

MIT economist aims to move the inequality discussion beyond the “1 percent.” - dalek2point3
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/qa-david-autor-inequality-among-99-percent-0522

======
rquantz
Yes, the wealthy, too, want us to focus on inequality among the 99% instead of
shining our light on the 1% or the 0.1%. They always want to talk about
education and skills gaps instead of talking about how they've shaped laws and
institutions to make sure they retain their wealth and power. Meanwhile, wages
have been stagnant and debt increasing for everyone who is _not_ in the 1%.
Mr. Autor's arguments are a red herring.

~~~
gfodor
Income mobility in the US hasn't changed. This is the strongest
counterargument to complaints about income inequality leading to unfairness I
am aware of. Growing up in America I was raised not to be jealous of my
neighbors' wealth and influence, but to take stock in the fact that America
was a country where opportunity made it so you could become wealthy. It seems
this hasn't changed, but the notion that some have more than others is
considered inherently unfair seems to be a new phenomenon.

~~~
mikeyouse
> Income mobility in the US hasn't changed.

That's a tremendously strong statement that I've never seen any factual
support for, only opinion pieces with cherry-picked data from 'think-tanks'.

Rigorous looks have found precisely the opposite, for instance, from the
Boston Fed's 40-year retrospective[1]:

> A variety of measures indicate that U.S. family income mobility has
> decreased over the 1969–2006 time span, and especially since the 1980s. Most
> overall relative mobility measures fell, on net, with mobility significantly
> lower in the 1995–2005 period than in the 1977–1987 period. Origin-specific
> measures also declined, with families starting in the poorest quintile less
> likely to make far moves (to the middle or higher quintiles) during the 10
> years from 1995 to 2005 than within the 1977–1987 period.

> Similarly, absolute quintile mobility declined overall and for poor families
> after 1981–1991 (when real post-government income growth began to slow).
> Thus, families have become increasingly less likely to change rank or move
> out of their (relative or absolute) decile or quintile of origin, and when
> they move, to move less far; this appears to be the case overall and for
> those who start rich or poor.

[1] -
[http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2011/wp1110.pdf](http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2011/wp1110.pdf)

~~~
wtmcc
Probably the best citation is a remarkable, rigorous paper by Chetty et al
(2014) that uses individual IRS returns [1].

To quote those authors: “We find that children entering the labor market today
have the same chances of moving up in the income distribution (relative to
their parents) as children born in the 1970s. However, because inequality has
risen, the consequences of the ‘birth lottery’ – the parents to whom a child
is born – are larger today than in the past.”

[1]
[http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/mobility_trends.pdf](http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/mobility_trends.pdf)

------
csense
I've believed for a long time that unrestricted international trade, and
having well-paying jobs for people with minimal education, are fundamentally
incompatible -- it's an either-or choice. There are simply too many poor
people overseas that are willing to take lower wages and out-compete domestic
workers.

It's nice to see someone with economic credentials who agrees with me. Which
end of the either-or proposition should we take? That depends largely on your
politics.

I think global free trade would be a nice thing in the happy imaginary world
where having a seat in the UN means your country always puts the interests of
the whole of humanity above your own. But the simple and obvious reality is
that most countries look out for themselves first, and so if we make policies
and choices based on our happy imaginary world instead of the darker (or at
least greyer) real world where we actually live, we're going to be quite sorry
about some of those choices sooner or later.

------
Spooky23
These discussions are useless if you don't factor in housing and childcare
costs. If a couple consists of two working professionals, they pay a steep
penalty for childcare.

Comparing my personal situation to my parents 30 years ago, I'd argue that
we're easily making 25-35% more relative to my folks in the 80s (mostly
because we had kids later), but I think that we are less well off in several
respects compared to my family in childhood.

~~~
subsection1h
> _we are less well off in several respects compared to my family in
> childhood._

Yeah, my grandfather never stepped foot on a college campus, yet he could
support four kids and a housewife, own a summer house on a lake with several
boats, own a winter house in Florida, upgrade his huge RVs regularly, retire
with a large pension at 55, and live a life of leisure for more than 30 years
during which he mostly played golf.

~~~
hueving
Your grandpa's lifestyle was pretty far from normal. The only normal part is
being able to support a family on his own. The bit about owning several homes,
boats and RVs was not what the majority of that generation was allowed to
enjoy.

Also keep in mind that they weren't expected to put kids through college; and,
even if they did, the cost was negligible compared to today. Kids back then
were much cheaper.

~~~
Spooky23
My grandfather was a Sanitation foreman who worked nights as well. They owned
a house in NYC and a summer place -- it wasn't common, but far more achievable
than today.

------
Terr_
> This public debate is dominated by the discussion of the top 1 percent. And
> the top 1 percent is important, but focusing on the top 1 percent conveys
> the message that the game is all rigged, that if you’re not in the elite
> stratum, there’s nothing to shoot for. And that’s just not the case.

Perhaps, but if you want to actually change things it is important to look at
where political leverage is concentrated.

------
eternalban
The issue isn't economic inequality.

The 1% rules.

~~~
rhizome
But you repeat yourself. It's in the 1% interest to contend that inequality
has nothing to do with economics, regardless of the fact that it's what
defines a specific and articulable inequality.

------
jokoon
with piketty's book it seems inequality is now a bandwagon discussion. the
inequality in the 99% is somehow a good inequality.

