Colander11e_Ch18_Final. Econ notes for ba

Econ notes Keynes

1. Because learning changes everything.
®
CHAPTER 18
Who Gets What? The Distribution of Income
Eleventh Edition
© 2020 McGraw Hill. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom.
No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill.

2. © McGraw Hill 2
Chapter Goals
Explain how income, wealth, and poverty are measured, and
how their real-world measures changed over time.
Summarize the socioeconomic tensions that high income
and wealth inequalities can cause.
Explain why there are so many philosophical debates about
equality and fairness, and summarize some of them.
Discuss the practical and theoretical problems of
redistributing income.

3. © McGraw Hill 3
Measuring the Distribution of Income, Wealth,
and Poverty
Share distribution of income is the relative division of total
income among income groups. For example, it measures
how much income the top 5% or 15%, or the bottom 10%
gets.
Socioeconomic distribution of income is the allocation of
income among relevant socioeconomic groupings.
1
aT.IE
eres Ginicoefficient
naiviauq.in
Bottom
grnet.pro
perfectinequality
iiiiiiiiiii.it
i
iii

4. © McGraw Hill 4
The Lorenz Curve
A Lorenz curve is a geometric representation of the share
distribution of income among families in a given country at a
given time.
It measures the cumulative percentage of families on the
horizontal axis, arranged from poorest to richest, and the
cumulative percentage of family income on the vertical axis.
Both axes start at zero and end at 100%.

5. © McGraw Hill 5
A Lorenz Curve of U.S. Income
Income
Quintile
Percentage
of Total
Family
Income
Cumulative
Percentage of Total
Family Income
Lowest fifth3.1% 3.1%
Second fifth8.2 11.3
Third fifth14.3 25.6
Fourth fifth23.2 48.8
Highest fifth51.2 100.0
In the graph, we see the U.S. Lorenz curve
based on the numbers in the table compared to
a Lorenz curve reflecting a perfectly equal
distribution of income.
Access the text alternative for slide images.

6. © McGraw Hill 6
Lorenz Curves for the United States: 1929,
1970, and 2017
From 1929 to 1970,
income inequality
decreased.
From 1970 to 2017,
income inequality
increased.
Access the text alternative for slide images.

7. © McGraw Hill 7
Defining Poverty
Poverty can be defined as a relative or absolute concept.
The U.S. government definition of poverty is a combination of
a relative and an absolute measure.
The poverty threshold is the income below which a family is
considered to live in poverty.
Equal to or less than three times an average family s USDA-
calculated minimum food expenditures.
iiT.siEIEIIE
n
t
a
vaof
moneybelow
wnien.­EE
IEEE
with
reference
tone
media

8. © McGraw Hill 8
Number and Percentage of Persons in Poverty
Year
Number of
People (millions)
Percentage of
Population
Poverty Income of a
4-Person Family
(in current $)
1960 39.9 22.2% 3,022
1970 24.4 12.6 3,986
1980 29.3 13.0 8,351
1990 33.6 13.5 13,254
2000 31.6 11.3 17,463
2010 46.2 15.1 22,113
2015 43.1 13.5 24,036
2016 40.6 12.7 24,339
2017 39.7 12.3 25,858
Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census (www.census.gov).

9. © McGraw Hill 9
Debates about the Definition of Poverty
Those who feel that the poverty line is too low points out that
food is now closer to one-seventh of a family s total budget,
so food is no longer a good basis for determining the poverty
level.
Some argue that the current measure is too high because
poverty figures do not include in-kind transfers,
underreporting of income or savings recipients may have.
Like most economic statistics, poverty statistics should be
used with care.

10. © McGraw Hill 10
The Costs of Poverty and Social Mobility
Some feel that society suffers when some of its people are in
poverty.
When poverty decreases, the incentives for crime also
decrease.
Individuals who work hard can escape poverty.
Concern about poverty has been lessened by the belief that
the United States has significant economic and social mobility.
Recent studies have found that income mobility has
significantly declined in the United States.
AmericanDream
GreatGatsby
Curve
BarackObama's
graphic

11. © McGraw Hill 11
The Gini Coefficient
Economists use the Gini
coefficient to talk about
the degree of income
inequality.
The Gini coefficient is
derived from the Lorenz
curve.
Gini coefficient = Area
A/(Areas A + B).
Access the text alternative for slide images.

12. © McGraw Hill 12
International Dimensions of Income Inequality
Among countries
of the world, the
United States has
the neither the
most equal nor
the most unequal
distribution of
income.

