Comments on: Thinking Clearly about Economic Inequality

By: TheMoneyIllusion » America’s amazing success since 1980: Why Krugman is wrong

Sun, 23 May 2010 19:27:53 +0000

[...] data is far superior to median real income, and that shows Americans doing much better. Will Wilkinson has posted on this. The consumption data also show a much smaller increase in inequality. But I [...]

By: Income Inequality: No Such Thing – Good Thing – Necessary Evil – Gone Thing? « P.A.P. Blog – Politics, Art and Philosophy

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:59:19 +0000

[...] There are those who deny that there is any, or better that there is enough to be worried about (see here for an example, or here). [...]

By: Clint

Clint — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:36:41 +0000

Mr. Wilkinson,

I wrote an essay shaped by your paper on inequality.

Americans Getting Skewed

By: lukelea

lukelea — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:25:11 +0000

Hi! I am from a working-class background (made my living doing manual labor). Do you discuss in your paper the issue of changes in real disposable income per hour worked for various classes? I.e., income after taxes (and transfer payments to for food and housing), health care expenses, and expenses directly associated with holding a job: transportation to and from work, childcare, etc.? If so then I will definitely read your paper.

By: The Moral Significance of Income Inequality « P.A.P. Blog – Politics, Art and Philosophy

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:25:24 +0000

[...] paper on income inequality argues that it’s an overrated problem (see also here). Before I deal with his arguments in detail, a quick reminder of my personal views on income [...]

By: All Things Equal And Unequal « Around The Sphere

All Things Equal And Unequal « Around The Sphere — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:04:53 +0000

[...] Wilkinson has a new paper out at Cato on inequality. He has a blog post up about it, with this excerpt: Recent discussions of economic inequality, marked by a lack of [...]

By: chrismealy

chrismealy — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:04:03 +0000

“There is little evidence that high levels of income inequality lead down a slippery slope to the destruction of democracy and rule by the rich”

Latin America.

By: uknowbetter

uknowbetter — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:07:37 +0000

I didn't read the whole thing, but I hope you talked some about specialization. As certain people become more specialized and have more complex skill sets and knowledge, they are going to be paid more while those with limited skill sets and knowledge will be paid less.

The most advanced computer programmer is likely to make significantly more income than a basic waiter at a restaurant. It's natural for that gap to grow as the knowledge and skills required to be that top-level programmer increase exponentially whereas the skills for the waiter don't increase much at all.

By: Strieb Roman

Strieb Roman — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:05:23 +0000

Hi Will.

Love your work.

I noticed a typo in your paper on page 21,

Moreover, the fact that income statistics are collected
by government bureaus does not mean
---than--- national-level patterns of income are especially
relevant to the moral evaluation of our...

I could be wrong, I am young.

Keep on trucking,

By: RSSted Development

RSSted Development — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:55:13 +0000

New blog added to reader…

I’ve gotten so used to seeking out his articles on my own that I forgot to add Will Wilkinson’s blog to my Google reader.
Read his new Cato paper, “Thinking Clearly About Economic Inequality.”
……

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:39:44 +0000

I, too, enjoy Nicole Kidman movies.

By: Thorfinn

Thorfinn — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:10:08 +0000

The dollar kind. Income is spent on consumption, or is saved for future consumption. So if the consumption inequality between the 'rich' and the 'poor' lags income inequality, the rich are saving more, and have the resources for higher future consumption. A greater savings inequality is the flip side of consumption inequality being low.

Whether even this matters depends on if they're simply buying a more expensive variant–as in a car. If they're actually getting something much better–say on health care or education–or using the money to preserve inter-generational status, then it's a bigger issue. Cowen's new book argues that as we consume more things for free/online, consumption spending becomes a worse marker for welfare.

By: JR

JR — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:30:23 +0000

“In the long-run, it's hard to imagine that consumption would radically differ from income.”

doesn't that depend on what kind of consumption you are talking about and whether you are talking about the dollar value of consumption or its utility? think of some good that delivers an decreasing marginal utility, like cars. if you can afford a working automobile you gain the utility of a working automobile; even though there is a huge difference in the amount of income it takes to drive a hyundai versus a maybach.

By: MyPage Builder

MyPage Builder — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:01:06 +0000

[...] here: Thinking Clearly about Economic Inequality [...]

By: Thorfinn

Thorfinn — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:37:56 +0000

Interesting paper. You might be interested in (if you're not already familiar) with the work of researchers like Rajan, Zingales, and Rodrik, all of whom discuss inequality from a political economy standpoint. It certainly looks like societies such as Brazil, South America, and Columbia face serious problems with policy implementation that are related to their inequality. By contrast, societies like Taiwan, which had serious redistribution programs, built an egalitarian base before growing.

If consumption inequality is lower than income inequality, the standard leftist conclusion to draw is that the poor are borrowing to maintain their incomes. This rise in debt is unsustainable, and consumption must fall once the credit bubble pops. You bury this point in a footnote, but given the loss in income among the poorest due to unemployment, and a corresponding rise in savings, consumption is set to go down substantially for the bottom of the distribution. In the long-run, it's hard to imagine that consumption would radically differ from income.