Income Inequality: A Rising Tide Lifts All Yachts

In Vanity Fair, Joe Stiglitz writes an excellent jeremiad on growing income inequality in the U.S.  Most of what he said is factually correct, although claims about the average American being worse off (his claims, but more noisily those of various leftie groups) are simply wrong because of upward biases in inflation measures.

Photo: iStockphoto

But so what? Comparisons matter, and it’s not just an issue of envy. Even though the average American is better off in real dollar terms than 20 years ago (despite our American national pastime of “bitching”), the concentration of economic power is growing most among a very few fragments of society. And, with the Supreme Court having handed the rich carte blanche to subsidize political candidates, the institutional framework for the economy can be changed in ways that disproportionately help the rich. Even though a rising tide may lift all boats, if giant yachts are lifted higher, the political backwash can make us paddlers of rowboats worse off!

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. Eric M. Jones says:

    I keep begging Dube to publish this graph which shows the distribution of US Wealth. Anyone who understands what the graph shows will be mortified. I don’t really see a way out of it. Buy, hey, there are smarter people…like those who got us into this mess.

    Please see:

    Note that this is a single page Adobe PDF file. I won’t hurt your computer.

    Arthur Kennickell is publishing an update for 2010, to show how the “Big Recession” affected Americans. Be prepared for even worse news than this graph.

    The basic truth is that the top 2% of the population owns 50% of all US wealth. And 50% (half the population) has 2% of the wealth…or essentially stone poor.

    Welcome to America.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
    • JP says:

      The way out is to continue somewhat down the path we were on. Although scary, I can assure you that the a wealth distribution grap like that would look even scarier if you look at countries that don’t employ some form of capitalism or before capitalism. Currently, I would fit in the bottom 50%. By the end of next year my wife and I will have moved into the next 4o%. That will allow us to move higher.
      I do think we should tax the top top tier a little more, but we need to have a clear purpose and justification other wise it’s a slippery slope to all out class warfare.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
  2. Andy says:

    You left out that union groups can now give carte blanche to democrats as well. Something President Obama doesn’t mention when he talks about that ruling. Very interesting…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 14
    • Quinton says:

      That is because it isn’t particularly relevant. Unions represent approximately 1 in ten in the workforce, and they are heavily concentrated in a few industries. They are no longer the political counter weight to corporations that they were in the past. Unions have been on a steady decline whereas the political power of the most wealthy corporations and individuals has been rising consistently for thirty years. That isn’t to say that the decision is solely to the benefit of one party. Democrats have a number of wealthy members as well who I’m sure will do their best to effect the political process. Unions, however, are at best diminished and at this point more of a conservative bugaboo than an effective political force

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4
      • Andy says:

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

        Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7
      • Quinton says:

        I’m sure he would, as his salary and livelihood depend on the opposite being true. That doesn’t make him any more right. Scott Walker, though, may disagree and we’ll find out in the next election if Unions have any more political power.

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
      • Jp says:

        Although not once what the were, unions are still extremely powerful.

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. J Webb says:

    You do understand that the Court ruling applied to unions as well.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
  4. Colin says:

    Rich people — you mean like all of those self-funded candidates in the last election like McMahon and Whitman who spent gobs of money to little avail? In WI, where about the only self-funded candidate actually won, Feingold conceded after the race that even if he had another $10 million he still would have lost and money wasn’t the decisive factor. This notion that $$$=electoral success is more theory than fact.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
    • pawnman says:

      A theory which, correct me if I’m wrong, was debunked to some extent in the first Freakonomics book.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  5. Gordon says:

    Did a tenured professor at a large state university just refer to himself as a “rowboat paddler”?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
  6. pablo says:

    It’s sort of obvious to analyze the economy as a game – the wealthy have some influence over the rules of the game, succeeding in the game increases their wealth, and accumulated wealth is never redistributed thanks to immortal corporations, low/ineffective estate taxes, etc.

    The outcome of any game thus organized should be immediately obvious, and the choices for fixing it include preventing inheritance of significant wealth and/or eliminating the connection between wealth and political power.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
  7. RogerP says:

    Colin wrote:

    “Feingold conceded after the race that even if he had another $10 million he still would have lost and money wasn’t the decisive factor”

    Of course, if he’d read Freakonomics he would have known that before spending anything.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  8. Gary says:

    You ultimately can’t repeal the Constructal Law.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3