|
l Fuss about income inequality. -Most American are on the fast track to affluence l 5 percent of As in the bottom fifth in 1975 were still there. l 29 percent of them end up in top fifth -opportunity matters most l The cox-alm study is making big waves among the political right -after a ringing endorsement of the wall street journal, conservative impatient with hand-writing over the alleged plight of the young and immobile l New research is not confidence-building. Cox and alm ask the wrong question, argue by PG l Standard measures amount to snapshots -the variations between top and bottom have been reported. -liberals and conservatives agree that mobility matters -lifetime income is distributed far more equally l Cox-alm study is in this tradition. -poverty in the 1975 snapshot was no impediment to future success. l Mr. Gottschalk, notes that the dallas use means to reach these ends. -they measure income earned by individuals, rather than assigning individuals share of family income. -As a result, the average earnings of the bottom fifth in 1975 far less than anyone could live on. l The one worked only briefly in 1975. G guess most of them were workers with marginal links to the labor force. l 16 years later their average incomes had risen. -G, this suggests that all the former students in the sample had full-time jobs in 1911, as did most of the mothers. l Mr. G says by tracking individuals over time the Cox-Alm study mingles the impact of economic mobility with gains to accumulating work experience. We have long known that mobility partially offsets the impact of inequality. Unclear how much l NBER, estimated average family incomes over a four-year period reduced by one-fourth. l The rate of economic mobility had fallen since 1980 l More try to figure out what to do with the losers.
| 
[复制链接]
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2022-7-5 21:32:09
