2. 20 Inequality and Poverty Notes and teaching tips: 9, 19, and 45.
CHAPTER
Notes and teaching tips: 9, 19, and 45.
To view a full-screen figure during a class, click the red “expand” button.
To return to the previous slide, click the red “shrink” button.
To advance to the next slide, click anywhere on the full screen figure.

3. C H A P T E R C H E C K L I S T
When you have completed your study of this chapter, you will be able to
1 Describe the economic inequality and poverty in the United States.
2 Explain how economic inequality and poverty arise.
3 Explain why governments redistribute income and describe the effects of redistribution on economic inequality and poverty.

4. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
We measure economic inequality by looking at the distributions of income and wealth.
Market income is a household’s wages, interest, rent, and profit earned from the markets for factors of production before paying income taxes.
Money income is market income plus cash benefits paid by the government.
A household’s wealth is the value of the things that it owns at a point in time.
Table 20.1 shows these distributions in the United States in 2006.

5. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY

6. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY

7. Lorenz Curves 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
A Lorenz curve is a curve that graphs the cumulative percentage of income (or wealth) against the cumulative percentage of households.
Figure 20.1 on the next slide shows the Lorenz curves for the U.S. income in 2006 and U.S. wealth in 1998.
These Lorenz curves are based on Table 20.1

8. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
The cumulative percentages of income and wealth are graphed against the cumulative percentage of households.
1. If each 20 percent of households received 20 percent of total income, there would be no rich and poor—there would be equality as shown by the Line of equality.
The Lorenz curve presents students with another graph to understand. Carefully go over the framework for the Lorenz curve, explaining what is meant by “cumulative percentage” and pointing out the variables on the axes. Remind your students that unlike most of the graphs they have studied, there are no price or quantity variables on these axes. You can select 5 class members, assign them incomes, and then calculate the Lorenz curve for these 5 members. When I do this exercise, I always make sure that my incomes add to a nice round number. For instance, incomes of $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, and $60,000 give a total income of $200,000 so that it is easy to calculate both the percentage of the total each 20 percentile group earns (10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent, 25 percent, and 30 percent) as well as the cumulative percentages (10 percent, 25 percent, 45 percent, 70 percent, and 100 percent).
Draw the Lorenz curve first and then point out that we need some sort of reference. Draw the “line of equality” by asking students questions such as “If the poorest 20 percent of families (pointing at the x-axis) earned 20 percent of income (pointing at the y-axis), where would this point be plotted?” After completing this exercise for the other percentages, the students should understand the “line of equality” serving as a reference line. Point out how the actual Lorenz curve compares to the line of equality.

9. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
2. The distribution of income shows that the poorest 20 percent of households received 3.4 percent of total income, and the richest 20 percent received 49.4 percent.
3. The distribution of wealth shows that the poorest 40 percent of households owned 0.2 percent of total wealth, and the richest 1 percent owned 38.1 percent.

10. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
The farther the Lorenz curve is from the Line of equality, the greater is the inequality.
The distribution of wealth is much more unequal than the distribution of income.

11. Inequality over Time 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
U.S. income inequality has increased the past few decades.
The highest incomes have increased much faster than the lower incomes.
The gap between rich and poor has widened.
Figure 20.2(a) on the next slide shows how the distribution of income changed from 1967 to 2006.

12. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
The average income of the lowest quintile increased from $7,900 to $11,400—an increase of 43 percent.
The average income of three middle quintiles increased by 42 percent.
The average income of highest quintile increased by 91 percent.

13. Economic Mobility 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
Economic mobility is the movement of a family up or down the income ladder and through the income quintiles.
If there were no economic mobility, a family would be stuck at a given point in the income distribution— persistently rich to persistently poor.
How much economic mobility has there been?.
Figure 20.2(b) shows the percentage of families that moved by one quintile or more over a ten-year period.

14. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
The figure shows quite a lot of economic mobility.
About 30 percent of families move up a quintile or more in a decade;
A similar percentage move down by a quintile or more;
Between 35 and 40 percent remain in the same quintile.
Mobility decreased over the 1980s and 1990s.

15. Who Are the Rich and the Poor?
20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
Who Are the Rich and the Poor?
The lowest-income household in the United States today is likely to be a black woman over 65 years of age who lives alone somewhere in the South and has fewer than nine years of elementary school education.
The highest-income household in the United States today is likely to be a college-educated white married couple between 45 and 54 years of age living together with two children somewhere in the Northeast or the West.
List the demographic characteristics that tend to be correlated with household income. Point out that those characteristics that have the greatest influence over household income (level of education, size of household, marital status) result from choices and not characteristics outside the individual’s control (age or race). You can emphasize that not all who are living in the lowest or highest income quintile will remain in that same economic situation in the long term. You also can point out that private enterprise democracies create dynamic socio-economic pathways for their citizens. This discussion can easily springboard to an explanation of how much of the recent increase in economic inequality stems from income differences related to high-skilled versus low-skilled workers. Emphasize that investing in human capital today and deferring current consumption ensures a much more prosperous life for tomorrow. Advise the students that this investment is much harder to implement after reaching middle age than as a young adult student considering dropping out of school.

16. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY The median income in 2005 was $46,326.
Education is the single biggest factor affecting household income distribution.

17. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
Size of household, marital status, and age of householder are also important.
Race and region are the least important.

18. Poverty 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
Poverty is a state in which a household’s income is too low to be able to buy the quantities of food, shelter, and clothing that are deemed necessary.
In 2005, the poverty level for a household with 2 adults and 2 children was an income of $19,806.
In 2006, 36 million Americans lived below the poverty level.
Figure 20.4 on the next slide shows the distribution of poverty by race in 2006.

19. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
Part (a) shows the distribution of poverty in 2006:
56 percent of white families
20 percent of black families
21 percent of Hispanic families
3 percent of Asian families

20. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY Poverty Incidence and Trends
To measure the incidence of poverty, we look at the poverty rate.
The poverty rate is the percentage of families living in poverty.
In 2006, the poverty rate was 12.3 percent.
Figure 20.4(b) on the next slide shows the poverty rates and their trends for whites, blacks, and Hispanic families from 1996 to 2006.

21. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
The white poverty rate has been fairly steady.
The Hispanic poverty rate fell in the 1990s.
The black poverty rate fell during the 1960s and the 1990s.
Poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics are double that for whites.

22. Poverty Duration 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
Another measure of poverty is duration.
Duration of poverty is an important indicator of the hardship poverty brings.
Figure 20.5 on the next slide shows the duration of poverty in the United States from 1996 to 1999.

23. 20.1 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
More than 50 percent of poverty last for between 2 and 4 months.
But almost 30 percent of poverty lasts for more than 9 months. These families experience chronic poverty.

24. 20.2 HOW INEQUALITY AND POVERTY ARISE
Economic inequality and poverty arise from five key factors
Human capital
Discrimination
Financial and physical capital
Entrepreneurial ability
Personal and family characteristics
We look at each in turn.

25. 20.2 HOW INEQUALITY AND POVERTY ARISE
Human Capital
High-skilled workers have a higher value of marginal product than low-skilled workers.
Figure 20.6(a) on the next slide illustrates the demand for high-skilled and low-skilled labor.

26. 20.2 HOW INEQUALITY AND POVERTY ARISE
Demand for High-Skilled and Low-Skilled Labor
High-skilled labor has a higher VMP than low-skilled labor and a greater demand.
The demand curve for high-skilled labor, DH, lies above the demand curve for low-skilled labor, DL, by the VMP of skill.

27. 20.2 HOW INEQUALITY AND POVERTY ARISE
The Supply of High-Skilled and Low-Skilled Labor
Skills are costly to acquire, and a worker pays the cost of acquiring a skill before benefiting from a higher wage.
Figure 20.6(b) on the next slide illustrates the supply of high-skilled and low-skilled labor

28. 20.2 HOW INEQUALITY AND POVERTY ARISE
High-skilled labor bears the cost of acquiring skill.
The supply curve of high-skilled labor, SH, lies above the supply curve of low-skilled labor, SL, by the compensation for the cost of acquiring skill.

