. I also note that I am doing exactly what Krugman does in picking an arbitrary number of people to prove his point. The article, if you have read it which I seriously doubt, is premised on the idea that focusing on the normal sociological strata of top 20% or top 10% doesn’t give you the ‘real’ picture. He arbitrarily picks the numbers which he thinks prove his point. I am picking the top 10 performers—who by far produce more of the wealth than any other large segment of the top 0.1%—just as he is focusing on the top percentage of the top performers of the top 10%. Why is it wrong to focus on the top earners? They earn far more than anyone else in their tier. That is true whether or not you compare the top 25% of the whole, the top 25% of the top top 25%, the top 10% of the top 25%, the top 1% of the whole, the top 10% of the top 10%, the top 1% of the top 10%, or the top 0.01% of the top 10%. The plural of anedote isn’t data, but data mining isn’t the same as analysis either. And that is your real complaint—I didn’t pick anecdotes to suit my thesis, I mined the data in exactly the same way Krugman did. With exactly the same substantive result. The pathetic thing is that you criticize me without even noticing it in Krugman. There might be a term for that too—confirmation bias. I’m sure you’ve heard of it.

ummm no. Entirely apart from the fact that Krugman (a) provides information on several partitions of the data and (b) provides some information which cuts against his thesis as well as information which supports it, he actually provides real data. You don’t. Let me explain it to you in simple terms, fitting to the meanest comprehension (which class doesn’t include you in my estimation, but you seem to be, how can I put it, deliberately obtuse today). Accepted standards of statistical inference suggest that you need a reasonable number of observations before you can reasonably infer any pattern in the underlying data. If you have too few observations, any underlying pattern is liable to be overwhelmed by noise in the data. Krugman is making claims based on partitions of a data set with high n – multiple thousands of observations even in the smallest partition. You are making a causal claim on the basis of ten rather ropily researched observations. Krugman is making an argument based on data. You’re making one that is effectively based on anecdotes – the “evidence” that you provide is hopelessly inadequate for the justificatory task that you’re employing it for. It’s a quite fundamental difference – and that you can’t see the difference between what Krugman is doing and what you are doing suggests that you really shouldn’t be trying to get into this argument in the first place.

77

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 5:12 pm

jaybird, one ranking I quickly found via Google places Denmark as having the “best” Gini coefficient, and they seem to be attracting more immigrants than a lot of Danes are comfortable with these days. Canada, not in that league but many places above the US, is as much a nation of immigrants as the US. Your point?

78

Barry 03.14.06 at 5:14 pm

“What are the top 5 or 10 countries with the “best” inequality stats?

Are they countries that people are trying to immigrate to in droves?”

Posted by Jaybird ·

What are the countries to which people are trying to immigrate to – both in raw numbers, and per capita in the destination country?

WARNING – ANECDOTES:

1) I remember hearing recently that, while the USA was #1 in raw numbers, Russia was #2, which doesn’t fit into our conception of a bright shining destination. This was supposedly because (a) there’s a large number of ethnic Russians emigrating from formerly Soviet countries, and (b) there’s a lot of non-Russians emigrating from formerly Soviet countries, looking for work, because Russia is better than those countries. More misery very close to less misery = lots of emigration.

2) In various discussions here and on A Fistful of Euro’s, various european posters have said that a number of countries in Europe have surprisingly large percentages of immigrants in their populations. ‘Surprisingly large’ to me, a USA citizen, who’s conditioned to think of emigration from Europe, not to Europe. Again, much of this is caused be a prosperity/misery gradient and proximity; the absolute levels of prosperity and misery matter less.

79

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 5:33 pm

“If you have too few observations, any underlying pattern is liable to be overwhelmed by noise in the data. Krugman is making claims based on partitions of a data set with high n – multiple thousands of observations even in the smallest partition. You are making a causal claim on the basis of ten rather ropily researched observations.”

The problem here is that Krugman is not using a high N with respect to the population he is trying to generalize to. He is attempting to generalize to the entire economic functioning of the United States (220,000,000) from the top 0.1% (220,000). Now this isn’t a random 0.1%. This is a particular 0.1% that he has chosen for its particular features. His observations are set dependent-not individual dependent. If every single person in the top 0.1% were not there three years ago his statistics could still claim that the top 0.1% captured most of the income even though that would not help his equality case–since different people were gaining and losing money year to year. In that respect my subset is a much better test of his hypothesis–because it tracks individuals. Now if I were a highly compensated economist like Mr. Krugman and had at my fingertips all the data he has access to, I could try to do it the proper way instead of the way he did it. But I don’t. The fact that he designed his model poorly shouldn’t accrue against me when I point out such flaws.

Furthermore while it is mathematically possible for Brin and Page to go from at best the top 10% to the tip top of all Americans without representing a huge amount of the total change in the top 0.1%, it isn’t possible in any way that involves the actuality of the US economy.

Come to think of it, my criticism may be even more serious. Where does Krugman place such a change? Does someone like Brin who moves from maybe the top 10% of Americans to the top 10(no percentage sign) get counted as “increase in income for the top 0.1%”? If so, that is a serious flaw in the methodology.

80

Brett Bellmore 03.14.06 at 5:35 pm

“it is quite possible for individuals to earn hundreds of millions of dollars

Of course it’s possible – in the sense that it does happen. But it’s a clear indication of falure of the economic system.”

Only in the sense that you insist on defining it as a failure. Since an economic system can clearly “work” in every conventional sense, while still happening to produce some really rich people.

In other words, you’re merely expressing a normative preference for the absence of really rich people, not telling us anything objective about economic systems.

81

Steve LaBonne 03.14.06 at 6:04 pm

Sebastian, once you admit that it’s mathematically possible, your estimate of its real world probability is worthless until you show your data. Sadly, you have none. Worry about the mote in your eye, not the beam in Krugman’s.

82

Sebastian holsclaw 03.14.06 at 6:15 pm

“Sebastian, once you admit that it’s mathematically possible, your estimate of its real world probability is worthless until you show your data.”

Not even, it is mathematically possible for all oxygen molecules in a room to bunch up in one side long enough for you to suffocate. But if you find someone dead in a room you don’t get to assume that.

But if you want to play that game, check out this mathematical possibility. Brin is the only person who increased income in the entire United States. He moves from the top 10% to the 5th most compensated person. The 5th most compensated person is in the top 0.1%. Krugman’s methodology will show that the top 0.1% gaining all the income. It will also show that only one person entered the top 0.1%. Since he doesn’t track individuals this will be used to show that the top 0.1% are hogging all the created income AND that the top 0.1% has vanishingly little mobility. This Krugman can use to infer that people already in the top 0.1% are locking in the ability to gain income even though in actuality the only person who gained income didn’t even come from the top 0.1%. If you don’t track individuals, that is the kind of junk statistic you can get. Mathematically possible with the data Krugman shows. I’m sure Mr. Labonne will be writing Krugman momentarily.

83

francis 03.14.06 at 6:25 pm

never trust a lawyer on economic issues.

that said, i wonder how much of the top 10’s wealth is attributable to capital gains as opposed to income.

put another way, SH claims that the fact that the top 0.1% of the population has captured all the income increase over the years in question is attributable to the increases in income of a very very small group. I’m not sure that Bill Gates ever had a very large income. But he has had staggering capital gains.

Any thoughts?

84

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.14.06 at 6:46 pm

“But he has had staggering capital gains.”

This brings up yet another problem. If you are using IRS data as your source, capital gains count as income–but not until you sell. This means that you can mistake income reported on a particular year’s tax form with income earned that year. With stock option earners this could cause a lot of confusion.

85

Jonathan Schwarz 03.14.06 at 6:48 pm

I must admit I’m stunned that Sebastian is familiar with the concept of confirmation bias.

;-)

86

Jonathan Schwarz 03.14.06 at 6:50 pm

Whoops, let me try that again:

confirmation bias

87

Andrew 03.14.06 at 8:00 pm

Sebastien wrote: “The problem here is that Krugman is not using a high N with respect to the population he is trying to generalize to.”

So (to use a delightful analogy I read recently but can’t remember where) when Sebastien cooks a bowl of soup, he needs to taste only a spoonful to check the seasoning. But when he cooks a vat of soup for 1000 people, he needs to drink a whole bowlful before he can judge if it tastes OK.

The point of stats is that the size of the sample creates a level of validity that is unrelated to the size of the population the sample is drawn from. Sorry, Sebastien, I’m not being convinced here.

88

Andrew 03.14.06 at 8:09 pm

And on a different point – it may be true that people are moving into and out of the to 0.1%. I think it’s fairly reasonable to assume that most of them aren’t moving in or out of the bottom, say, 40%.

It’s mathematically impossible for very many of the population to spend a year of their life in the top 0.1% of income earners, even if nobody spends more than a single year there, which is clearly not the case from Sebastien’s own treasured Forbes list.

I have to say that I feel like we’re debating exactly which tree, among the acres of trees we’re looking at, denotes the start of the forest.

89

KCinDC 03.14.06 at 8:20 pm

Andrew, of course everyone gets a turn as a billionaire. The Right Brothers told me so:

Trickle down, trickle down let the money trickle down
It won’t do anybody good buried in the ground
Trickle down, trickle down let the money spread around
And one day it’ll be my turn and mine will trickle down

90

Henry 03.14.06 at 8:52 pm

Shorter Sebastian: anecdotes are _better_ than data.

Longer Sebastian …

bq. The problem here is that Krugman is not using a high N with respect to the population he is trying to generalize to.

Nope – the important thing is _not_ the ratio between the sample and the population; it’s the size of the sample. This is elementary statistics. Have you taken a statistics course, even at undergraduate level? This is the kind of thing that instructors are supposed to drum into their students until their ears bleed.

bq. He is attempting to generalize to the entire economic functioning of the United States (220,000,000) from the top 0.1% (220,000).

Nope, he’s not, at least not for meanings of generalize that have anything to do with the issue at hand. He’s partitioning data to make a perfectly mundane point about increasing inequalities in the US. Now it is conceivable that different partitions of the data might reveal a different relationship than the one that Krugman is suggesting is there. Conceivable – but completely implausible. The empirical claim that he is making is entirely non-controversial in the relevant literature. _Nobody_ disagrees that inequality is increasing in the US and that the top percentiles of the population have seen enormously disproportionate gains. The disagreements are over what causes this, and whether it is a good or bad thing. I refer you to the most recent issue of PS at the American Political Science Association’s website (most of it is public as far as I recall) for further discussion.

The argument that you are making, insofar as I can discern it – it is quite muddy – is that maybe income inequalities don’t matter because of mobility between income segments. Again, this argument has been quite definitively exploded by the data – long term income mobility is decreasing substantially even as short term volatility and risk for lower income segments is increasing rapidly(cf, in particular, “the work”:http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jhacker/PSID_Data_NYT.htm of Jacob Hacker).

bq. Now if I were a highly compensated economist like Mr. Krugman and had at my fingertips all the data he has access to, I could try to do it the proper way instead of the way he did it. But I don’t.

Well hey, it’s your lucky day! Check out the US Census’s site on income statistics for “all the data”:http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/dinctabs.html you could possibly ask for. I look forward to seeing your forthcoming analyses.

Data talks. Bullshit walks. I’m not claiming to be a first rate statistician – Daniel, John Q. and Kieran do the heavy lifting on that in this blog. But I certainly have enough statistical training to be able tell when someone is out of their depth. And it’s clear from some of the basic errors that you’ve made here, that you’re just not qualified to try to correct Krugman on his choice of stats.

91

Jaybird 03.14.06 at 9:10 pm

I didn’t have a point, really, but was hoping to find one.

It seems to me that the countries that have the most people trying to move there are probably the countries most appealing to the amorphous “others” out there. If more people want to get into a country with a crappy equality ratio than one with a kickin’ one, maybe fixing the equality ratio will break something more important to more people.

Maybe people acting in their own self-interest take more than economics into consideration.

My wife, for example (Peace Be Upon Her), would love to have a $350/month apartment, a 18k/year job, and spend 2 months a year on vacation. I would prefer to live in a $1000/month mortgaged house, make 50k/year, and spend 1 long weekend a month on vacation.

What would “equality” mean between the two of us? What if you had millions and millions of individuals who all had different ideas of how they wanted to spend their paychecks and free time?

Do I have a false consciousness and my wife (Peace Be Upon Her) truly understands the way a person ought to live? Is she a stupid hippie?

92

soubzriquet 03.14.06 at 9:15 pm

jaybird: yes.

93

soubzriquet 03.14.06 at 9:21 pm

Sebastian: I’m not a statistician either, but from a quick reading you do seem to have blown the basics as Henry suggests. The trends in this stuff have been well established for ages now, but I’m not quite clear as to what you are arguing, so….

94

radek 03.14.06 at 10:51 pm

As far as I can tell what Sebastian is arguing is that 1) the trends described by Krugman are driven by a few outliers, and 2)the folks in the top .01% today aren’t the same ones as those ten years ago. I don’t know about the empirical validity of these claims (actually hold on a sec,…) but I don’t think you can just casually dismiss these points or accuse him of ignorance of statistics. Large N ain’t got much to do with it.

…so income inequality is rising and mobility MIGHT be falling (harder to measure, far as I know the jury’s still out on this one) but this is true for the distribution as a whole, but not necassarily at any given point in the distribution. It’s perfectly possible that both Krugman and Sebastian are correct.

95

joel turnipseed 03.14.06 at 11:05 pm

Well… honestly. I can’t believe no one’s bothered to check this yet. The Forbes 400 cumulative net worth is approximately $770B. The 2003 (latest data from US Census) estimate of total private net worth in U.S. (table 704) is $34.6T. That makes the Forbes list worth about 2% of private net worth. The entrepreneurs represent only a tiny fraction of the Forbes list (and none of the recent entrepreneurs are in the top 50). So, to suggest, as Sebastian does, that entrepreneurial activity could account for the 7+ percent change in ownership of assets stated at the head of this post is… absurd.

Now, as to the rest of the comments…

Abb1, et.al., yes, of course, “the system” of private property, corporate charter, etc., makes it possible for people to amass great wealth. But would you abolish these? Doesn’t seem like such a hot idea. And while I certainly wonder about the benefits of mass technologies (whether communication or production), once you have them it’s just a normal outcome that those who climb to the top will be able to make massive amounts of money. If a CEO with 20,000 employees averaging, say, $45K a year, gets an extra $1000 worth of productivity out of them–and even gives them fifty percent of this increase, pays a dividend of fourty percent to shareholders and keeps ten percent for his efforts, the workers are going to get a $500 raise and he’s going to get a $1M bonus–while getting the “least” benefit.

I don’t know how much a problem this inequality is, but it makes me uneasy. I do know that there’s no quick fix. Even if you taxed the half the net worth of the top half of ownership in this country, you’d have $8.5T to spend. Not including transaction costs (or the benefit of, say, paying off the National Debt), you’d get a one-time distribution of $68,000 to the 125 million or so working Americans (someone check me to make sure I haven’t lost a significant digit in here and am off by an order of magnitude–it’s late). While this sounds like a grand sum (and the median net worth of the American family is a grim $55K), it’s not really–not when you consider the havoc you’d wreak getting such a plan across and how little it would change the lives of most families in the long run (and you’d positively devastate the public and private equity markets).

That said, our tax system does seem a bit fucked up just now. We tax least the things we should tax most (inheritance/capital gains) and have shifted tax burden downward on workers. Not a very good incentive program, is it?

Thoughts, everyone?

96

jet 03.14.06 at 11:24 pm

Off topic, but there is something a bit different in this post.

I had yet to see a CT blogger call a commenter stupid, so it was a bit of a surprise to see Henry calling/implying Sebastion was stupid/obtuse.

Good one Henry, without your comments I never would have realized Sebastion was stupid (I was sitting here thinking him rather clever). Maybe the next time you say something stupid, a jolly chap can attempt to humiliate you in a public forum.

97

radek 03.14.06 at 11:33 pm

Thoughts, everyone?

Yeah, you’re talking about net worth, but Krugman’s talking about income. Harder to measure.

98

joel turnipseed 03.15.06 at 12:20 am

Radek,

Yes, Krugman’s talking about income inequality. By taking net worth, I’m looking at where that inequality’s gotten us — and what avenues might be available to rectifying it.

If we had, say, the marginal tax rates that were in effect ca. 1936-1980s, even a huge increase in change in incomes wouldn’t have much an effect on net worth — or your ability to continuously leverage that change.

That said–it’s posts (and comment threads) like these that point up the limitations of blogs, per se: these are exceptionally complicated topics–and it’s the rare comment exchange that sheds much light on them.

What you’d like to see are comparative statistics of tax rates vs. income vs. net worth vs. gdp by, say, decile from 1900-2000, accompanied by both philosophical frameworks for evaluating justice of these (e.g., Rawls, Nozick, Epstein, Sen et.al.) as well as an analysis of both the structural changes in corporate and technological development and an analysis of the legislative battles/frameworks by which these changes took place.

Then you could start to have an intelligent discussion. In the meantime, it took until, what, my comment at No. 94 for someone to offer a substantive refutation of Sebastian’s claims?

As to Jet’s remark: yes, Henry has a bit of a tendency to go ballistic (even if, as in this case, Sebastian’s gist was half-baked). What gives, Henry?

99

joel turnipseed 03.15.06 at 12:36 am

BTW… for the record: my quick thumbnail sketch from perusing my Historical Abstract & my most recent Statistical Abstract (2005), lead me to believe that such a comparison as I outlined would be a real eye-opener to a lot of people. Of course, one reason the Hoover/FDR tax plans (combined, they raised top marginal rate from 23 to 90 percent) worked is that the Second World War more or less destroyed the remainder of the industrial world’s manufacturing capacity–giving us a couple-decade head-start. Which brings up an even more difficult question: when a clever U.S. corporation/management team has the entire globe over which to plan their activity–where do we go from there? Seems to suggest that, while living standards will rise in India, China, Brazil… they’ve got nowhere to go but down in the EU and U.S., at least marginally–if you believe in any sort of equilibrium. And, if your scope of production/consumption is a planet of 5-6B people, that’s a lot of “golden crumbs” to make for your wildest inequality when you’re pulling the strings.

100

Barry 03.15.06 at 1:17 am

It’s amazing what an income inequality thread will produce for volume; g*n c*n*r*l and a*o*r*i*n are yawners, by comparison. A parallel thread is exploding at Brad DeLong’s blog.

In both cases it’s one person doing an inordinate amount of posting. For privacy’s sake, let’s call ‘him’ S. Holsclaw, or perhaps Sebastian H.

I think that Krugman was correct, in a column a while back, when he said that discussions of income inequality provoked powerful reactions among right-wingers.

101

Z 03.15.06 at 1:37 am

In the meantime, it took until, what, my comment at No. 94 for someone to offer a substantive refutation of Sebastian’s claims?
Noone offered a substantive refutation because Sebastian’s claim was not a claim at all. He said that should one do some unspecified math, one would reach some unspecified conclusion about unspecified questions of mobility and inequality. As unprecise as his “claims” were, they seemed to contradict the conclusions of the relevant literature in social sciences (and looked fishy from a statistical perspective). So what do you do? Well, you wait and hope the thread will go in a different direction.

Me, I think this post is about very well-known points. Maybe Henry will comment on the APSA report, they touch on subjects that look interesting.

102

Thomas 03.15.06 at 1:45 am

Random thoughts after reading all this:

Sebastian is right when he points out some of the limitations of using IRS data. Income reported in a year isn’t necessarily income “earned” in that year in any normal sense, at least when we’re discussing capital gains (and that is largely what we’re discussing).

Sebastian is wrong to not recognize that the winners and losers in Forbes aren’t necessarily included in the IRS data. Bill Gates may have had a very good year, but he likely recognized as income only a fraction of his increased net worth.

Does anyone doubt that, were the data available and reliable, we’d see the same trends at each smaller subset at the top? That we’d see increasing earnings at the .05% and .01% and so on? (And that we’d see that despite the fact that these statistics may in some sense understate the trends, because gains aren’t recognized as income until a taxable event occurs.)

I don’t think that Krugman and Sebastian would disagree about that–but, please, tell me if I’ve got it wrong. (This also puts to one side any disagreement about mobility and its meaning in this context; even if there were considerable mobility, it would still be noteworthy that there is increasing inequality in the income data. One doesn’t have to think there’s a problem to be solved to see something interesting and new.)

No, the disagreement is about what narrative we’re supposed to construct around this–what’s the story. I’m not sure what Krugman says here, as he’s behind a paywall. Is it Robert Frank-ian, winner-take-all? Is it plutocratic policy-making? Sebastian says that, don’t listen to anyone who says this is a problem, just look who’s in this group at the top. Bill Gates, the Google guys, and so on. Who begrudges Gates his billions (other than abb1)? (I say this as someone who’s spent his own money making Steve Jobs a billionaire.) He says, plausibly but not definitively, that the shifts in the data are largely the result of people like Gates. (That can’t be all there is to it, because in the IRS data we see the threshhold for entering the top .1% increasing, which wouldn’t be expected if the top handful were doing all the work.) We should, he suggests, be happy to have these geniuses around, no matter the share of income they’re taking.

103

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.15.06 at 2:37 am

I can’t believe no one’s bothered to check this yet. The Forbes 400 cumulative net worth is approximately $770B. The 2003 (latest data from US Census) estimate of total private net worth in U.S. (table 704) is $34.6T. That makes the Forbes list worth about 2% of private net worth. The entrepreneurs represent only a tiny fraction of the Forbes list (and none of the recent entrepreneurs are in the top 50). So, to suggest, as Sebastian does, that entrepreneurial activity could account for the 7+ percent change in ownership of assets stated at the head of this post is… absurd.

It is amazing that people can go to the statistics work it out and then get it so wrong.

First: “and none of the recent entrepreneurs are in the top 50″…

What are you talking about? The top 5 are Gates, Buffet, Allen, Dell and Ellison. None of the 5 inherited any large percentage of their wealth. Gates, Allen, Dell and Ellison are all recent entrepreneurs. That is 4 out of the top 5. Add Ballmer, Adelson, Brin, Page and Omidyar and you have a full 9 out of the top 20. None in the top 50? What in the world would it take to qualify under your definition.

Here is the link to the richest Americans. I only added the worth of the top 100 because my tape calculator is at work and I don’t want to make an ugly mistake. The top one hundred come out to around $667 Billion. That is just about 2% of the total net wealth. That is among the top 100 people. That is 0.0000005 of the total population of the US. Among the top 20 people the total wealth is about $342 Billion. That is about 0.0000001 of the US population and about 1$ of the total net wealth. That confirms exactly what I have said since the beginning which is that Krugman’s comment about the top 1% are also applicable to further divisions of the most elite. The top 0.1%, the top 0.01%, 0.001%, the top 0.0001%. Krugman doesn’t track individuals–you really should if you are going to talk about sticky inequality.

Of the individuals you can track (the ones at the very top) you don’t see the kind of thing that Krugman claims is happening. You see people like Brin and Page rocketing to the top from maybe the bottom of the top 10%. You see self-made billionaires like Gates, Ellsion, Allen, Dell, Adelson earning more money. You see inherited wealth people like the Waltons losing money. You see that a huge percentage of the people in the elite class didn’t come from elite backgrounds. The picture Krugman is trying to paint doesn’t hold among individuals you can track.

I showed how you could use the statistics he has–set data with individuals stripped out to accidentaly confuse the picture by showing little ‘class’ movement over a generation and showing huge gains in ‘the class’ while failing to notice that many of the hugest gains are from people who weren’t from ‘the class’ at the beginning of the time period.

If you want to tell a story about a rigid class capturing most of the growth, you can’t tell that with statistics that can’t see individuals entering the class. Failing to capture people like Brin and Page in your statistics is a huge failure if you are trying to paint an accurate picture of people do or do not move into the elite levels of wealth. You could have completely static elite class except for the people I mentioned above (which is a ridiculous assumption) and that would totally screw up your statistics because they alone represent more than a half a percent of the total wealth–that leaves about 219,990 other people to divy up the rest of the wealth in the top 1% of the US population. If getting just the 9 people I can easily track wrong skews your data that badly I don’t see how you can be so confident in the rest of the data. A 1% change in the top 1% is 2,200 people. If we posit a turnover that small, you still end up failing to properly track a huge amount of the wealth we are talking about here. They of course won’t hit the statistics as hard as Brin but 2,200 people out of that small an overall class could easily paint a picture very different from the one Krugman is trying to paint. This is especially true because the people moving into the class are by definition the ones who have experienced a large amount of recent growth in wealth. So when you are talking about where the increased wealth has gone, you are talking about those people at the very same time as your statistics fail to take them into account.

104

dale 03.15.06 at 2:58 am

what i find amazing (after reviewing the first third of this thread) is that conversations about sex, war, genocide and manipulative (downright evil) foreign policy don’t generate anywhere near as much brittle, angry, falsetto shrieking as conversations about…money.

what’s with americans and wannabee-americans? is money the new sex in your country?

105

abb1 03.15.06 at 3:10 am

Brett,
Only in the sense that you insist on defining it as a failure. Since an economic system can clearly “work” in every conventional sense, while still happening to produce some really rich people.

No, in this thread I choose to assume (for argument’s sake only) that this economic system’s only goal is efficiency. Its efficiency is achieved by vigorous competition, liquidity of the capital flowing towards the highest ROI in the economy to create competition there.

So, in an ideal case when vigorous competition exists everywhere and at all times, no entrepreneur can get ahead – the competition will immediately cut him down. Therefore, every time you see a very rich entrepreneur (and I am not talking about people who own scarce resource, just entrepreneurs), you know that something’s gone terribly wrong, the system’s been inefficient, it’s choked, it failed.

I mean, clearly, abnormally high reward is an indication of inefficiency, because it means that the product could’ve been sold at a much lower price.

Where am I wrong here?

106

Tony 03.15.06 at 3:32 am

abb1 – I don’t think “failure” in ordinary English means “market failure” in the sense of “failure to produce a [Pareto, Kaldor-Hicks]-efficient outcome.” Using the ordinary term “failure” that way (rather than as a piece of technical jargon) is rather like calling democracy a failure whenever it fails to produce Utopia.

But you are correct – markets don’t produce [Pareto, Kaldor-Hicks]-efficient outcomes. We’re never going to get rid of imperfect information, transaction costs, differentiated products, a finite number of firms, etc. etc. etc.

Do you mean something more interesting?

107

bad Jim 03.15.06 at 3:37 am

Dale: many years ago the comic strip Doonesbury depicted an advertising firm rebranding condoms as “condos”. A child watching one of the resulting TV commercials asked, “Dad, what does real estate have to do with sex?” The father said, “Everything, son. Why do you ask?”

108

soru 03.15.06 at 6:19 am

I mean, clearly, abnormally high reward is an indication of inefficiency, because it means that the product could’ve been sold at a much lower price.

To a certain extent that is true – if one CEO can slash costs for a bonus of $1M, there’s probably someone else similarly competent prepared to work equally hard for a bonus of $0.8M.

The question of why that doesn’t happen probably has several answers, one of which is that CEOs are effectively specialised celebrities, with their own ‘brand value’ amongst investors that is not replaceable on a commodity basis.

109

Brett Bellmore 03.15.06 at 7:20 am

“Where am I wrong here?”

You’re confusing a theoretical model which only applies under certain limiting conditions to a real world, complex economy. Those limiting conditions don’t apply to the circumstances which generally result in highly inovative people who suddenly fill an unrecognized need getting really wealthy.

A mature market without innovation, producing interchangable products, won’t produce fabulously wealthy people. This is not a description of all markets. Thank God! Because a world where all markets were like that would have very little progress.

Demanding that the economy meet some theoretical image of perfection, or be declared to have “failed”, and thus be subject to being “fixed”, is a favorite ploy of people who simply don’t like free economies. Not producing the distribution of wealth you happen to prefer is not a “failure”.

110

Tim Worstall 03.15.06 at 7:27 am

About abb1’s point and the creation of value etc. According to Nordhaus, the actual numbers for returns to entrepreneurs are that of the $1 of value created some 97 cents go to the society at large and 3 cents to the entrepreneur. So the system is indeed working. It‘s enough to keep people innovating (which we want) and the benefits seem very widely spread.

A very different point though. Assume that Krugman’s correct, that the very top are getting all the gains. Assume also, as mentioned above, that this is almost exclusively returns to capital, not wages or salaries.

We also note that the US has an extraordinarily low savings rate, near zero or actually negative (can’t remember what the latest position is).

In such a situation wouldn’t we actually rather like returns to capital to rise? So that there is greater incentive to save? And thus raise that savings rate which all agree is a problem?

Yes, I know, many round here would say that the rising income inequality isn’t worth it. But might it be?

111

abb1 03.15.06 at 7:38 am

I don’t see why you consider innovation something that should make you fabulously wealthy, as opposed to something that keeps you out of bankruptcy. All your competitors – thousands of them – are introducing innovations every day and you have to copy their innovations and invent some of your own – just to stay afloat.

Demanding that the economy meet some theoretical image of perfection, or be declared to have “failed”, and thus be subject to being “fixed”, is a favorite ploy of people who simply don’t like free economies.

So, you aren’t denying that unusually high awards manifest imperfection, then? So, how high should it go to manifest a failure?

112

Barry 03.15.06 at 7:47 am

“what’s with americans and wannabee-americans? is money the new sex in your country?”

Posted by dale

That, and power, and self-image/self-esteem. If one suggests that America is not, for all practical purposes, a meritocrcay, where income and wealth are correlated with moral virtue, then one is an Evul Commie. Oh, and that wealth and income inequality doesn’t matter because we’re all moving up and down so much – if you’re making minimum wage today, you’ll be rolling in it next year.

As inequality increases, and social mobility declines, these beliefs will need to be defended every more fanatically. It’s both ideology and patriotism, to some.

113

Barry 03.15.06 at 7:54 am

Oh, dale – this thread has been puffed up mainly, as I said, by one guy. Take his contributions away (and responses to him), and length would go down, while the information content would increase.

114

Brett Bellmore 03.15.06 at 8:11 am

“So, you aren’t denying that unusually high awards manifest imperfection, then? So, how high should it go to manifest a failure?”

No, actually I am denying it, hence the sneer quotes around “failure”. Unusually high awards in this case are instances of economic model failure, not market failure.

I’ve got this image of you comparing a simplified model of plant growth to the real world, and deciding that the forest needs to be burned down and replanted because the trees aren’t growing in an hexagonal array….

How high? How about to the point where people start moving FROM this country, instead of to it?

115

DC 03.15.06 at 8:18 am

“the top seven are self made billionaires.” (comment #2)

I just think that phrase is fantastically hilarious. How’d they manage that?

116

Uncle Kvetch 03.15.06 at 8:35 am

what’s with americans and wannabee-americans? is money the new sex in your country?

Ain’t nothing “new” about it, Dale. Money has always been our sex, and the mega-rich are our porn stars. And as Barry points out, to even suggest that they don’t deserve our starry-eyed adulation, or that they don’t deserve to collect an ever-larger slice of the pie, is considered apostasy.

I mean, seriously: is there any other country in the world where Donald Trump could turn himself into a TV star?

117

Jack 03.15.06 at 8:40 am

Tim, it might be worth it, and something like it probably is, but that does not imply that if this is a trade off you can make. In particular reducing taxation of the very rich reduces the spending power of the poorer (unless you actually cut spending) and it is they who aren’t saving and who might be enticed to save by higher returns but also by having more money to save.It will also reduce the required returns from investment and make it even less attractive to the poor.

Sebastian, two points. The top gainers may at one time have been entrepreneurs but their gains last year were investment returns. If all the top 400 were from “non-elite” (the bottom of the top 10 per cent?) backgrounds that is of little statistical significance to the bottom half of the distribution for two reasons. It is less than one in 250,000 and it was in all those cases achieved in earlier times under conditions that we cannot assume are the same as today’s.

I suspect that the situation would look worse if applied to wealth rather than income.

The issue isn’t mobility. Imagine the greasy pole that everyone is trying to climb as a hill. Altitude is wealth or income and the circumference of the hill is proportional to the number of people at that level. Professor Krugman is saying that it’s looking increasingly like a field with a very tall flagpole in the middle.

In practice all the flagpole does is distort the statistics that apply to 95% of the population.

118

abb1 03.15.06 at 8:57 am

How high? How about to the point where people start moving FROM this country, instead of to it?

Well, apparently people don’t rush to this country so much anymore:
Where would you go to lead a good life?

Unusually high awards in this case are instances of economic model failure, not market failure.

I dunno. “Market” is a place where people meet buy and sell stuff; it’s viewed as efficient and self-adjusting mechanism – that’s the economic model. I understand that prices and incomes fluctuate, but if a small group of people manage to extract higher and higher and yet higher, ever higher incomes compare to the rest of the participants, that tells me that this market economy is out of whack, it’s inefficient, it doesn’t self-adjust. If this is not failure, what would constitute a failure?

119

jake 03.15.06 at 9:38 am

Regardless of political affiliations, the IT barons are the product of Reagan-era type of trickle-down economics and corporate welfare; Microsoft and Gates the JP Morgan of the late 20th century. A traditional democratic administration–such as Roosevelt’s–would not have allowed this to develop: FDR’s crew of Keynesians and socialist leaning trustbusters would have broken up the IT conglomerations, and the big automotive corps, Walmart, etc. Oligolopoly now is more or less accepted, and until academic economists realize massive wage and wealth differentials are unethical and injust as well as inefficient (as is allowing billionnaires to simply generate millions by interest and speculation), the Forbes 400 type of absurdity will continue.

120

Brett Bellmore 03.15.06 at 10:16 am

What would constitute failure is if they weren’t providing something people wanted to buy in order to extract those higher and higher incomes.

If you’re digging ditches, or manufacturing interchangable widgets, one person pretty much can’t be much more productive than another. If you’re innovating, it’s possible for one person to be billions of times more productive than another. So the simple fact that incomes differ by some huge factor tells you nothing about whether things are “out of wack”.

You’re applying to the modern economy a model which simply isn’t applicable to an economy driven by intellectual innnovation. People don’t get fabulously weathy by making marginal changes in how they manufacture buggy whips, they do it by replacing horses with IC engines. And that’s the sort of thing your model just doesn’t apply to.

121

Steve LaBonne 03.15.06 at 10:28 am

Bill Gates never innovated anything in his life except sharp business practices and aggressive rent-seeking via IP rights. I think one doesn’t have to go all the way with abb1 to suspect that there is a good argument to be made that something went wrong with a system which allowed him to become filthy rich selling overpriced mediocre products while using every available legal and semilegal stratagem to squash competition.

122

Henry 03.15.06 at 10:34 am

jet – read what I said again, a little more carefully this time. Hint: “deliberately” is an important word. If I thought that Sebastian were genuinely stupid I would probably have been a lot more tolerant than I was. He strikes me as an intelligent person who settles rather too frequently for my taste for being clever instead; going in for debating tactics rather than genuine argument and give-and-take.

joel – the reason why I was harsh towards Sebastian is twofold. First, he made a quite serious allegation that Krugman was “picking an arbitrary number of people to prove his point.” When you make an allegation of this sort, you should have the basic wherewithal to back it up, in terms of some moderate degree of understanding of how you pick numbers, which statistical choices are appropriate and which inappropriate, and (ideally) some grounding in the previous research on this topic. Sebastian doesn’t seem to have had the basic exposure to statistics which is necessary to engage in these debates; or if he does have the exposure, it surely doesn’t seem to have taken. His criticisms of Krugman involve some quite fundamental errors. Finally, I’m attached to the comments sections at Crooked Timber – they’re not always to my taste, but seem to involve a higher level of debate than most other comments sections in the blogosphere. This section didn’t have that – for the most part it has been a non-debate provoked by a commenter who isn’t making serious claims. This is a waste of everyone’s time – and the best way that I can see to prevent it happening in future is to make it clear exactly how unserious the claims were in the first place. There is room for real argument between left and right over these figures – but that isn’t what we’ve been seeing

123

Maria 03.15.06 at 10:34 am

abb1,

I don’t see why you consider innovation something that should make you fabulously wealthy, as opposed to something that keeps you out of bankruptcy. All your competitors – thousands of them – are introducing innovations every day and you have to copy their innovations and invent some of your own – just to stay afloat.

So what exactly should be the difference between a worker and an entrepreneur? It’s almost as if you were suggesting that people who choose not to innovate (because they can’t, because they find it too hard to be worth it, and they aren’t as smart and creative as you are), should not have income at all. Or they should be bankrupt.

Now, for something a bit different, I’d like to know how much of this change could have been brought about mechanically by immigration. If you had 220,000 newcomers to the income distribution who start out near the very bottom, this would shift the definition of the top 0.1%, and even if they kept their original incomes their share would go up (especially since the richest of those are much richer than the rest). I suspect this is not the largest part of what is actually going on, but it is part of the phenomenon, and I’d like to know how this would be evaluated in terms of this debate.

About the immigration link, some notable absences from the data: Africa and Latin America. Also, note the difference between the question “where would you go to lead a better life” and “where could/will you go”. Lots of people would love to exploit Europeans’ monopoly power on their welfare system. However, it seems quite hard to get in – much harder than to get into the US. Of course, for the people already there, going to the US is no good.

124

abb1 03.15.06 at 11:08 am

If you’re innovating, it’s possible for one person to be billions of times more productive than another. So the simple fact that incomes differ by some huge factor tells you nothing about whether things are “out of wack”.

I don’t understand, you make it sound like innovation is some kind of miracle – but it’s not, it’s nothing like that. Everyone knows what they need to do to innovate, usually it’s a simple matter of cost/benefit analysis. And if you don’t know how to innovate, you hire business consultants and they tell you. And they’ll tell every one of your competitors too. It’s just that simple and there is no way you can be 10 times more productive than others, let alone billions of times, because as soon as it looks like the innovation works for you, the others will immediately copy it.

The miracle happens when you manage to keep systematically destroying your competitors, the way Microsofts and Walmarts do.

125

Brett Bellmore 03.15.06 at 11:13 am

“I don’t understand, you make it sound like innovation is some kind of miracle – but it’s not, it’s nothing like that. Everyone knows what they need to do to innovate…”

Yup, you DEFINATELY don’t understand innovation, if you think it’s something that you can crank out of a spreadsheet. LOL

126

abb1 03.15.06 at 11:15 am

Well, give me an example.

