Advertisement

Journal of Labor Research

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 476–514 | Cite as

Illustrating the Implications of How Inequality is Measured: Decomposing Earnings Inequality by Race and Gender

  • Markus P. A. SchneiderEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper makes three distinct contributions: it presents a novel modification to an established methodology for assessing inequality using the CPS ASEC data, it illustrates how valuable a multi-metric inequality analysis is by reconciling some open questions regarding the trend in inequality and the role of the composition of income along the distribution, and it provides a baseline assessment of the trend in earnings inequality for four distinct groups of income earners. The evolution of earnings inequality from 1995 to 2010 is compared to increasing inequality in total income as documented by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez to show that earnings inequality has followed a qualitatively similar, though less extreme trend. In the process, the disconnect between the trend in the Gini coefficient and inequality assessed via the share of income going to the top 1 % of income earners is reconciled through the use of several alternative inequality indices. Finally, the evolution of the earnings distribution for black women, black men, white women, and white men are considered separately, which shows that there are important differences in the experience of inequality. The main findings are that only white men have experienced changes in within-group earnings inequality that parallel the changes in inequality seen in the overall distribution. By contrast, black income earners have seen no notable increase in within-group inequality by any measure, suggesting that they may rightly perceive growing inequality as primarily a between-group phenomena.

Keywords

Dagum distribution Earnings inequality Gini coefficient Income distribution 

JEL Classifications

D31 D63 C46 J3 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks John Luke Gallup for his comments and advice on an earlier version of this paper, and the various anonymous reviewers who have provided invaluable feedback throughout.

References

  1. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA (2003) Is this time different? Capture and anti-capture of U.S. politics. Econ Voice 9(3)Google Scholar
  2. Aliprantis D, Dunne T, Fee K (2011) The growing difference in college attainment between women and men. Econ Comment (2011–21)Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson AB (1970) On the measurement of inequality. J Econ Theory 2(3):244–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson AB, Piketty T, Saez E (2011) Top incomes in the long run of history. J Econ Lit 49(1):3–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borzadaran GRM, Behdani Z (2009) Maximum entropy and the entropy of mixing for income distributions. J Income Distrib 18(2):179–186Google Scholar
  6. Burkhauser RV, Butler JS, Feng S, Houtenville AJ (2004) Long term trends in earnings inequality: what the CPS can tell us. Econ Lett 82:295–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burkhauser RV, Feng S, Jenkins SP (2009) Using the p90/p10 index to measure us inequality trends with current population survey data: a view from inside the census bureau vaults. Rev Income Wealth 55(1):166–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burkhauser RV, Feng S, Jenkins S, Larrymore J (2011a) Estimating trends in U.S. income inequality using the current population survey: the importance of controlling for censoring. J Econ Inequal 9(3):393–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burkhauser RV, Larrymore J, Simon KI (2011b) A ’second opinion’ on the economic health of the american middle class. NBER Working Papers p 17164Google Scholar
  10. Burkhauser RV, Feng S, Jenkins SP, Larrimore J (2012) Recent trends in top income shares in the united states: reconciling estimates from march cps and irs tax return data. Rev Econ Stat 94(2):371–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowell FA (2011) Measuring inequality. In: LSE perspectives in economic analysis, 3rd edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Dagum C (1977) A new model of income distribution: specification and estimation. Econ Appl 30:413–367Google Scholar
  13. DellaVigna S, Kaplan E (2007) The fox news effect: media bias and voting. Q J Econ 122(3):1187–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feng S, Burkhauser RV, Butler JS (2006) Levels and long-term trends in earnings inequality: overcoming current population survey censoring problems using the GB2 distribution. J Bus Econ Stat 24(1):57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gordon RJ, Dew-Becker I (2005) Where did the productivity growth go? Inflation dynamics and the distribution of income. NBER Working Paper 11842Google Scholar
  16. Gordon RJ, Dew-Becker I (2007) Selected issues in the rise of income inequality. Brook Pap Econ Act 2007(2):169–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hao L, Naiman DQ (2010) Assessing inequality. Quantitative applications in social science, vol 166. SAGE PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  18. Jenkins SP (2009) Distributionally-sensitive inequality indices and the GB2 income distribution. Rev Income Wealth 22(2):392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirman AP (1992) Whom or what does the representative individual represent? J Econ Perspect 6(2):117–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kleiber C (2008) A guide to the Dagum distribution, chap. 6. Springer, pp 392–398Google Scholar
  21. Kleiber C, Kotz S (2003) Statistical size distributions in economics and the actuarial sciences. WileyGoogle Scholar
  22. Maxwell A, Parent TW (2012) The obama trigger: presidential approval and tea party membership. Soc Sci Q 93(5):1384–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDonald JB (1984) Some generalized size functions for the size distribution of income. Econometrica 52:647–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Monnat SM, Raffalovich LE, Tsao H-S (2012) Trends in the family income distribution by race/ethnicity and income source, 1988–2009. Popul Rev 51(1):85–115Google Scholar
  25. Norton MI, Ariely D (2011) Building a better america - one wealth quintile at a time. Perspect Psychol Sci 6(9):9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parker SC (1999) The generalized beta as a model for the distribution of earnings. Econ Lett 62:197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Piketty T, Saez E (2003) Income inequality in the United States, 1913–1998. Q J Econ 118(1):1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Piketty T, Saez E (2006) The evolution of top incomes: a historical and international perspective. Am Econ Rev 96(2):200–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rogerson R, Shimer R, Wright R (2005) Search-theoretic models of the labor market: a survey. J Econ Lit 43(1):959–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sahin A, Song J, Hobijn B (2010) The unemployment gender gap during the 2007 recession. Curr Econ Issues Econ Financ 16(2)Google Scholar
  31. Smeeding TM, Thompson JP (2011) Recent trends in income inequality: labor, wealth and more complete measures of income. Res Labor Econ 32:1–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economics DepartmentUniversity of DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations