« Small steps toward a much better world | Main | Incomes and inequality: what the numbers don't tell us »
Income vs. consumption inequality
Some time ago, John Quiggin became apoplectic at libertarians citing TV and Playstation purchases as evidence against American poverty being a serious problem; Henry Farrell chimed in too. John asserts that consumption data "tell[s] us precisely nothing about what’s happening to inequality."
I cannot agree with this claim:
1. Consumption is robust for many categories, not just fancy TVs.
2. The data indicates that the people buying the stuff are not miserable, or at least not miserable for economic reasons. There are plenty of historical episdoes where consumption does fall, and we know that is not a pretty state of affairs.
3. The demand for flat TVs and the like is not just a relative price effect, it is also a wealth effect.
4. If robust demand for fancy TVs and PlayStations is not convincing, what kind of consumption data would be? Let's say there was a robust demand, among the middle classes, for medium-size yachts. Rembrandt etchings? Wouldn't that show something? It can be argued that "TVs are not enough," but that is not reason to reject consumption data out of hand. It is a reason to look at more categories of consumption.
Consumption studies do have the following defects:
1. They sample smaller numbers of people than do good income studies, and they cannot pin down the consumption patterns of definite percentiles very easily.
2. Money spent is not always money well spent.
3. The data series do not go far back in time and there may be problems of consistency over time.
4. People may be borrowing and accumulating large debts. Note that in this case, however, the comeuppance, however bad it may be, has yet to come. It could instead be argued that "inequality will (someday, when the debts come due) be a serious problem."
Mark Thoma surveys some interesting pieces. Here is a very detailed study of the topic. Here are many excellent slides on the topic.
Consumption data, even if sometimes misused by zealous libertarians, are not a means of dismissing the poverty problem, but they do put that problem in another light.
First, they show that income and wealth data overstate poverty and inequality problems. Second, a focus on income data leads one to conclude that the elderly require most of the assistance. A focus on consumption data lead one to conclude that helping parents with children is, in many cases, more important. That sounds right to me.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 25, 2007 at 05:33 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
For some comments on consumption vs. income measurement in a Canadian context, see a posting at "Relentlessly Progressive Economics":
[Neil] Reynolds [of Report on Business]seems unaware of the fact that relentless pressure from the right led the federal and provincial governments to develop a consumption based measure of poverty, the so-called Market Basket Measure. This was intended to calculate what income would be needed to purchase the basics of life for representative families in different communities, apparently in the hope of lowering poverty rates by statistical fiat.While the MBM poverty rates generated by this exercise differed from the after tax LICO rates in terms of detail, they were not really all that different in terms of the overall dollar amounts which define poverty thresholds. That’s probably why we have barely heard of the MBM since.
In summary - shifting the focus from income to consumption does not fundamentally throw into question the extent of poverty in Canada.
Posted by: tom s. at Jan 25, 2007 7:41:08 AM
Some observations from last year on 2000-2005 data.
And this on last years spike in gas prices.
Posted by: aaron at Jan 25, 2007 10:16:36 AM
I really think you're missing my point here. Of course, income and price effects are relevant in general, as is the fact that consumption has grown more than income (that is, saving has fallen), and I link to an extensive discussion of these issues in the post you link. But picking items where price effects are clearly dominant, like flat screen TVs, and observing growth in consumption of those items, just obscures the issue.
Also, I don't think saying something annoys me amounts to getting apoplectic.
Posted by: John Quiggin at Jan 25, 2007 10:38:55 AM
Hey Tyler, it looks like Quiggin backed off! You seemed to have brought about a move from his first 'tells us absolutely nothing' to his above 'obscures the issue'. I think that is clearly a point in your favor.
Posted by: The Octagon at Jan 25, 2007 11:51:40 AM
Umm, maybe you should read the quote in context before claiming that I've backed off from it. My statement in the comment that "But picking items where price effects are clearly dominant, like flat screen TVs, and observing growth in consumption of those items, just obscures the issue" restates my observation in the post, that looking at consumption changes driven by price effects tells us nothing about inequality.
Honestly, there's enough substantive points to debate that we shouldn't be playing this kind of game. I'd be much more interested in a discussion of my actual views, put forward in this post which I've already linked to several times.
Posted by: John Quiggin at Jan 25, 2007 1:11:43 PM
I don't think income inequallity is a problem yet.
I think our discussions should focus on determining what is needed for people to move to higher income classes and making sure that these resources are in ample supply.
Income inequallity itself isn't a problem. It becomes a problem when people who want invest in moving to a higher income class aren't able to. We aren't there yet (there are plenty of opportunities for lower income people to get financing for education and lifestyle changes can really boost savings), but we might get there.
Posted by: aaron at Jan 25, 2007 2:26:47 PM
Consumption or even income data can't take into account inequality without considering wealth and hours worked. Is a household with both adults working two jobs making 100k a year the same as a household where one adult works one job and makes 100k or one where single adult makes 100k a year from a trust fund? Can we consider them to be in an equal economic position?
Posted by: nelziq at Jan 25, 2007 2:31:23 PM
Professor Quiggin, if you take a quick look at the BLS stats I linked to , you'll see that spending on "necessities" has gone down in lower income groups and spending on entertainment has gone up. This says a lot more than the number of TVs sold, especially considering the drop in price of electronics. The implication is that prices on "necessities" have fallen and/or there are cheaper acceptable substitutes for most consumption.
Posted by: aaron at Jan 25, 2007 2:36:29 PM
John asserts that consumption data "tell[s] us precisely nothing about what’s happening to inequality."