127

joel turnipseed 03.15.06 at 11:33 am

Sebastian,

Sorry, I had the 2004 Forbes list (against 2003 wealth stats–trying to use apples-to-apples). But it doesn’t matter. Gates, et.al., are hardly new money — especially Gates among that crew. If Google kids cracked the list this year–that’s great. Mark Cuban did it a few years ago. Someone will do it again in a few years.

But if you look at the data on income/net worth, the dollar volumes are so great that you just can’t account for large percentage changes–7 to 10 percent–by the churning of a few individuals.

Now, you seem to be making two points: the first, that a huge rise in inquality at top could be because of a few entrepreneurs (which I don’t buy), plus a somewhat different point–one which would be interesting to see data on–namely, that the inherited rich lose their money over time and that the entrepreneurs replace them over time at the top of the heap. This I might buy–but I’d be very curious to see detailed data on this to determine what to make of this relative to the whole top cohorts changes relative to the rest of the U.S. (e.g., so Bill Gates gets 10,000 times richer than me while the Walton kids only get 5,000 times richer–while I find it twice as hard to get rich… sadly, Bill Gates is already 10,000 times richer than me–but just barely!).

Henry–absolutely, re: comments on Crooked Timber. It’s the only waste of time I waste my time on during the day (and boy, do I).

OK, must get some work done.

128

Maria 03.15.06 at 11:42 am

First,

About my earlier post, the point about the income distribution shifting because of immigration was just stupid, I’ve no idea what I was talking about. I temporarily forgot any maths I’d ever known.

Now, about innovation: there are two sorts, I believe. One is improving things that already exist – say, making an existing software program more efficient in its use of resources, or coming up with a more beautiful proof of a known mathematical result. This is what consultants do relatively well.

But coming up with completely new things – a new sort of drug, a new result no-one’s seen before, a new interpretation of a text, a new device (the telegraph? the printing press?) – is not the result of the same process. I agree with abb1’s point that these innovations build upon cumulative knowledge, but they also incorporate some originality which I don’t think is in any way inevitable. I would not have come up with godel’s proof, and it was not the result of having a couple of “logic consultants” on demand.

This is not the same as saying that their reward should come as income – or as inordinately high income. But we could ask the question of what sort of rewards – if any – would make these innovations more likely. And whether these rewards would be efficient – ie, if we think a patent is necessary, what the terms of that patent should be. After all, we want them to innovate, only insofar as their innovation will be available to the rest of us.

129

Steve LaBonne 03.15.06 at 11:53 am

If we’re talking specifically about technological innovations, how often do the big financial rewards go to the actual engineers and scientists who developed them? And what does the answer to that question say about claims that the prospect of huge financial rewards is essential to promote innovation?

In other words, is there actually any sound reason to believe that technological progress- including genuinely novel developments- would dry up if potential innovators didn’t have dangled before them the carrot of imagined super-wealth? Or is this simply a pious, unexamined belief?

130

Maria 03.15.06 at 12:01 pm

Well, the engineers/scientists who are employed by labs receive wages even if they do not come up with anything for a long period of time. If their income only came whenever they made a new discovery, maybe it would be much higher as a percentage of the revenue.

In other words, all these innovating activities are risky, and to judge their results by only looking at those who win, is a bit misleading. If scientists/engineers paid for their own equipment, and for the time it takes them to actually come up with something new and useful, your question would be more to the point.

There are people who would come up with new things if all you offered them in reward was a minimum wage and widespread recognition. There are some who would never come up with anything, in exchange for the whole of Bill Gates’ wealth. I think it is still an open question just how many people lie in between.

131

Steve LaBonne 03.15.06 at 12:12 pm

So what does all that uncertainty in the answer to my question do to the claims made by the right that we better not mess with the possibility of attaining wealth like Gates’s if we want innovation? To take an admittedly tendentious example, is the high-inequality, entrepreneurial US better at innovating in, let’s say, the auto industry than low-inequality, bureaucratic Japan?

132

abb1 03.15.06 at 12:20 pm

I think the most successful business model is this: grow big, kill the competitors, then get rich. Google is the most recent example. Where’s the competition, where are all the other search engines? Gone. If you aren’t indexed by the google – you don’t exist. From now on 95% of their effort will go into making sure no competitor can emerge: buyouts, price dumping, frivolous lawsuits, pressuring advertisers – whatever it takes.

133

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.15.06 at 12:30 pm

“This is a waste of everyone’s time – and the best way that I can see to prevent it happening in future is to make it clear exactly how unserious the claims were in the first place. There is room for real argument between left and right over these figures – but that isn’t what we’ve been seeing”

And if you responded substantively instead of name calling you would be helping the problem instead of continuing it.

Lets keep it simple and in statistics. Krugman makes claims about A) distribution and B)persistence. His method does NOT track individuals. Let us say that his statistics are entirely without fault as presented. His application of those statistics is still wrong. His storyline involves the elite rich capturing all or nearly all of the gains. He couples this with the statistics about statistical persistence in the ranks of the elite wealthy to portray a situation where people get to the ranks of the elite, and then get to capture all of the economic growth.

This is the storyline. Yes or no?

I point out that from a statistical point of view those two statistics–even if completely correct (which is not a given considering the tax/income/capital gains income issues)–do not necessarily lead to that storyline. An alternative storyline involves a large percentage of the growth coming from the newish entrants to the class Krugman talks about. In order to find out if that were true you would have to look at individuals over time–which Krugman does not do. This alternative storyline has very different implications when compared to the Krugman storyline, because it means that the growth is going to the people we want it to–people who are doing good and useful things for the economy rather than the Paris Hiltons of the world. Krugman’s storyline completely misses people like Brin and Page who gained about $25 billion in the past year and who represent a huge percentage of the growth in the wealth of (what is NOW) their category. (When they cash out of some of that it will count as income, which by the way highlights additional problems with Krugman’s IRS methodology since it should probably count now but whatever). His method would also would miss people like Gates and Dell and Omidyar in the years they became prominent. In every one of those cases Krugman’s method will count the wealth they earned as if it was ‘captured’ by the elite rich even though they weren’t members of the elite rich when they created the products which later made them the elite rich. Their growth is counting in his statistics because he makes the statistics by a class of the “Current Top X”. But they are the small percentage of the Top X who weren’t in the “Current Top X” before. Their huge growth could very well be what spurs the growth in the “Current Top X”. So the persistence numbers of people in the “Current Top X” are not particularly related to the growth in the “Current Top X”. The way you find that out is by tracking individuals as they enter and exit the “Current Top X” and measure the magnitude of that change.

I don’t have access to the individual records of all the 220,000 people in the top 1%. But by way of illustration I can use the individual bits I can get a hold of. For those I can get, my storyline fits better than Krugman’s.

Your response is to criticize that as ‘anecdote’ without addressing AT ALL the underlying flaw which I point out in the relation between the statistics Krugman uses and the storyline he tells. Krugman’s statistics don’t tell the story that both he and you like. My ‘anecdotes’ aren’t meant to refute the statistics. They are meant to expose the flaws in the storyline which isn’t as related to the statistics as you seem to think.

If you really want discussion try responding….

134

Elliott Oti 03.15.06 at 12:35 pm

Financial gain is no more the natural reward for innovation than it is for entrepreneurship, hard work, thrift, honesty or goodness of character. You can innovate until the cows come home and still die penniless.

Big businesses don’t innovate to any extreme extent; it’s more efficient to let the smaller fry engage in the Darwinian free-for-all of innovation and buy out the successful winners.

What is often seen as “innovation” is more often the result of good sales and marketing; the point of business is, after all, to get the customer to part with his cash, not to play Leonardo da Vinci.

135

Elliott Oti 03.15.06 at 1:16 pm

Sebastian

Not having access to Krugman’s article I do not know if there is any particular “storyline” Krugman is promulgating in his op ed. But from the excerpts at DeLong’s site, and having read your posts both here and at DeLong’s site I still don’t get exactly what point it is you are trying to make.

If Krugman’s assertions are
– income distribution in the US is skewed
– income mobility is decreasing
(which are both empirically testable) and you accept their validity (post #133) then your anecdotes re Brin, Page and Gates, while perfectly true, are not relevant with respect to both assertions, for simple statistical reasons outlined in earlier posts.

If your beef is (as I suspect given the second half of #133) that Krugman’s references to the Gilded Age have left an unpleasant aftertaste with respect to your ideas about fairness and moral justice then I assume you draw the conclusion that Krugman’s storyline is

– the US is devolving into a steady-state aristocracy

However, if you re-read Krugman’s parable about the society of fishermen and the society of prospectors as outlined in The Accidental Theorist (chapter one, I believe) you’ll see there’s a third storyline you might not have considered and it’s probably the one Krugman’s pushing.

136

roger 03.15.06 at 1:39 pm

Although I think Sebastian’s anecdotes are rather off topic, there is a sociological truth that could, perhaps, be picked out of them. Anybody who has read the tedious hagiographical literature about CEOs will notice that a common career path is from the middle class — Gates is an exception. And that middle class was the middle class of the post war years, when taxes on high incomes were also high, and post New Deal and Great society legislation sought to instill a much more even playing field in the U.S. economy. The success of that attempt is written in the career lines of these CEOS — who, of course, have turned around and supported destroying those very features — high taxes on high incomes, the evening of the playing field through active social welfare legislation — that brought them to their plateaux. Locking in their positions and their power is what they are about — and their attempt to do this is an old story in the relationship between classes. Krugman’s statistics are about their success in leveraging their wealth competitively. It also speaks to a crying need to reinstitute pre-Reagan tax increases on the rich. 70 percent was a good rate for the highest tax, for instance. This would have a discouraging effect on the attempt to leverage wealth to prevent social mobility, as the amount of wealth one could brandish becomes more and more expensive to hold onto.

