'Bad' inequality on the rise, scholar says

December 28, 2015 by Clifton B. Parker, Stanford University
A Stanford sociologist says better schools and fair labor markets can do more to reduce income and wealth inequality than changes to tax policy.

In the United States, income and wealth inequality is growing – especially "bad" inequality caused by injustice, according to a Stanford expert.

David Grusky, the director of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, which produces an annual "poverty report card," said the United States suffers from a type of that greatly hinders those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder from moving up. On Feb. 1, Grusky's center will hold a conference on poverty and and issue its 2016 Poverty and Inequality Report.

Stanford News Service recently interviewed him on the topic of income and .

Have income and wealth inequality worsened?

It is important to distinguish between "good" and "bad" inequality, with good inequality arising from fair and open competition, and bad inequality arising from market failure in the form of corruption and sweetheart deals that benefit those at the top, and various labor market bottlenecks at the bottom that prevent poor children from fairly pursuing opportunities; e.g., low-quality schooling, labor market discrimination, unequal risks of incarceration. There is all manner of smoking-gun evidence to suggest that wages and compensation are increasingly distorted by various types of market failure – and that "bad" inequality is on the rise.

What does the data reveal about income inequality in America today?

U.S. tax returns, as analyzed by UC Berkeley economics Professor Emmanuel Saez, show that the pre-tax income share of the top decile reached a peak of 49 percent in 1928, which is known as the first Gilded Age. It then dropped precipitously during World War II, stabilized at approximately 33 percent over the next 30 years, and then started to take off again in the late 1970s.

By 2014, the top decile's share was as high as 50 percent, a level that just barely tops the highest share of the Roaring '20s. The latter result has prompted many commentators to refer to the contemporary period as the New Gilded Age.

Is income the right measure? What about the wealth gap?

The trend in wealth inequality is not dissimilar. In this study, using income tax data, Saez and Gabriel Zucman [assistant professor of economics at UC Berkeley] apply reported capital income, e.g., dividends, interest, rents, to impute levels of wealth, taking care to correct for forms of wealth that do not yield taxable income. When they plot the share of total household wealth held by the top 0.1 percent, the same U-shaped form appears again, with the extreme concentration of the 1920s followed by a rapid "democratization" of wealth through the late 1940s, a period of relative stability up until the 1970s, a brief second wave of democratization in the 1970s, and then a sharp reconcentration of wealth in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. By 2013, 22 percent of total household wealth was held by the top 0.1 percent, a level nearly as high as what prevailed in the first Gilded Age.

Has it become harder for someone born poor to become rich?

We just don't know. The available surveys are simply too small to be sure about trends in mobility, while administrative data can only speak to trends in the relatively recent period. Whatever the long-term trend might be, the contemporary tax-return evidence does make it clear that it matters – a lot – whether the stork drops today's newborn into a low-income or high-income family. The expected income of children raised in families at the 90th percentile is about 200 percent larger than the expected income of children raised in families at the 10th percentile.

What – or should – anything be done to bridge the gap?

The prescription follows from the cause. We need to root out "bad" inequality by realigning our institutions with the rules of fair and open competition that so many Americans embrace.

This means going beyond our usual lip-service commitment to equal opportunity and ensuring that all children, no matter how poor, have the same access to high-quality schooling. It means rooting out labor market discrimination, unequal risks of incarceration and other forms of grossly unequal opportunity and market failure. And it means insisting that the well off and powerful play by the same rules as everyone else.

Is this asking too much? No. There is nothing more distinctively American than the idea that our principles should be taken seriously and that our schools, our neighborhoods and our labor markets should be continually recast and perfected to ensure that they live up to those ideals. Is this the blue-sky thinking of starry-eyed academics? No. The Equal Opportunity Plan, as formulated by Stanford University scholars, will likely be a 2016 California ballot proposition.

If the size of government has grown in the last couple decades, why has income inequality also increased?

It is sometimes assumed that the only way to respond to rising inequality is to increase tax rates for the well off. This response is founded on the misunderstanding that inequality is increasing mainly because of reduced levies on capital gains, the Bush tax cuts and related changes in U.S. tax policy. If that assumption were correct, then it would make sense to limit ourselves to reversing those policies. But the takeoff in inequality cannot be explained by tax policy alone. There has, to the contrary, been a dramatic rise in pre-tax .

This increase in market inequality was, of course, exacerbated by changes in after-market taxation. However, because the takeoff in inequality is mainly generated within the market, we should look to market institutions to understand its main causes and – arguably – to pursue corrective policies. As important as tax-based redistribution is, we therefore need to supplement it with policies that address the rise in market inequality.

The institutional critique of inequality is not about the tax system, but about the ways in which U.S. labor and capital markets generate extreme pre-tax inequality. The core idea here is that inequality-generating institutions have come to be codified in law and practice and then represented – through an ingenious sleight of hand – as laissez-faire capitalism.

Explore further: Model shows how surge in wealth inequality may be reversed

Related Stories

Model shows how surge in wealth inequality may be reversed

July 30, 2015

(Phys.org)—For many Americans, the single biggest problem facing the country is the growing wealth inequality. Based on income tax data, wealth inequality in the US has steadily increased since the mid-1980s, with the top ...

Scholars issue plan to reduce poverty

May 19, 2015

Stanford scholars and other experts on California's low-income population have unveiled a new initiative – the Equal Opportunity Plan – aimed at dramatically reducing poverty in the state.

Recommended for you

Unprecedented study of Picasso's bronzes uncovers new details

February 17, 2018

Musee national Picasso-Paris and the Northwestern University/Art Institute of Chicago Center for Scientific Studies in the Arts (NU-ACCESS) have completed the first major material survey and study of the Musee national Picasso-Paris' ...

Humans will actually react pretty well to news of alien life

February 16, 2018

As humans reach out technologically to see if there are other life forms in the universe, one important question needs to be answered: When we make contact, how are we going to handle it? Will we feel threatened and react ...

Using Twitter to discover how language changes

February 16, 2018

Scientists at Royal Holloway, University of London, have studied more than 200 million Twitter messages to try and unravel the mystery of how language evolves and spreads.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Dec 29, 2015
"good inequality arising from fair and open competition" -- No competition is "fair". Each individual rises to the level of their personal privilege, which comes in numerous forms... including class, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, personality, cultural capital, intelligence, place of birth, and countless other forms of privilege completely outside the control of the individual. Hence, inequality is always unjust.
not rated yet Dec 29, 2015
It is well known that once you have money, it is relatively easy to make more of it. If this becomes your hobby, your main goal, then you become someone like Warren Buffet who lives to make money, and does so for fun, and gets really good at it, etc. Think of it this way, if you had a million dollars, you could start your own business. If your business fails, you can just move on and try something else. However, if you are poor and you start a business and it fails, you may never recover.

I never understood the need to have large sums of money, unless you are just wanting to retire, or build wealth for your offspring.
not rated yet Jan 02, 2016
Psychopaths will accumulate wealth and power by any and all means until physically stopped

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.