Poverty and Income Distribution
Key Concepts
- Income: A flow measure reflecting funds received by individuals or businesses over a specific period.
- Wealth: A measure of an individual’s or family’s assets, net of liabilities, at a given time.
- Functional distribution of income.
- Personal or family distribution of income.
- Lorenz curve.
- Gini coefficient.
- Poverty thresholds.
- Poverty rate.
- Income deficit.
- Ratio of income to poverty.
Distribution of Income and Wealth
- Income is a flow measure reflecting the funds received by individuals or businesses over a specific period.
- Wealth is a measure of an individual’s or family’s assets, net of liabilities, at a given time.
Life Cycle Effects
- Young people typically earn modest incomes.
- Income peaks roughly between ages 45 and 55.
- Income declines with retirement (as do costs).
Personal or Family Distribution of Income
- The distribution of income to individuals or household groups, typically by quintiles (fifths) of the population.
American Dream
- It is becoming harder for Americans to get ahead.
- Percentage of children born in that year who earn more than their parents:
- 1940: 92%
- 1950: 79%
- 1960: 62%
- 1970: 61%
- 1980: 50%
Share of Income by Quintile
- U.S. distribution of income has grown more unequal over the past three decades.
- Every income quintile except the highest has declined in percentage of income.
- Income distribution by year and quintile:
- 1975: Lowest (4.3%), Second (10.4%), Third (17.0%), Fourth (24.7%), Highest (43.6%), Top 5% (16.5%)
- 1980: Lowest (4.2%), Second (10.2%), Third (16.8%), Fourth (24.7%), Highest (44.1%), Top 5% (16.5%)
- 1985: Lowest (3.9%), Second (9.8%), Third (16.2%), Fourth (24.4%), Highest (45.6%), Top 5% (17.6%)
- 1990: Lowest (3.8%), Second (9.6%), Third (15.9%), Fourth (24.0%), Highest (46.6%), Top 5% (18.5%)
- 1995: Lowest (3.7%), Second (9.1%), Third (15.2%), Fourth (23.3%), Highest (48.7%), Top 5% (21.0%)
- 2000: Lowest (3.6%), Second (8.9%), Third (14.8%), Fourth (23.0%), Highest (49.8%), Top 5% (22.1%)
- 2005: Lowest (3.4%), Second (8.6%), Third (14.6%), Fourth (23.0%), Highest (50.4%), Top 5% (22.2%)
- 2010: Lowest (3.3%), Second (8.5%), Third (14.6%), Fourth (23.4%), Highest (50.3%), Top 5% (21.3%)
- 2015: Lowest (3.1%), Second (8.2%), Third (14.3%), Fourth (23.2%), Highest (51.1%), Top 5% (22.1%)
- 2020: Lowest (3.0%), Second (8.1%), Third (14.0%), Fourth (22.6%), Highest (52.3%), Top 5% (23.0%)
Lorenz Curve
- A graphical measure of income inequality.
- Cumulates households of various income levels on the horizontal axis.
- Cumulates the share of total income on the vertical axis.
- The more bowed the Lorenz curve, the greater the income inequality.
Lorenz Curve for the United States
- Wealth is distributed more unevenly than income.
- The poorest 20% earn 3.1% of total income, and the poorest 40% earn 11.3% of total income.
- The richest 20% earn 51.2% of total income and own 88.9% of wealth.
Gini Coefficient
- The Gini coefficient is the ratio of area A to area A + B.
- The more unequal the income distribution, the greater is area A and the greater the Gini coefficient.
Impact of Redistribution
- The distribution of income becomes more equal once the effect of progressive taxation and transfer payments are taken into account.
Comparing Gini Coefficients
- The Gini coefficient for income is 0.321 for Japan and 0.480 for the U.S., which means income inequality is worse in the U.S.
- Denmark and Sweden have the most equal distribution of income, and Brazil and South Africa have the most unequal distribution of income.
Causes of Income Inequality
- Differences in human capital, as high-paying jobs require much more education and skills than before.
- Discrimination that keeps wages low for certain groups of workers.
- The rise of two-earner households, which has increased overall household income significantly (in 2020, 4% of lowest quintile had 2-earners, 74% in highest quintile).
Differences in Human Capital
- College graduates earn much more income on average than high school graduates.
Poverty
- Poverty is a problem affecting about 11.5% of U.S. households in 2023.
