tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post743336617368867939..comments2023-09-09T09:26:22.175-04:00Comments on Andrew Samwick's Blog: Narrowing, Widening, and PolarizingAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13514024573333057559noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-80471262121423732512007-11-08T16:32:00.000-05:002007-11-08T16:32:00.000-05:00These two claims can be easily reconciled. As Paul...These two claims can be easily reconciled. As Paul Krugman and others have repeatedly pointed out much of the rise in income inequality is due to the rapid ascent of income going to the top 1% of income earners (Piketty and Saez report, based on tax data, report their their share of national income rose from 8.9% in 1976 to 21.8% in 2005.) They also point out that most of the increase in income share to this top 1% can be explained by the rise in income to the very richest of these rich (i.e. the top 0.1%)<br><br> Most of the income in this group is from returns to capital. <br><br> Goldin and Katz on the other hand or speaking strictly about WAGE inequality: <br><br>"We use the March [Current Population Survey] files from 1964 to 2006 (covering earnings years 1963 to 2005) to examine the evolution of weekly earnings of full-time, full-year workers..."<br><br> Surely you do understand that Stan O'Neal, Ken Lay, Mike Bloomberg, and Bill Gates incomes in this period would NOT be represented in this SAMPLE. In fact no sample from the CPS.<br><br>In short returns to education may very well explain a rise in inequality amongst "workers" but this is only one part of the income distribution.capitalsharenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-10778155883515585742007-11-10T06:52:00.000-05:002007-11-10T06:52:00.000-05:00Based on that conclusion, do you think that Krugma...Based on that conclusion, do you think that Krugman's original critique of Paulson's speech was valid?Andrew Samwickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13514024573333057559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-38207705738568858482007-11-11T01:53:00.000-05:002007-11-11T01:53:00.000-05:00Yes. And I think your original criticism was shal...Yes. And I think your original criticism was shallow and misguided.Elliottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17206839.post-34263917588765101482007-11-11T20:48:00.000-05:002007-11-11T20:48:00.000-05:00Andrew, did you hear the VPR replay of Krugman'...Andrew, did you hear the VPR replay of Krugman's talk about income inequality this evening? It was interesting but certainly not convincing...Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07472891144832591202noreply@blogger.com