02-16-2018 12:28:03 PM -0800
01-23-2018 09:55:12 AM -0800
01-18-2018 11:02:22 AM -0800
01-09-2018 01:54:15 PM -0800
12-22-2017 09:40:32 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

The Myth of the 'Widening Gap Between Rich and Poor'

It gets repeated so frequently and so persistently that many assume it must be true: the rich are getting richer and the poor have been left behind in ever-larger numbers, especially during the eeeeeevil Bush administration.


Let's take a look at the latest inflation-adjusted Census Bureau data from 2003 through 2007 (data is from Table A-3 at page 40 of the Bureau's annual "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States" publication; this Bureau page has the link to the PDF publication; more historical detail is here):

I'm using 2003 as the starting point for two reasons. First, the negative effects of the Internet bubble that occurred during the Clinton administration and of the 9/11 attacks didn't wear off until that year. Second, the investment-related Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, along with across-the-board cuts in marginal rates, finally took effect that year. The Bush tax cuts in 2001 were, unfortunately, relatively ineffectual, because they represented a one-time stimulus instead of long-term change.

Note that in the last four years the Bureau has tracked:

  • The 10th percentile cutoff went up by more than the cutoffs for the richest three percentiles. The rich did not get proportionally richer than the poorest of the poor.

  • In the aggregate, it's fair to say that no income group "lost ground."

  • The Gini coefficient, which is a statistical measure of income inequality -- a value of zero would mean that everyone has the same income, and a value of one would mean that one person makes all the income -- barely budged, and the budge was in the direction of less inequality.

What's more, the gains at the lower income levels are probably understated. That's because the Census Bureau's inflation-adjusted numbers don't fully take the "Wal-Mart effect" into account. The linked OpinionJournal.com column cites outside research showing that "Wal-Mart's 1985-2004 expansion of sales resulted in a 9.1% drop in the price of food at home, a 4.2% drop in the price of other goods and commodities, and a 3.1% decline in consumer prices overall, saving the average working family about $2,329 per year."