I read through all ten parts, and found nothing to refute my post: the author provides no evidence that rich individuals stay rich while poor individuals stay poor. In fact, the only piece that even touches on this subject actually supports my position: in part 7, the author notes that most of the very rich today earn their income through wages, rather than by leveraging inherited wealth.
In general, I am terribly surprised that this article received any upvotes: The author doesn't even bother at the pretense of objectivity, making no attempt to temper (or even hide) his political biases. Furthermore, I found plenty of flaws in his reasoning--here are some highlights:
The author fails to consider the possibility that the U.S. has higher income inequality than Europe because of, rather than in spite of, the lower marginal tax rates on high-income earners in the U.S. He repeatedly mentions the fact that Europe has lower income inequality and that the U.S. has lower top marginal income tax rates, but dismisses the importance of the latter out of hand rather than asking the question.
In part 1, the author conflates wealth disparity with income disparity when discussing Latin America: he mentions very poor people living in squalor outside of walled mansions and cites "grotesque maldistribution of wealth" as an oft-stated reason for societal problems in Latin America. He then attempts to refute this explanation by pointing out that the United States has greater income disparity than many Latin American countries. Wealth distribution != income distribution.
In section 3, the author discusses the impact of immigration on income inequality. He fails to consider the fact that adding large numbers of low-income workers to the economy will reduce the income share of the lower quintiles by skewing average income in those quintiles downwards, regardless of how they impact the labor market for others.
In section 5, the author analyses income growth (and disparity in income growth) as a function of the president's political affiliation. The unspoken assumption seems to be that this serves as a reasonable proxy for how liberal or conservative policies were at the time. A far better choice would have been the party in control of the house: the president can influence tax and fiscal policy greatly, but it is congress that makes policy. Furthermore, presidents tend to be less politically orthodox than representatives: for example, Kennedy set a relatively conservative fiscal and tax policy.
He finishes strong by populating section 10 with a handful of convenient straw men, which he then proceeds to tear down with great sanctimony.
About the only place where I agreed with the author was when he tied income growth to education in section 9, but he applied his same sloppy reasoning and so failed to make a very good argument. If I had disagreed with him on this point, he wouldn't have changed my mind.
In general, I am terribly surprised that this article received any upvotes: The author doesn't even bother at the pretense of objectivity, making no attempt to temper (or even hide) his political biases. Furthermore, I found plenty of flaws in his reasoning--here are some highlights:
The author fails to consider the possibility that the U.S. has higher income inequality than Europe because of, rather than in spite of, the lower marginal tax rates on high-income earners in the U.S. He repeatedly mentions the fact that Europe has lower income inequality and that the U.S. has lower top marginal income tax rates, but dismisses the importance of the latter out of hand rather than asking the question.
In part 1, the author conflates wealth disparity with income disparity when discussing Latin America: he mentions very poor people living in squalor outside of walled mansions and cites "grotesque maldistribution of wealth" as an oft-stated reason for societal problems in Latin America. He then attempts to refute this explanation by pointing out that the United States has greater income disparity than many Latin American countries. Wealth distribution != income distribution.
In section 3, the author discusses the impact of immigration on income inequality. He fails to consider the fact that adding large numbers of low-income workers to the economy will reduce the income share of the lower quintiles by skewing average income in those quintiles downwards, regardless of how they impact the labor market for others.
In section 5, the author analyses income growth (and disparity in income growth) as a function of the president's political affiliation. The unspoken assumption seems to be that this serves as a reasonable proxy for how liberal or conservative policies were at the time. A far better choice would have been the party in control of the house: the president can influence tax and fiscal policy greatly, but it is congress that makes policy. Furthermore, presidents tend to be less politically orthodox than representatives: for example, Kennedy set a relatively conservative fiscal and tax policy.
He finishes strong by populating section 10 with a handful of convenient straw men, which he then proceeds to tear down with great sanctimony.
About the only place where I agreed with the author was when he tied income growth to education in section 9, but he applied his same sloppy reasoning and so failed to make a very good argument. If I had disagreed with him on this point, he wouldn't have changed my mind.