wage growth

The Non-Accelerating What Now Rate of Inflation by JW Mason

Justin Wolfers tweeted:

Annual wages growth is running at 1.7%. Yellen says "normal" is 3.5-4%. The recovery has a long way to run before the Fed needs choke it off

rising wealth inequality's "snowball effect."

See the Bernstein link below about the decoupling of productivity and compensation for the wage class.

If not r > g, what’s behind rising wealth inequality? By Nick Bunker

The Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago yesterday released a survey of a panel of highly regarded economists asking about rising wealth inequality. Specifically, IGM asked if the difference between the after-tax rate of return on capital and the growth rate of the overall economy was the “most powerful force pushing towards greater wealth inequality in the United States since the 1970s.” 

The vast majority of the economists disagreed with the statement. As would economist Thomas Piketty, the originator of the now famous r > g inequality. He explicitly states that rising inequality in the United States is about rising labor income at the very top of the income distribution. As Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley and a frequent Piketty collaborator, points out r > g is a prediction about the future. 

But if wealth inequality has risen in the United States over the past four decades, what has been behind the rise? A new paper by Saez and the London School of Economics’ Gabriel Zucman provides an answer: the calcification of income inequality into wealth inequality.

“Wealth Inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data,” their new working paper, is firstly an impressive documentation of the significant changes in wealth distribution in the United States. 

Saez and Zucman create a data series using tax records to measure wealth inequality going back to 1913. The trend is similar to the one for income inequality in the United States: a high level of inequality at the beginning of 20th century that declined substantially during the mid-century only to climb starting in the late 1970s and reaching high levels again in recent years. 

Rising wealth inequality since the late 1970s has been a case of the top of the distribution pulling away from everyone else. Specifically, the rise of the 0.1 percent is the dominant story. In 1979, the top tenth of the top 1 percent held 7 percent of the wealth in the United States. By 2012, the share held increased threefold to 22 percent. (An earlier version of this data was highlighted at Equitable Growth’s annual conference in September.) In fact, almost half of the total increase in wealth from 1986 to 2012 went to the top 0.1 percent of wealth holders. The increase is dramatic and brings wealth inequality to a level around that prevailing in 1929. 

What caused this increasing concentration of wealth? In short, an increase in income inequality coupled with rising savings inequality. As income flowed upward to those at the top, rich individuals increased the rate at which they saved income. Saez and Zucman refer to this phenomenon as the “snowballing effect.” And Piketty does consider the calcification of top incomes into wealth inequality in “Capital in the 21st Century.” 

This effect certainly isn’t the well-known r > g phenomenon. But Saez and Zucman’s research shows that there’s more than one way for wealth inequality to arise.

Bernstein on productivity share and wage growth or lackthereof

Inequality, opportunity, and growth are all really important. So is wage stagnation. by Jared Bernstein

Note: From 1948 to 1979, productivity rose 108.1 percent, and hourly compensation increased 93.4 percent. From 1979 to 2013, productivity rose 64.9 percent, and hourly compensation rose 8.0 percent.

Obama recovery and wages

When Will the Obama Recovery Start Helping Democrats? by John Cassidy

Last month, in a post about the new census figures, I argued that the stagnation in wages is the defining fact about modern American politics. But it’s also a phenomenon that goes back a long way—to the Reagan years and beyond. Between 1969 and 1980, the median household income barely grew at all. (In inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars, it went from $47,124 to $47,668.) After the steadily rising living standards of the postwar decades, this stagnation came as a big shock to Americans, and it helps to explain the political backlash that Reagan rode to power. For the first two years of his Presidency, the economy was in recession and the median household income actually fell. But from then on, it started to grow. Between 1983 and 1988, when his second term ended, it went from $46,425 to $51,514—an increase of about eleven per cent. 

Rising incomes are what really distinguished the Reagan recovery from the Obama recovery, and that, I suspect, is why the two Presidents enjoyed such different political fortunes. (According to Gallup, Reagan’s average approval rating during his second term was 55.3 per cent. That’s about ten points higher than what Obama has averaged so far in his second term.)

wage inflation

More on the Important New Blanchflower/Posen Paper by Jared Bernstein

wage growth

A Brad DeLong Smackdown of Sorts by Lawrence Mishel