Poverty Thresholds
- Poverty thresholds were developed in the 1960s based on the USDA’s food plan and are updated each year by the Census Bureau to account for inflation.
- Spending 30% of income on food = poverty threshold.
Poverty Guidelines
- A slightly modified measure issued by the Department of Health and Human Services is the poverty guidelines and is used to determine eligibility for federal programs.
- Poverty guidelines (2022):
- One person: $13,590
- Two persons: $18,310
- Three persons: $23,030
- Four persons: $27,750
- Five persons: $32,470
- Six persons: $37,190
- Seven persons: $41,910
College and Food Insecurity
- About 30% of college students face some sort of food insecurity.
- NCAA now requires unlimited meals for Div I athletes.
Food Spending and Share of Income
- Food spending and share of income spent on food across U.S. households, 2014.
Ridesourcing Platforms and Socio-Economic Inequality
- Ridesourcing platforms benefit from, even thrive on, socio-economic inequality.
- High levels of socio-economic inequality allow for cheap labor and increase the share of travelers with a high willingness to pay for travel time savings and comfort.
- Driver earnings are minimal in urban areas with large socio-economic inequality.
Uber Usage
- Uber usage and Gini coefficient correlation.
Income and Wealth Inequality in the U.S.
- Wealth inequality is worse than income inequality.
Programs and Income Distribution
- Medicaid, Medicare, Progressive income tax and Social Security improve income inequality.
U.S. Poverty Rates
- U.S. poverty rates declined from 1959 to 1975 and have remained roughly steady since.
- Poverty rates for Blacks and Hispanics have decreased but remain above the poverty rate for Whites.
Real Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin
- Real Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1967 to 2020
Spending on Food
- If you spend 15% of your income on food, you are likely above the poverty line.
Traditional Causes of Poverty
- Lack of human capital
- Mental or physical disability
- Drug addiction
- Unwillingness to work or apathy toward work
- Refusal to relocate for work
New Factors Causing Poverty
- Wages have not kept up with rising costs.
- Technological changes and globalization have changed employment opportunities.
- Health costs are rising.
- Rise of single-parent families.
Lorenz Curve and Gini Coefficient
- If income distribution becomes more unequal, the Lorenz curve will shift right and the Gini coefficient will increase.
People and Families in Poverty by Selected Characteristics, 2014
- Poverty Rate by Household Type:
- Married-couple households: 6.2%
- Female households (no husband): 30.6%
- Male households (no wife): 15.7%
- Poverty Rate by Work Experience:
- Worked full-time, year-round: 3.0%
- Worked part-time, year-round: 15.9%
- Did not work: 33.7%
- Poverty Rate by Race:
- White: 10.1%
- Black: 26.2%
- Asian: 12.0%
- Hispanic: 23.6%
Working Age Adults in Poverty in 2020 - Reason for Not Working
- Reasons for not working and percentage:
- School: 2.9 million, 22%
- Retired early: 1.5 million, 12%
- Ill or disabled: 4.3 million, 33%
- Home or family reasons: 3.4 million, 26%
- Could not find work: 1.0 million, 7%
Definition of Poverty
- According to the World Bank, "poor" is defined as living on less than $2/day.
- In Denmark, “poor” is earning less than $45,000, with free health care and college education.
- Poverty is relative.
Poverty in Eritrea
- Eritrea: 66% of people live below the poverty line.
- GDP per capita $650 USD.
Productivity and Compensation
The gap between productivity and a typical worker's compensation has increased dramatically since 1979.
Productivity growth and hourly compensation growth, 1948-2022
- 1948-1979, average annual growth in: Productivity: 2.5%, Compensation: 2.4%
- 1979-2022, average annual growth in: Productivity: 1.2%, Compensation: 0.3%
Rawls vs. Nozick Argument
- Rawls Maximin Principle: A society should maximize the welfare of the least well-off individual.
- Suggests that some people are born unlucky into poor households and therefore income redistribution would make society more equitable.
- Nozick’s Argument: It would be unjust to redistribute wealth when it is earned through hard work and innovation.
- Justice requires protecting property rights to ensure people are rewarded for their hard work.
Possible Solutions
- Affordable access to high-quality child-care and high-quality education
- Provide long-term, quality addiction treatment instead of incarceration
- Policies to encourage economic growth to make the overall pie larger
- Tax reform for the very rich
Nozick Argument
- Redistributing wealth is not fair to the families that earned it.