Power of Story
Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 1 Share on Facebook 3 Share on LinkedIn 1 Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (7 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   1 comment
General News

The Flacks for Plutocrats Need a New Analogy

By       Message Sam Pizzigati     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   News 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H1 12/8/14

From flickr.com/photos/126377022@N07/14596611138/: Image from page 215 of .Eighty years ashore and afloat, or, The thrilling adventures of Uncle Jethro : embracing the remarkable episodes in a life of toil and danger, on land and sea. (1873)
Image from page 215 of .Eighty years ashore and afloat, or, The thrilling adventures of Uncle Jethro : embracing the remarkable episodes in a life of toil and danger, on land and sea. (1873)
(Image by Internet Archive Book Images)
  Permission   Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -
/p>

Reprinted from inequality.org

A rising tide lifts all boats. A growing economic pie means bigger slices for everybody. Wealth that flows to the top will always trickle down.

Cheerleaders for wealth's concentration have over the years invoked a variety of images to justify the ever larger fortunes of our society's most fortunate. These images all rest on a single economic assumption: that letting wealth accumulate in the pockets of a few grows an economy's capacity for investment and ultimately, as investments create jobs, leaves everybody better off.

That assumption has dominated mainstream economics for generations. But that's changing. Even mainline economic institutions are these days challenging the notion that good fortune for the few eventually and automatically translates into better fortune for the many.

- Advertisement -

Now we have a new analysis that essentially shreds what little credibility remains from that once dominant "rising tide" case for accepting inequality.

The co-author of this new analysis, former World Bank lead research economist Branko Milanovic, has had quite a year. The sensational international success of French economist Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century may owe more to Milanovic than anyone else other than Piketty himself.

The higher the inequality, the lower the income growth of poorer households.

- Advertisement -

Last fall, Milanovic published the first widely circulated review -- in English -- of Piketty's masterwork. His rave write-upignited within the chattering class a massive pre-publication buzz about the book. Piketty's chronicle about concentrating wealth would go on to sell over 500,000 copies, more in a shorter period than any other economics tome in global publishing history.

Milanovic is currently doing his research work at the City University of New York Graduate center. His new paper, prepared with the World Bank's Roy van der Weide, begins by noting a paradox within the economic literature on the relationship between inequality and economic growth.

Measures of income inequality, the two authors note, address how income levels can vary substantially from one economic class to another. But the measures that researchers have used to gauge whether the benefits from a growing economy do indeed "lift all boats" almost always focus on what's happening to an economy's average income or GDP per capita.

In their new paper, Milanovic and van der Weide set out to "unpack growth," to explore how actual individuals "at different steps of the socio-economic ladder" are faring. The two zero in on state-level inequality in the United States over the half-century between 1960 and 2010.

For each state, the co-authors use micro-census data to highlight the income shares of rich and poor at the beginning of each of that half-century's five decades. How does this initial inequality, they ask, impact how much the incomes of poor, middle class, and rich households grow over the next 10 years?

The answer their research has generated: The higher the state-level inequality at the start of each decade -- in effect, the larger the top 1 percent share of each state's income -- the lower the income growth of the state's poorer households and the faster the income growth of the richest.

- Advertisement -

A modest decrease in inequality more than doubles the income growth of a state's poorest 20 percent of households.

The magnitude of this dynamic turns out to be quite striking. A modest decrease in a state's inequality level at the start of a decade more than doubles the income growth of a state's poorest 20 percent of households over the next 10 years.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   News 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

www.toomuchonline.org
A labor journalist and author, editor of Too Much, an online weekly on excess and inequality

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Flacks for Plutocrats Need a New Analogy