13. © McGraw Hill 13
Per Capita Income (GNP) in Various Countries
World
income
inequality
is much
greater
than
country
income
inequality.
Access the text alternative for slide images.
Hugedifference
becauseof
doingownhouse
teachingtheir
childrenfhems.e.lv

14. © McGraw Hill 14
The Distribution of Wealth
Wealth is the value of things individuals own less the value
of what they owe. It is a stock concept representing the value
of assets such as houses, buildings, and machines.
Income is payments received plus or minus changes in
value of a person s assets in a specified time period. It is a
flow concept, a stream through time.
In the United States, wealth is significantly more unequally
distributed than is income.

15. © McGraw Hill 15
Wealth Distribution in the United States and Wealth
Compared to Income
Wealth is much more
unequally distributed
than income in the
United States. The
lowest 40% have
borrowed nearly as
much as they own.
Access the text alternative for slide images.

16. © McGraw Hill 16
Socioeconomic Dimensions of Income Inequality 1
The share distribution of inequality is only one of the
dimensions that inequality of income and wealth can take.
Unequal distribution of income based on race, ethnic
background, geographic region, and other socioeconomic
factors such as gender and type of job exists.
The United States has socioeconomic classes with some
mobility among classes.

17. © McGraw Hill 17
Socioeconomic Dimensions of Income Inequality 2
Median Income, 2017
Occupational CategoryMale ($)Female ($)
Financial analysts 82,680 71,188
Management 81,796 60,996
Healthcare Practitioners 69,732 55,536
Protective services46,488 35,880
Sales and Office 43,368 34,944
YearMale ($)Female ($)
199020,29310,070
200028,34316,063
201032,20520,775
201640,39625,486
Race, 2017Median Income ($)
White 40,601
Asian 38,698
Hispanic Origin23,431
Black 20,937

18. © McGraw Hill 18
Income Distribution According to Class
The class system as a pyramid, a diamond, and a pentagon.
A developing country s
class system
U.S. class system in the
1960s and 1970s
U.S. class system in
recent years
Access the text alternative for slide images.
Lowerclassincreased
machinestook
middleclass
jobs

19. © McGraw Hill 19
Globalization and the Splitting of the Middle Class
Outsourcing increased unemployment and pushed down
wages in tradable sector such as manufacturing.
Nontradable sectors were safe from outsourcing and
benefited from lower prices on the consumer side, moving
them into the upper middle class.
With globalization, those in the lower class are less likely to
move up the ladder, and those in the upper class are less
likely to move down the ladder.

20. © McGraw Hill 20
Philosophical Debates about Equality and Fairness
Some philosophers argue that inequality creates diversity
that enriches the lives of everyone.
Others maintain that equality is the overriding goal.
The Declaration of Independence asserts that all men are
created equal.
Objective economists limit themselves to explaining the
effect of various policies on the distribution of income.

21. © McGraw Hill 21
Fairness and Equality
Most Americans see fairness as equality of opportunity.
There are great differences of opinion as to what constitutes
equal opportunity.
There are three problems in determining whether an income
distribution is fair:
People s abilities differ.
People s needs differ.
People s efforts differ.
Redistribution
isa
trade
off
betweenequityandefficiency

22. © McGraw Hill 22
Three Important Side Effects of Redistributive Programs
Society may decide to redistribute income from rich to poor to
meet its ideal of fairness.
There are three side effects of redistribution of income:
The labor to leisure incentive effect.
The tax avoidance or evasion incentive effect.
The incentive to appear more needy than you actually are.
Often politics, not value judgment, plays a central role in
determining what taxes and individual will pay.

23. © McGraw Hill 23
Income Redistribution Policies
The government redistributes income through direct and
indirect methods.
The direct methods include:
"Taxation which are policies that tax the rich more than the
poor.
"Expenditures which are programs that help the poor more
than the rich.
Toolsofredistribution
1Indirectredistributionreducesinequality
in
gross
incomes
prights
2Directredistributionreducesinequality
innetincomes
Taxespersonalincometaxcorporate
incometaxetc
Transfersunemploymentbenefitspovertyassistance

24. © McGraw Hill 24
Income Redistribution Policy, Fairness, and
Takeaway Principle
Discussions of income distribution often focus on
redistribution policy. One solution is to focus not on
redistribution policy but a policy to affect the structure of
society that underlies the distribution of income to society.
Examples:
"Structure of intellectual property rights.
"Licensing and restrictions on entry into different types of
work.

