How Unequal Are We?

"The bottom fifth [of Americans} earned just $9,974 [in 2006], but spent nearly twice that — an average of $18,153 a year." How is that possible? " So begins a fascinating Op-Ed in today's New York Times written by two Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas economists. The editorial's broader purpose is to offer an alternative measure of economic inequality in contemporary America.

The punch line is simple: measuring household income yields a 15:1 ratio between the highest and lowest fifths of the income distribution. This gap income lies at the base of most hand-wringing over globalization. Yet, if one measures household consumption expenditures instead of income, the ratio between the richest and poorest fifths falls to 4 to 1. Measured at the individual (rather than the household) level, the ratio falls further to only 2.1 to 1 (wealthier households have more people than poorer households). Thus, the extent of inequality we observe is sensitive to how we measure it.

I don't know if they are right when they assert that consumption expenditures provide a better measure of inequality than income. What I do know, however, is that different measures of the same concept can generate very different conclusions. As we often base policy on what we believe is happening, it might prove useful to examine multiple measures before deciding on a change in policy.

Update: Krugman posts on this article. He thinks it's inaccurate: "So my basic reaction to the piece was, there they go again. There’s some truth in what they say, but no news."

Krugman on Stolper Samuelson Effects in US Trade

In case you missed it, Paul Krugman's Friday column focused on the distributional consequences of international trade. He argues that as imports from developing countries have risen during the last fifteen years, trade flows have begun to follow the expectations of standard comparative advantage. Consequently, trade has a more pronounced impact on wage inequality in the US today than it did fifteen years ago.

I am predisposed to the general argument, but am puzzled by the magnitude he claims. He asserts that "it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that growing U.S. trade with third world countries reduces the real wages of many and perhaps most workers in this country...The highly educated workers who clearly benefit from growing trade with third-world economies are a minority, greatly outnumbered by those who probably lose."

He draws on textbook Stolper-Samuelson logic to make the argument: "workers with less formal education either see their jobs shipped overseas or find their wages driven down by the ripple effect as other workers with similar qualifications crowd into their industries and look for employment to replace the jobs they lost to foreign competition. And lower prices at Wal-Mart aren’t sufficient compensation.

Yet, exactly how many workers have lost jobs to "foreign competition?" The competition Krugman emphasizes comes from imports of manufactured goods. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that manufacturing employment fell from roughly 17 million in 1997 to 14 million in 2006. That's a reduction of 3 million manufacturing jobs over ten years--300,000 per year on average--in a total labor force of 136 million people. To assert that this displacement imposed a substantial wage reduction on others seems a bold claim to make without providing any evidence to support it.

I look forward to seeing Krugman's research on this question develop. He has posted a few short pieces about the paper he is writing on his blog, here, here, and here. If you want to read what appears to be the state of the art on trade and income distribution, see Robert Lawrence's paper here.

Dollars per Second for High-Earning Americans

According to Ken Rogoff, "The latest Forbes list of America’s wealthiest individuals showed that last year’s highest nine earners, whose ranks include New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, managed to increase their wealth by $5-9 billion last year. Yes, that is just the annual increase in their wealth. Collectively, their $55 billion in earnings outstripped the entire national income of more than 100 countries. To put these astronomical numbers in perspective, ... to be among the top nine earners in the United States, you had to pull in at least $150 per second , including time spent eating and sleeping. That is $9,000 per minute, or $540,000 per hour."

(hat tip to Greg Manikw)

Globalization and Inequality

The World Economic Outlook (an IMF publication) dedicates a full chapter to exploring globalization's impact on income inequality. "Over the past two decades, income growth has been positive for all quintiles in virtually all regions and all income groups during the recent period of globalization. At the same time, however, income inequality has increased mainly in middle- and high-income countries, and less so in low-income countries."

The study highlights the distinct causal forces exerted by trade and foreign direct investment. Trade and trade liberalization reduce inequality; foreign direct investment increases inequality.

The bottom line, however, is that technological change rather than globalization per se is the main cause of rising income inequality.