From "The Conscience of a Liberal - by Dr. Paul Krugman

We begin with some posts from Dr. Krugman - of course you follow the link to the originals. As for why I so tend to use posts from Dr. Krugman -- well, it's because he has been RIGHT. Being RIGHT about what is, and what is going to, happen counts for a lot. On the other hand, right wing ideologues have been WRONG time after time. Not only WRONG, but they have "misstated" data. In plain english, they have LIED. Being WRONG and LIARS somewhat lessens their credibility in my eyes (of course, I'm not a "pundit", so what do I know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Millionaire For A Day

I see from comments here and elsewhere that the usual obfuscators are rolling out the old income mobility defense: sure, a few people get a lot of the income, but it’s different people every year, so no harm. I think it’s coming from the Tax Foundation this time.

But if you actually read the CBO report, it already deals with that issue:

Household income measured over a multiyear period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multiyear income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.

Translation: sure, many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year — but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, 1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class. And the new millionaires are typically people who were making just shy of a million the year before, not Horatio Alger stories.

And if you’d been following this subject you would know that this fallacy has been well understood for decades.

Look, let me make a public service announcement: if you rely on bought and paid for sources on income inequality, you’re going to embarrass yourself again and again. These people never get it right, because their whole reason for being is to obfuscate. You should never, ever, trust what they say on this issue.


Inequality Trends In One Picture

Just an addendum on the role of the top 1 percent versus the college-noncollege differential. Here, from the CBO report, are the changes, in percentage points, of the shares of income going to three groups. The top quintile excluding the top 1 percent – which is basically the abode of the well-educated who aren’t among the very lucky few – has only kept pace with the overall growth in incomes. Just about all of the redistribution has taken place from the bottom 80 to the top 1 (and we know that most of that has actually gone to the top 0.1).

It’s a tiny minority, not a broad class of well-educated Americans, who have been winning here