25. © McGraw Hill 25
Taxation to Redistribute Income 1
A progressive tax is a one in which the average tax rate
increases with income. It redistributes income from the rich to
the poor.
A proportional tax is a one in which the average tax rate is
constant regardless of income. It is neutral in regard to
income redistribution.
A regressive tax is a one in which the average tax rate
decreases as income increases. It redistributes income from
poor to rich.
EEIEEE
rate
increasesin
income
proportionalAugtaxrateis
constant
regressive
avg.tv
rate
decreasesin
income
v
tarete
regressive

26. © McGraw Hill 26
Taxation to Redistribute Income 2
The federal government gets most of its tax revenue from:
"Personal income tax.
"Corporate income tax.
"Social Security tax.
State and local governments get most of their tax revenue
from:
"Income tax.
"Sales tax.
"Property tax.

27. © McGraw Hill 27
Expenditure Programs to Redistribute Income 1
Social Security is a social insurance program that provides
financial benefits to the elderly and disabled and to their
eligible dependents and/or survivors.
Expenditure programs have been more successful than
taxation for redistributing income.
Medicare is a medical insurance system for retired people.

28. © McGraw Hill 28
Expenditure Programs to Redistribute Income 2
Public assistance programs are means-tested social
programs that provide financial, nutritional, medical, and
housing assistance to the poor and include:
"Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
"Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP).
"General assistance.

29. © McGraw Hill 29
Expenditure Programs to Redistribute Income 3
Medical programs provides significant medical assistance
for lower income individuals.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a federal program
that pays benefits, based on need, to the elderly, blind, and
disabled.
Unemployment compensation is short-term financial
assistance, regardless of need, to eligible individuals who are
temporarily out of work.
Housing programs are federal and state programs to
improve housing or to provide affordable housing.

30. © McGraw Hill 30
How Successful Have Income Redistribution
Programs Been?
Government programs have a slight effect on income
equality, but it is very small.
The incentive effects of collecting and distributing the money
has come at the cost of a reduction in the total amount of
income earned by the society.
Decisions on property rights issues have enormous
distributional consequences that are often little discussed,
even by economists.

31. © McGraw Hill 31
Impact of Transfers and Taxes on Income
Access the text alternative for slide images.

32. © McGraw Hill 32
Chapter Summary 1
The Lorenz curve is a measure of the distribution of income
among families in a country.
The farther the Lorenz curve is from the diagonal, the more
unequally income is distributed.
The official poverty measure is an absolute measure
because it is based on the minimum food budget for a family;
it is a relative measure because it is adjusted for inflation.
There is more income inequality among countries than
income inequality within a country.
Wealth is distributed less equally than income.

33. © McGraw Hill 33
Chapter Summary 2
Income differs substantially by class and by other
socioeconomic factors, such as age, race, and gender
Fairness is a philosophical question, so people must judge a
program s fairness for themselves.
Income is difficult to redistribute because of incentive effects
of taxes, avoidance and evasion of taxes, and incentive
effects of distribution programs
Government spending programs are more effective than
taxes in reducing income inequality in the United States.

34. Because learning changes everything.
®
www.mheducation.com
© 2020 McGraw Hill. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom.
No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill.

35. © McGraw Hill 35
Accessibility Content: Text Alternatives for Images

36. © McGraw Hill 36
A Lorenz Curve of U.S. Income - Text Alternative
Return to parent-slide containing images.
This graph plots Cumulative percentage of families from 0 to 100% on the
x-axis and Cumulative percentage of income from 0 to 100% on the y-
axis. One linear curve called the Line of absolute equality spans from the
origin to Point C with coordinates (100%, 100%). Point A resides on this
linear curve at (20%, 20%), and Point B resides at (40%, 40%). Beneath
the linear curve is a nonlinear curve showing Point F at (20%, 3%), Point
G at (40%, 11%), Point H at (60%, 26%), Point I at (80%, 50%), and
Point J which shares the spot with Point C at (100%, 100%).
Return to parent-slide containing
images.