It's probably already clear from John's comments, but I'll be more blunt than he can afford to be: This ripping of context is entirely unfair to JQ, and looks like a pure straw man attack, although I'm sure that was not your intention.
He did not assert that about consumption data in general, but about a particular point of consumption data which happens to be an outlier (playstations and flatscreen TVs). Your points do not speak to that premise at all, only to the one you falsely infer here, and even suggest that you would largely agree with his actual point in that line, though I'm certain you'd have other large differences in philosophy once you start engaging his actual arguments.
Michael
Posted by: Michael Sullivan at Jan 25, 2007 2:57:54 PM
The problem with being poor in America today is not so much that you can't buy enough stuff, but that you have to hang around with other poor people.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jan 25, 2007 4:11:50 PM
From BLS data:
Annual Change 2000-2004, Expenditures by EBIT quintile.
$17,940 $26,550 $34,716 $46,794 $75,102
5.3% -0.2% 2.7% 4.1% 2.7%
0.9% 2.4% 3.4% 3.5% 2.7%
-3.0% -1.5% -1.8% 0.1% 3.2%
-3.5% 2.5% 2.1% 1.0% 2.4%
Expenditures as % of EBIT (2000-2004).
233.5% 139.2% 105.5% 87.8% 68.2%
237.6% 130.4% 100.3% 85.6% 66.1%
229.2% 128.2% 99.7% 85.2% 65.3%
225.5% 124.4% 96.5% 82.6% 64.3%
194.6% 113.7% 88.9% 78.3% 63.3%
Posted by: aaron at Jan 25, 2007 5:16:25 PM
Of course it's not EBIT, just earnings before taxes. Sorry for the sloppiness.
Posted by: aaron at Jan 25, 2007 7:42:50 PM
2000-2004 income growth by quintile (lowest to highest):
4.5%
6.0%
6.0%
5.1%
4.7%
The lowest group is falling behind, looking at just 2000-2004. But 2005 and 2006 probably saw faster growth at the low end (2005 and 06 had much higher job growth than previous years).
The middle seems to be catching up to the rich.
Posted by: aaron at Jan 26, 2007 8:37:30 AM
Just a quick comment. A family with one person making $100K and the other not working is better off than the family with two people working and making $100K. Just the social security bite leaves you over $3K worse off. Then you have to factor in commuting, lunch, clothes costs for getting to work in a reasonably dressed fashion and eating lunch. Even bringing your lunch has marginally higher costs than making lunch at home every day. No big economic news here, but should be clear to anyone.
Posted by: Murphy at Jan 26, 2007 11:33:09 AM
This a prime example of too much of a good thing. It's a part of an economic problem which is scare resources and unlimited wants. It's always going to be the same story and peoples spending habits will never change. Plus income should affect your consumption but thats not always true.
Posted by: Ian Gregg at Feb 12, 2007 11:32:38 AM
liqingchao 07年8月17日
google排名
google排名
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
鼓风机
风机
风机
货架
光盘刻录
光盘刻录
光盘制作
光盘制作
光盘印刷
光盘印刷
红外测温仪
红外测温仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
频闪仪
频闪仪
涂层测厚仪
涂层测厚仪
电火花检测仪
电火花检测仪
google排名
仓库
仓库
仓库出租
仓库出租
物流园区
物流园区
集团电话
集团电话
四环素牙
口腔常识
口腔常识
口腔医生
口腔医生
网站设计
网站设计
多媒体
监控
监控
监控系统
监控系统
门禁
门禁
门禁系统
门禁系统
搬家公司
搬家公司
条码打印机
条码打印机
牙周炎
牙周炎
Posted by: wslmwps at Aug 16, 2007 11:31:01 PM
Hi
Best wishes。
Allow me to offer my heartiest wishes.
常年提供高、中、低压锅炉无缝管、流体无缝管、结构无缝管、化肥专用钢管、石油裂化无缝钢管、
地质钢管、液压支柱钢管
合金钢管
无缝管
无缝钢管
等论文发表资讯/刊物信息,协助客户制定论文发表方案.
xicao loves
lovesxicao
网站优化
google优化
网站优化
搜索引擎优化
网站优化
搜索引擎优化
百度优化
SEO
Posted by: 钢管无缝钢管无缝管 at Nov 20, 2007 8:47:27 PM
Posted by: 深圳翻译公司 at Feb 13, 2008 8:53:36 AM
資金を増やそうとするのに不動産投資をするのが手っ取り早い。日本で不動産で東京 賃貸をさがすのはきわめて難しくシステム開発は日本の会社が良い。
Posted by: 不動産投資 at Jul 15, 2008 2:53:07 AM
Posted by: masinn at Aug 27, 2008 7:59:00 AM
http://www.batteryfast.com/acer/btp-550.htm acer btp-550 battery,
Posted by: laptop battery at Oct 22, 2008 9:15:14 PM
If wealth-holding gets more uneven but current consumption doesn't, the society has indeed grown more unequal. People's opportunity sets and budget lines have diverged. A consumption tax would automatically adjust for this, but using annual consumption as one's measure of inequality gets it wrong.
-----------------------
Sarah
Posted by: Sarah at Nov 29, 2008 1:09:49 AM
Posted by: masinn at Dec 18, 2008 4:00:47 AM
Weight loss is easier than you think!
Posted by: adipex at Mar 3, 2009 4:18:51 PM
Posted by: battery at May 11, 2009 12:29:10 PM