Suchergebnisse

"We revisit to what extent the increase in income inequality over the last 30 years has been mirrored by consumption inequality. We do so by constructing two alternative measures of consumption expenditure, using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE). We first use reports of active savings and after tax income to construct the measure of consumption implied by the budget constraint. We find that the consumption inequality implied by savings behavior largely tracks income inequality between 1980 and 2007. Second, we use a demand system to correct for systematic measurement error in the CE's expenditure data. Specifically, we consider trends in the relative expenditure of high income and low income households for different goods with different income (total expenditure) elasticities. Our estimation exploits the difference in the growth rate of luxury consumption inequality versus necessity consumption inequality. This "double-differencing,'' which we implement in a a regression framework, corrects for mis-measurement that can systematically vary over time by good and income group. This second exercise indicates that consumption inequality has closely tracked income inequality over the period 1980-2007. Both of our measures show a significantly greater increase in consumption inequality than what is obtained from the CE's total household expenditure data directly"--National Bureau of Economic Research web site

We revisit to what extent the increase in income inequality since 1980 was mirrored by consumption inequality. We do so by constructing an alternative measure of consumption expenditure using a demand system to correct for systematic measurement error in the Consumer Expenditure Survey. Our estimation exploits the relative expenditure of high- and low-income households on luxuries versus necessities. This double differencing corrects for measurement error that can vary over time by good and income. We find consumption inequality tracked income inequality much more closely than estimated by direct responses on expenditures. (JEL D31, D63, E21)

Efforts to address income inequality generally focus on wealth redistribution through taxation and government benefits. But these efforts do not attack the core problem -- the unfair distribution of wealth at the firm level. This essay, a contribution to the "Inequality, Opportunity, and the Law of the Workplace" symposium, argues that workers need power within their firms to stake their claims to larger slices of the corporate pie. Even though the current law of the workplace does provide regulatory support for workers, it fails to change internal firm governance. Policymakers who want to take on income inequality as a structural matter should turn to corporate law and provide workers with a way of playing a role in the ongoing governance of the business.

This paper examines the evolution of inequality in an overlapping generations model where each individual's human capital investment depends on quality of schools. We consider an education regime where the quality of schools is a publicly provided input financed by an income tax. We show that the income gap between the rich & the poor may widen even when the quality of public education is the same across all individuals. Thus, in the short run, public education may not be the great equalizer as intended by its proponents, though it is in the long run. We also show that the effect of taxes on inequality is ambiguous. 1 Table, 4 Figures, 21 References. Adapted from the source document.

Numerous studies have reported strong linear associations between income & inequality at the state level. A state-level analysis based on data from the 1970 census reveals a curvilinear relationship between the two: inequality declines as income rises, but beyond a certain point inequality stabilizes & then increases slightly. The turning point in inequality in the most affluent states is traced to the opportunities afforded to high-income workers, a stratum virtually ignored in previous studies. 1 Table, 2 Figures, 24 References. Modified HA.

We investigate whether a nexus exists between income inequality and criminal activity in Indonesia. Additionally, we examine socioeconomic variables and potential links with criminal actions (i.e., crime rate, murder, rape, physical abuse, robbery, and fraud). We use the generalized method of moments (GMM) approach, employing data for 34 provinces in Indonesia over the period of 2010–2019. The results indicate that income inequality is associated with higher criminal activity. Overall, lower unemployment, larger investment (foreign and domestic), and higher human development (education and health) can help reduce crime in Indonesia. However, higher income can reduce physical abuse and crime rates, but theft and fraud increase with income growth. Rising unemployment increases rape, abuse, robbery, and fraud. Still, unemployment does not affect murder, suggesting that non-economic factors are dominant in explaining murder and violent crimes. Furthermore, income inequality can increase robbery and fraud, although it has no significant effects on murder, rape, and abuse. Government spending on social assistance and more efficient settlement of criminal acts can lower crime rates.