37. © McGraw Hill 37
Lorenz Curves for the United States: 1929, 1970, and
2017 - Text Alternative
Return to parent-slide containing images.
As the Lorenz curves show, the amount of inequality of income
distribution has fluctuated in the United States. Until about 1970, it
decreased; since then, it has increased. This graph has Cumulative
percentage of population from 0 to 100% on the x-axis and Cumulative
percentage of income from 0 to 100% on the y-axis. One linear curve
called the Line of absolute equality spans from the origin to a point with
coordinates (100%, 100%). Beneath this linear curve are the three
Lorenz curves for the United States for 1929, 1970, and 2017. The 1970
curve is closest to the Line of absolute equality, and the curves for 1929
and 2017 are nearly the same and farther from the Line of absolute
equality.
Return to parent-slide containing
images.

38. © McGraw Hill 38
The Gini Coefficient - Text Alternative
Return to parent-slide containing images.
This graph plots Cumulative percentage of population on the x-axis from
0 to 100% and Cumulative percentage of income from 0 to 100%. A linear
45 degree angle line of equality runs from the origin to the point (100%,
100%). Beneath it is the outward bulging Lorenz curve, and this shaded
area is labeled A. Below the A area is a second shaded area B that
includes the remaining area under the Lorenz curve to the x-axis
intercept of 100%. In other words, the Gini coefficient is derived from the
Lorenz curve by comparing the area between (1) the Lorenz curve and
the diagonal (area A) and (2) the total area of the triangle below the
diagonal (areas A and B). Put another way: Gini coefficient = Area A
8(Areas A + B); a Gini coefficient of zero would be perfect equality, since
area A is 0 if income is perfectly equally distributed. The highest the Gini
coefficient can go is 1. As a result, all Gini coefficients must be between 0
and 1. The lower the Gini coefficient, the closer the income distribution is
to being equal.
Return to parent-slide containing
images.

39. © McGraw Hill 39
Per Capita Income (GNP) in Various Countries - Text
Alternative
Return to parent-slide containing images.
This bar graph shows nine countries on the x-axis and Per capita income
(GDP) from $0 to $90,000 on the y-axis. The estimates are calculated
using the purchasing power parity method. The countries and graphed
amounts are: Switzerland, $86,835; United States, $62,152; United
Kingdom, $44,178; Japan, $40,859; Hungary, $16,722; Brazil, $10,224;
Kenya, $1,838; Uganda, $711; and Congo, Dem. Rep, $478.
Return to parent-slide containing
images.

40. © McGraw Hill 40
Wealth Distribution in the United States and Wealth
Compared to Income - Text Alternative
Return to parent-slide containing images.
This graph has an x-axis of Cumulative percentage of
families/households (0 to 100%) and a y-axis of Cumulative percentage
of wealth/income (0 to 100%). A 45 degree line from the origin to point
(100%, 100%) is used to reference Lorenz curves for Family Income and
Household wealth. Household wealth lies below Family income. A table
contained within the graph shows two columns: Wealth Quintile and
Percentage of Total Household Wealth. Entries for each of these are:
Bottom fifth, -0.5; Second fifth, 0.5; Third fifth, 3.2; Fourth fifth, 9.8; and
Top fifth, 87.0. Thus, the lowest 40 percent of the population has no
wealth; these people have borrowed as much as they own.
Return to parent-slide containing
images.

41. © McGraw Hill 41
Income Distribution According to Class - Text Alternative
Return to parent-slide containing images.
The class structure in developing countries is a pyramid, with a large
lower class on the bottom, middle class in the middle, and a small upper
class on the top.
In the United States in the 1960s and 1970s, the middle class grew and
the United States changed from a pyramid shape to a diamond shape,
with a large middle class and smaller lower and upper classes.
In the current United States, the class structure is more like a pentagon,
with an expanding lower class on the bottom that was split from the
middle class in the middle and relatively small upper class on the top.
Return to parent-slide containing
images.

42. © McGraw Hill 42
Impact of Transfers and Taxes on Income - Text
Alternative
Return to parent-slide containing images.
The y-axis is labeled Average Annual Income in Dollars and goes from 0
to 300,000 in increments of 50,000. Five quintiles are shown on the x-
axis: Lowest, Second, Third, Fourth, and Highest. The graph legend
shows that blue bars represent Before Federal Transfers and Taxes and
red bars represent After Federal Transfers and Taxes. For the lowest
quintile, the blue bar is 19,200 and the red bar is 31,100. For the second
quintile, the blue bar is 45,000 and the red bar is 49,000. For the third
quintile, the blue bar is 68,700 and the red bar is 62,300. For the fourth
quintile, the blue bar is 103,000 and the red bar is 85,000. For the
highest quintile, the blue bar is 281,400 and the red bar is 207,300.
Return to parent-slide containing
images.