So I, for one, accept Sebastian’s statistical anecdotes and feel they lead us in only one direction — to a much more aggressively socialist government. It is the only way that we can nourish the Bill Gateses of tomorrow.

137

Henry 03.15.06 at 2:05 pm

What Elliott said. As noted – repeatedly – your stories about Page, Brin etc are _anecdotes._ There is _no_ reason whatsoever to suppose that they are representative of underlying relationships and mobility between classes. I refer you yet again to the quite basic claims about statistical inference that I’ve cited in my comments above, and that you seem determined to ignore (I presume because they pretty well explode the claims that you are trying to make).And plenty of reason to believe that they aren’t. The statistical evidence _does_ show that aggregate economic mobility in the US is decreasing. Check out for example this “article”:http://yahoo.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_48/b3860067_mz021.htm by those notorious Marxists at _Business Week_. Krugman’s argument here fits with the facts whereas yours fits … well fits with what you wanted to believe when you came into this argument. I’d really advise you to read up on this before you try to get into this fight. It’s a complex debate, with a lot of empirical evidence on the table, which you seem to prefer to ignore in favour of Horatio Alger type anecdotes combined with statistically ignorant claims.

138

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.15.06 at 2:23 pm

“The statistical evidence does show that aggregate economic mobility in the US is decreasing.”

Which says precisely nothing about Krugman’s claim regarding the elite ‘group’ capturing the gains. Did you read anything I wrote on #133? Krugman claims that the elite group is capturing the gains in the economy. He gets to this by noting that the elite share of the economy has gone up and that the elite group has fairly little turn over. I suggest that it is very possible (and in fact quite likely) that the growth of “the elite group” is in fact located in new or recent entries to “the elite group”. This suggests that a large percentage of the growth which Krugman styles capture is in fact routine economic growth among very successful people who do not come from the elite group.

“It’s a complex debate, with a lot of empirical evidence on the table, which you seem to prefer to ignore in favour of Horatio Alger type anecdotes combined with statistically ignorant claims.”

Krugman’s statistics do not confirm his story the way you seem to think because his statistics ignore the possibility of entrepreneurs coming into the elite group with large income gains–a rather startling omission when attempting to analyze the US economy.

If you disagree, please quit whining about my ability to interpret basic statistics and SHOW WHERE IN HIS MODEL THE PROBLEM IS COVERED.

139

Steve LaBonne 03.15.06 at 3:00 pm

As a public service here is Brad Delong’s comment on Sebastian (who has been wasting bandwidth over there as well, until DeLong trashed his multiple repetitive comments): the words not in brackets are Sebastian’s, those in brackets are DeLong’s.

Why stop there? The vast majority of the money gained was in the top 10 people in the US. Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Michael Dell, Sheldon Adelson, Steve Ballmer, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Abigail Johnson, Anne Cox and Barbara Cox.

[No it wasn’t. The 5.5% extra of national income that went to the top 0.25% amounts to $550 billion a year. The national income-concept income of the top ten is less than $30 billion. Not the “vast majority”: 1/20.]

Sebastian, you need to show there IS a problem before you bash Krugman for not dealing with it. Start by explaining why DeLong is incorrect, if you believe he is.

Krugman has written about how conservatives just go bananas when the subject of inequality comes up. We’re seeing a nice example here, I think.

140

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.15.06 at 3:03 pm

Statistical hypothetical:

Population 10,000 people
Top 1% of population 100 people
Only a single person (Call him E) makes it into the top 1%.
Consistency of the top 1% is 99% (or alternatively the turnover is 1%)

If E is not in the top 1% before he makes all his money, and then shows a dramatic increase in wealth (which is how he gets there), even if no one else in the class increases their wealth above the 10% rate of the society as a whole, it will appear to Krugman’s statistical method that the class is capturing a vastly outsized portion of the wealth even though E was not a member of the class at the beginning of the analysis. E’s portion of the total doesn’t even have to be that big a percentage of the whole for that to happen. (In reality, the entrepreneurs at the top of the top 1% represent a fairly large portion of the whole–about 1% of the total wealth held by individuals.) The reality of the hypothetical is that the excess gains are wholly made by entrepreneurs as opposed to the already elite rich leveraging into capturing the country’s gains. But it would appear to Krugman’s statistics exactly as if the elite rich were capturing all the gains because his methodolgy doesn’t allow us to track individuals. Brin, Page and Omidyar are 3 people out of 220,000 in the class yet they represent a vastly outsized portion of the wealth of the class in question. They are the people I’m talking about, they are the people Krugman misses.

141

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.15.06 at 3:05 pm

“Not the “vast majority”: 1/20.”

Out of about 55,000 in the class. Per person they got a vast majority of the change.

142

joel turnipseed 03.15.06 at 3:06 pm

Well, I’m not going to go find the data, but one way of looking at Sebastian’s point (which is not entirely irrelevant to the social justice issue (even though there’s no way the math works in his favor)), would be to find aggregate IPO data for, say, the last twenty years. Then find out what percentage of this IPO wealth was accrued to specific entrepreneurs (and–a small percentage, much less than half, of such wealth is). Then track that as a percentage of the growth of top income earners.

It wouldn’t possibly make much of a dent in the aggregate, but it might make for something more interesting than a “Horatio Alger” story.

143

Henry 03.15.06 at 3:09 pm

Sebastian – I’ll repeat – yet again – if you want to prove that Krugman is wrong, come up with the figures to prove it. Repeatedly raising a “possibility” without providing more than anecdotal evidence to support it does not a refutation make. You have demonstrated a considerable level of statistical ineptitude, presented diddly squat in the way of real evidence, and made factual claims which are plain false (as Brad’s comment quoted by Steve Labonne shows). I can understand why Brad deleted your comments, although I’m not going to do the same here. What you’re engaged in isn’t quite trolling, but it’s certainly not useful argument either. Bullshit, in the Harry Frankfurt sense of the word, seems to capture it best, and it really degrades a comment section, sucking oxygen out of what could have been a real argument, and directing attention towards a set of claims that I suspect even you don’t believe in your heart of hearts is true.

144

Steve LaBonne 03.15.06 at 3:11 pm

Out of about 55,000 in the class. Per person they got a vast majority of the change. This comment is simply dishonest, because “per person” is not what you were talking about all this time and not something that would materially alter Krugman’s point at all- since it remains true that the other 54,990 in that top 1% captured by far the majority (80%) of the increase that went to the entire top decile. But go ahead, keep digging.

145

soubzriquet 03.15.06 at 3:14 pm

just as an aside, Joe, IPO wealth in general accrues to venture capitalists.

146

Steve LaBonne 03.15.06 at 3:16 pm

Correction- I meant the non-top-10 got 80% of the increase accruing to the enire top 1%, and thus 56% (80% of 70%) of the increase that accrued to the top 10%. The “top ten” therefore got 14% of the top decile’s gains. Not impressive support for Sebastian despite the spin.

147

Henry 03.15.06 at 3:19 pm

bq. Per person they got a vast majority of the change.

So your problems aren’t limited to statistics; apparently they extend to the meaning of perfectly straightforward words like “majority” too. This is pure, unadulterated bullshit. You were wrong. You made a bogus factual claim, and were caught out on it. And you’re now trying to bullshit your way out of it in a rather pathetic fashion.

148

Elliott Oti 03.15.06 at 3:29 pm

Sebastian:

“Krugman claims that the elite group is capturing the gains in the economy. He gets to this by noting that the elite share of the economy has gone up and that the elite group has fairly little turn over.”

With the (very big) caveat that I have only read excerpts, I must note that:

1. You have not, and indeed, can not, refute the first claim, namely that the elite group is capturing the gains in the economy, since that is an almost tautological observation.

2. The statement that “the elite group has fairly little turnover” is not supported by any of Krugman’s statements in the excerpts, interpreting “the elite” according to your standards (top 10, top 0.25%, whatever).

You can have a country where income is distributed based on a lottery principle. The “wealth” in such a country will be distributed among a very small number of jackpot winners who – by definition – compromise the “elite”. Turnover within that elite may be high (although the elite will be able to purchase more lottery tickets) since there is always the chance a random outsider wins the sweepstakes. If the jackpot increases over time then income inequality will increase over time (the winners get a steadily growing jackpot) and income mobility will decrease (outsiders may still be able to win the big one, but past winners will increasingly be able to buy more tickets)

This is not necessarily the case with the US today, but it’s a third storyline that fits the assertions that income inequality is increasing and mobility decreasing, just as much as the “aristocratic” interpretation does, and rather better than the “meritocratic” interpretation you favour.

Of course, should Krugman have asserted in unexcerpted text that the top 10 wealthiest Americans constitute a static unchanging group, and built his argument thereupon, then I owe you an apology and acknowledge your point.

149

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.15.06 at 4:13 pm

“I meant the non-top-10 got 80% of the increase accruing to the enire top 1%, and thus 56% (80% of 70%) of the increase that accrued to the top 10%. The “top ten” therefore got 14% of the top decile’s gains. Not impressive support for Sebastian despite the spin.”

The top ten are 10 people out of a class of about 220,000. If getting 14% of the whole when you are 0.00045% of the class isn’t impressive to you I don’t understand what your point of view on inequality is.

Henry you really need to simmer down. Before you call bullshit on my allegedly bogus factual claim perhaps you could kindly scoll up to find out what it was. You are ascribing to me a claim which was a paraphrase by someone else. My claim was: (and I quote unlike you)

The ten individuals I have chosen represent a huge percentage of the wealth gain we are talking about.

Look it up, it is at the beginning of this thread. I made uncareful word choices in the Delong thread which also came in other contexts and which I dealth with there (which can’t be explored anymore unfortunately). The majority claim here was offered after the part I quote by Mcgrattan apparently as an interpretation of what I was saying. Foolish phrasing of something which should be anything like “the top ten represent a vastly outsized portion of the total gains” from an entirely different thread can be held against me if you want, but have nothing to do with my claims as expressed here.

As I showed in the hypothetical, outsized gains by the kind of people we want to reward can easily skew the results. You don’t seem to disagree, you just prefer to ignore that point. That is your right. But think of the point of the discussion. You accuse me of being too tactically minded. I assume you want to talk about inequality for a reason. If that reason ever involves influencing the US public, you might want to use a model which understands the difference between inherited wealth (which we may or may not want to reward) and entrepreneurial-generated wealth (which I’m pretty darn sure we want to reward). Apparently you don’t think that is a big deal. Ok. If you don’t think distinguishing between the kind of wealth we want to reward and the kind we don’t effects the discussion that is your judgment call. Krugman’s article doesn’t make that distinction. I pointed that out. You don’t think the distinction is worthy. I get it.

150

Steve LaBonne 03.15.06 at 4:16 pm

Wow, still digging. I won’t bother repeating what Henry already said. Sheesh.

151

Elliott Oti 03.15.06 at 4:44 pm

“[..]you might want to use a model which understands the difference between inherited wealth (which we may or may not want to reward) and entrepreneurial-generated wealth (which I’m pretty darn sure we want to reward).”

If income inequality is increasing and income mobility is decreasing then it follows that entrepreneurism is in general not being rewarded either. That’s the entire point. Anecdotal evidence of a few entrepreneurs making it big does not disprove the general thesis. The top 100 might consist of entrepreneurs, or slacker sex kittens, or devout evangelists, or what have you. That has not one single thing to do with the statement that in the US population at large, entrepreneurs, slacker sex kittens and devout evangelicals are subject to a general increase in income inequality and a decrease in income mobility.

There is a reason why the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, and this is what people have been repeatedly trying to tell you in the comments upstream: when you make statements to the effect that Gates, Brin and Page’s presence in the top 0.25% proves that America rewards entrepreneurs it in fact proves no such thing. The only thing it proves is that the top 0.25% contains some entrepreneurs i.e. you can’t make statistical inferences from anecdotal data. To make statistical inferences about a population you need larger sets of data, which has in fact been done, and the results of which Krugman was in fact quoting to make his point. I would suggest re-reading his article, and The Accidental Theorist, and focus less on words like “elite” (the source, I suspect, of some of your confusion: you’re thinking “French aristocracy” while Krugman is thinking “top income percentile”) and more on words like “risk”.

152

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.15.06 at 5:07 pm

If you can’t differentiate between entrepreneurs and aristocratic inheritors of money in your analysis, you can’t suggest that the aristocratic inheritors are taking an unfair share of the growth gains. You don’t know. Krugman doesn’t know. His data points are 1)growth in dollars of a certain “class” and 2) total number of people moving in and out of the class (which is to be fair a low number). Because he doesn’t have a method of figuring out which people are entrepreneurs and which people are aristocratic inheritors or other people who are just locked in the elite upper class without contributing to the economy he can’t tell you if the growth is accruing to those who got to the elite class by being entrepreneurs or if it is from the more aristocratic class.

For policy-making purposes he wants to act as if the important part of the gains are from an aristocratic manipulation to unfairly capture wealth that they didn’t earn. That is not established by the statistics he has offered.

Henry’s complaints to the contrary, it is perfectly valid scientific criticism to note that the hypothesis is not established by the facts offered–yet he seems to know this by attacking me on that ground.

My cursory look at the individuals I could track over time (the richest of the elite) was merely to illustrate HOW the model Krugman uses doesn’t validate his hypothesis. It was not offered as positive proof that the (or an) alternate explanation was positively correct. I don’t have access to the individualized information of the 220,000 people in that class. I don’t have time to go over their individualized information if I did. I am not offering the people I outline as proof of a counter-hypothesis. I offer them as illustrations of the type of important data which is not captured by the data Krugman cites. It is important because it directly challenges his hypothesis and yet is not factored in to his explanation.

153

abb1 03.15.06 at 5:34 pm

I still don’t see the difference – whether a small group of old aristocrats suck in huge amount of wealth produced by others – or a small group of nouveaux riches. Why is this even worth discussing? I mean, sure, as an academic exercise – why not, but otherwise?..

154

Elliott Oti 03.15.06 at 5:41 pm

“Because he doesn’t have a method of figuring out which people are entrepreneurs and which people are aristocratic inheritors or other people who are just locked in the elite upper class without contributing to the economy he can’t tell you if the growth is accruing to those who got to the elite class by being entrepreneurs or if it is from the more aristocratic class.”

Sebastian, that’s not actually cogent to the point Krugman makes. It’s essentially irrelevant.

The question is why so much of the gains in the US economy accrue to such a pitifully small, relatively static group. Not whether they deserved it or not.

“For policy-making purposes he wants to act as if the important part of the gains are from an aristocratic manipulation to unfairly capture wealth that they didn’t earn.”

No, this is not Krugman’s schtick. It may be a conventional US Liberal schtick, but it’s not Krugman’s. He’s anti-Bush, but he isn’t very Liberal, in the conventional US sense.

Krugman illustrates the concept of fairness in The Accidental Theorist by postulating two communities. One is a community of fishermen. In it, a person’s wealth is roughly proportional to the amount of work one does; there are differences due to differences in skill, or luck, or effort, but generally success is largely a matter of personal merit. This society will also be reasonably egalitarian, wealth-wise (a man can, after all, only catch so much fish), and its members will not view Chance as a particularly important factor in their lives.

The other community is a community of gold prospectors. In it, a person’s wealth is largely determined by chance. Personal merit can make a difference: some prospectors work harder and smarter than others, but in general finding the mother lode is a question of luck. This society will be very inegalitarian, wealth levels will differ greatly, and community members will regard Chance with great awe.

For Krugman, there are more important questions to be asked than “Does the fisherman ‘deserve’ his wealth more than the prospector?”.

155

Kevin Donoghue 03.15.06 at 6:01 pm

Elliott,

I think this is the article you are referring to. It’s not mentioned in The Accidental Theorist, AFAIK:

http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TopHeavy.html

Specimen quote:

Many conservatives have probably stopped reading by now, or at least stopped being able to respond to this article with anything other than blind anger, but for those who are still with me let me make a crucial point about these statistics: They say nothing about who, if anyone, is to blame. To say that America was a far more unequal society in 1989 than it was in 1973 is a simple statement of fact, not an attack on Ronald Reagan. Think about the parable of the fishermen and the prospectors: The greater inequality of the latter society did not come about because it has worse leadership but because it lives in a different environment. And changes in the environment–in world markets, or in technology–might change a society of middle-class fishermen into a society with dismaying extremes of wealth and poverty, without it necessarily being the result of deliberate policies.

Heh. Indeed. Read the whole thing.

156

Henry 03.15.06 at 6:16 pm

bq. Henry’s complaints to the contrary, it is perfectly valid scientific criticism to note that the hypothesis is not established by the facts offered—yet he seems to know this by attacking me on that ground.

No it isn’t. It’s perfectly valid scientific criticism to show that the hypothesis isn’t _supported_ by the facts offered. But that’s something which you haven’t done, and which you would have to do rather more than present a half assed set of arguments and anecdotes to do. You don’t have to be a strong Popperian falsificationist to know that scientific hypotheses are _never_ ‘established.’ Something which works immeasurably to the advantage of intelligent design nuts, global warming denialists and blog-commenters with pronounced hackish tendencies. So it appears that we can add basic ignorance of the epistemology of science to ignorance of statistics and of the commonly accepted definitions of simple English words such as ‘majority.’

And this of course takes you at your word when you say that you weren’t really serious when you argued that Larry Page etc were evidence that Krugman was wrong. I think there’s plenty of evidence in the comments above to suggest that this recent claim is a feeble exercise in _ex post_ ass-covering.

And as for

bq. I assume you want to talk about inequality for a reason. If that reason ever involves influencing the US public, you might want to use a model which understands the difference between inherited wealth (which we may or may not want to reward) and entrepreneurial-generated wealth (which I’m pretty darn sure we want to reward). Apparently you don’t think that is a big deal. Ok. If you don’t think distinguishing between the kind of wealth we want to reward and the kind we don’t effects the discussion that is your judgment call. Krugman’s article doesn’t make that distinction. I pointed that out. You don’t think the distinction is worthy. I get it.

this is again a pretty self-serving effort to change the argument. What I’ve been pointing out is that the factual evidence that you have used to support your claim is at best flimsy and irrelevant, and that you don’t understand the basic issues of inference which allow for the evaluation of evidence. The reason that we haven’t gotten to debates about the tradeoffs between entrepreneurship and equality (something that Harry and Chris write about) isn’t because of some conspiracy of silence among CTites. It’s because you’ve insisted on making some quite hackish claims in order to support your bogus criticisms of Krugman, and 150 odd comments later, you’re insisting on continuing to defend these claims against all comers, even though they have been quite obviously discredited. It’s a rather sorry spectacle, and getting a little boring.

157

Kevin Donoghue 03.15.06 at 6:41 pm

Apologies to Elliott Oti – now that I’ve found my copy of The Accidental Theorist, I see that that essay is included.

158

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.15.06 at 6:47 pm

“The reason that we haven’t gotten to debates about the tradeoffs between entrepreneurship and equality (something that Harry and Chris write about) isn’t because of some conspiracy of silence among CTites.”

Where did I say anything about a conspiracy of silence among CTites? I said that Krugman’s data doesn’t support his hypothesis. His data and hypothesis are not well matched. That is a perfectly valid criticism of data when allegedly applied to a hypothesis. I specifically illustrate the way in which it is not matched. I also provide show why it is a major hole.

If you don’t think it is a major hole you could say why. You don’t, you just engage in argument by authority and attack my understanding. Hell you won’t even say that you think it isn’t a major hole. You just say I haven’t proven a counter-hypothesis–something which I have freely admitted from nearly the beginning. I’m not trying to prove a counter-hypothesis. I don’t have access to the data that would shed light on it. I have freely admitted that for more than a day here.

Krugman’s data is not particularly probative of the hypothesis he makes from it. It is that simple. You merely assert that it is.

I have shown areas that concern me about it. With all the time you spend insulting me you could easily have shown me how entrepreneurship is covered by his data–if it were, which it isn’t. Hell for all I know the entrepreneurship income data is available somewhere else. If that you could have linked it and said “read this”. Hell to make you feel better you could have said “read this you idiot”.

I have been very explicit about my questions see especially #133. I raise specific questions which should narrow the disagreement or at least let us specify the area of disagreement. Your response is pretty much “Sebastian you are an idiot”. Ok great. But quit your whining about a lack of discussion just because you seem completely uninterested in actually discussing.

159

Thomas 03.15.06 at 8:01 pm

Still reading?

Contrary to some (ignorant? that would be an awful thing to suggest) suggestions above, there isn’t any really good publicly available data about fractions of the top 1%. The census bureau, for example, doesn’t offer breakdowns on the top 1%. So, as I see it, there isn’t really much for SH to do but pack it in and move on. We’re having debates about the sufficiency of the evidence when there isn’t any better evidence than what he’s offered.

But, I still wonder: If DeLong’s numbers are right, and the top 10 cited by SH take 5% of the “excess” share, what would an examination of the top 100 show? The top 250? Would those groups look like the 10 SH identifies? What would their share of the “excess” be?

And, relevantly, for those of is who are idiots when it comes to statistics, what would the numbers have to show before someone would be forced to say that SH has a point? If, say, the top 250 took 30% of the excess, and were similarly demographically to the group of 10 (all IT innovators, let’s say), would SH have a point?

160

Andrew Leigh 03.16.06 at 1:52 am

Brian, wow, I guess you touched a nerve (or 159).

The answer is yes, Tony Atkinson and I find a very similar pattern to the one that Piketty & Saez found for the US – the greatest benefits are going to the top of the top. The 1% share rose more than the 10% share, the 0.1% share rose more than the 1% share, etc.

In a separate paper, we also find the same for New Zealand.

161

Elliott Oti 03.16.06 at 2:06 am

“And, relevantly, for those of is who are idiots when it comes to statistics, what would the numbers have to show before someone would be forced to say that SH has a point? If, say, the top 250 took 30% of the excess, and were similarly demographically to the group of 10 (all IT innovators, let’s say), would SH have a point?”

Well, I’m still reading ;-)

And I still don’t see the point SH’s trying to make. Let’s assume that the top 100 takes all of the excess, and that every single one of them is an entrepreneur. (Whatever “entrepreneur” might mean, it’s an overused and fairly meaningless word).

So what? In what way does it invalidate anything Krugman wrote? In what way does it nullify the problem of rising income inequality and decreasing income mobility? What inferences would you want to draw for the rest of the US population? If the top 100 richest men in the US are “entrepreneurs” it still doesn’t change the fact that 4 out of 5 “entrepreneurs” are headed for insolvency, not billionairedom.

In other words, what on Earth is the policy benefit of discussing anecdotes?

162

Tim Worstall 03.16.06 at 4:41 am

Maria at #128.
Economics Focus in The Economist this week was on exactly this subject, the two types of innovation. Marginal improvements in existing products, better done by large organisations. Completely new ways of doing things, better (or only?) done by lone whackos.
Based on research by one of John Q’s favourite economists, Willam Baumol.
It’s behind the paywall but worth digging out.

163

abb1 03.16.06 at 6:31 am

A lone whacko may invent something. He/she may even make some money off it (unlikely tho) if he manages to obtain a patent. But only the guy who manages to exploit this idea in a monopolistic sort of way will become a billionaire.

164

Brett Bellmore 03.16.06 at 6:39 am

“But only the guy who manages to exploit this idea in a monopolistic sort of way will become a billionaire.”

More or less by definition. Your complaint is with the copyright clause,

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Apparently you don’t LIKE the idea of promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts, in as much as you want Authors and Inventors to get only the same reward as the people who copy their creations without having played any part in originating them…

165

abb1 03.16.06 at 6:51 am

No, the inventor is entitled to benefit of course. But like I said, it’s not the inventor who becomes a billionaire, it’s the guy who builds a monopoly, sometimes based on an invention initially, sometimes by other means. Monopoly doesn’t promote progress, quite the opposite.

166

Tim Worstall 03.16.06 at 8:44 am

And the point of patents is that a monopoly for a limited time does indeed encourage innovation.

167

abb1 03.16.06 at 9:09 am

The so-called ‘patent monopoly’ is not the kind of monopoly I’m talking about. The inventor has the right, but s/he can sell it retail, to many competing companies; the ‘lone whacko’ inventor you brought up is not in a position to dominate the market, even if he does have a patent.

And yes, if one large company gets a hold on an important patent, then we have a problem, as we do now with pharmaceuticals.

168

SamChevre 03.16.06 at 9:41 am

Elliot (and Henry)

Coming in late, sort of in defense of SH–answering your “So what?” in #161. (I was recommended some literature that was fairly explicit on this point when I wrote major paper on inequality transmission, but that was years ago.)

Here’s the problem: “most of the income gains are accruing to a group that is small and largely static.” Most people–certainly most non-statisticians–are going to assume that the gains are going to the group in some sort of evenly distributed fashion. But what can be happening is that only the non-static portion of the group is experiencing any gains–only the entrants (entreprenuers) are gaining, and the static portion of the group has static income.

That’s one of the known, large problems with studies of income inequality–that they are not always clearly translatable from groups to individuals. (Classic example–suppose everyone gets $1 million at age 60, and has steadily rising, but fairly low, income and wealth to that point; all the high earners will be relatively wealthy, but wealth will not predict likelihood of someday being a high earner at all.)

169

Thomas 03.16.06 at 10:15 am

elliott, I guess I assumed that once we’re talking about all of the gain, we’re out of the realm of anecdotes and into the world of data.

If SH is right, we’d have to think hard about whether income inequality is really a “problem”, wouldn’t we?

170

Tim Worstall 03.16.06 at 11:32 am

abb1.

What about James Dyson? Lone whacko, new type of vaccum cleaner, perhaps not a billionaire but certainly half one in sterling. Beat off a patent challenge from (Hoover? Electrolux?) as well.

171

abb1 03.16.06 at 12:51 pm

Ah, we used to have one of those. Very strong sales tactics, almost like a cult. But how rich is this guy? He didn’t destroy the competition.

Look, take the top 2 fellas on the list. They initially built their software empire by getting an exclusive agreement with monopolistic PC manufacturer. They are responsible for massive abuse of monopoly power, bullying, destroying talent everywhere, sabotaging good products (i.e. ‘polluted java’) – these are facts.

I am sure all the living children of Walmart founder are among the top 100. Walmart is a business that’s not only responsible for destroying millions of small retail businesses, but also for ruthless exploitation both inside and outside the US.

How’s that for an anecdote? These are methods rewarded by the economic system to unimaginable degree. How can it be a good thing, how does it help you and me?

172

Brett Bellmore 03.16.06 at 6:59 pm

“Walmart is a business that’s not only responsible for destroying millions of small retail businesses,”

And how in the world could you be massively successful as a retailer, WITHOUT “destroying small retail businesses”? Got news for you, abb1; Destroying a business by out-competing it is PART of a functioning market, not a malfunction.

As for your anecdotes, keep piling them up. I have no objection to proving that particular people got wealthy by illegitimate means, what I object to is the assumption that if somebody is wealthy, they MUST have used illegitimate means to get that way.

173

abb1 03.17.06 at 4:23 am

It’s not about legitimate or illegitimate means, it’s about the kind of behaviour that is rewarded.

See, you could set the rules in such a way that they would discourage companies from growing too big, from taking large share of the market, etc.; reflecting a more classical model of capitalism. Then (if this is at all possible) you wouldn’t have any billionaires, but the rest of us would’ve been better off.

Alternatively, you could relax the rules even more and create even bigger conglomerates, destroy the environment, etc.

This all can be tuned, nothing is god-given.

174

Tim Worstall 03.17.06 at 4:47 am

Sure, there should be limits to how large a company can become. Anti-monopoly laws and so on. We have them too. MicroS got hit by the European Union, for example. WalMart not yet as they have, what is it, 12% of the market, about the same as Tesco in the UK?
You seem to be arguing that the definition of monopoly which triggers such action should be lower than it is. Fine, go ahead and argue so, but a little unfair to argue that we have no such limits at all at present.

175

abb1 03.17.06 at 6:03 am

Why, not only monopoly size, but a lot of various practices. Employment practices. Various forms of contracts, agreements, etc., like bundling software with hardware. Plenty of things.

176

Thomas 03.18.06 at 12:41 am

abb1 now has gone too far, as he’s begun an outrageous antitrust attack on Mr. Steve Jobs’ Apple.

Then again, Mr. Jobs is a billionaire several times over. I suppose he has it coming.

177

abb1 03.18.06 at 8:34 am

How is too far? You do realize that “free market” is synonym for “competition”, don’t you? Are you a commie?

Comments on this entry are closed.