29. 20.2 HOW INEQUALITY AND POVERTY ARISE
Wage Rates of High-Skilled and Low-Skilled Labor
The combined effects of skill on the demand for and supply of labor generate a higher wage for high-skilled labor than for low-skilled labor.
Figure 20.6(c) on the next slide illustrates the skilled wage differential.

30. 20.2 HOW INEQUALITY AND POVERTY ARISE
The demand for low-skilled labor, DL, and the supply of low-skilled labor, SL, determine the wage rate of low-skilled labor—in this example at $10 an hour.
The demand for high-skilled labor, DH, and the supply of high-skilled labor, SH, determine the wage rate of high-skilled labor—in this example at $20 an hour.

31. 20.2 HOW INEQUALITY AND POVERTY ARISE
Discrimination
Human capital differences explain much of the income inequality that exists.
Economists are not sure whether and by how much discrimination adds to income inequality.
One line of argument is that competition prevents discrimination. But race and sex income differences do persist.

32. 20.2 HOW INEQUALITY AND POVERTY ARISE
Financial and Physical Capital
People with high incomes are usually those who own large amounts of financial capital and physical capital.
They receive income in form of interest, dividends, and capital gains.
Families with a lot of capital tend to become even more wealthy because
They bequeath wealth to their children.
Rich people marry rich people (on average).

33. 20.2 HOW INEQUALITY AND POVERTY ARISE
Saving and wealth accumulation is not inevitably a source of inequality.
When a family saves to redistribute an uneven income over the life cycle, it enjoys more equal consumption.
If a lucky generation that has a high income saves and makes a bequest to an unlucky generation, this saving decreases economic inequality.

34. 20.2 HOW INEQUALITY AND POVERTY ARISE
Entrepreneurial Ability
Some people become extremely rich through a combination of hard work, good luck, and outstanding entrepreneurial ability.
But others who borrow to create a business, work hard, and have bad luck become extremely poor.
Personal and Family Characteristics
Personal and family characteristics play a crucial role, for good or evil, in influencing economic well-being.
Capitalism is traditionally caricatured as unfair and heartless. This view is manifestly unfair. You can emphasize that there are no societies where income or wealth is equally distributed. Point out that there are two concerns: prosperity and equality. Private enterprise (capitalist) societies are, in general, more prosperous, and are in most cases (but not all) no less equal than socialist societies. Ask which is better for a family, to be the poorest in a rich but unequal society or equal with everyone else in a poor society. You can also discuss that there is an opportunity cost to redistributing income in any society—when a dollar is taken from a rich person, a poor person receives less than a dollar. The size of the economic pie shrinks because:
• Productive resources are used to implement the program rather than produce goods and services,
• Redistribution requires taxation, which imposes a dead weight loss on society,
• The incentives facing the recipient of supplemental income are altered, leading to less work, and
• The incentives facing the taxpayer are altered, also leading to less work.
3. You can use the example of college tuition and subsidized services to show how the redistribution of income works. If you’re teaching at a public institution, ask students what their in-state tuition is. Also ask for an out-of-state student to provide an estimate of his or her tuition fees. Ask students why the state sets up this fee structure. You can also ask students why the state is particular when deciding if a student qualifies as a state resident. By asking these questions, see if your students come around to the fact that the state is redistributing income. You can also remind students that by attending a public institution, their parents are recouping a portion of the state taxes they have paid If you are teaching at a private institution, you can use the same exercise, but you will probably need to provide the data. You can also point out that because there is no distinction made between in-state and out-ofstate fees at private schools, there is no obvious redistribution of income. (Though in many cases, the federal government provides funding to private schools and it also provides student loans.)

35. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
How Governments Redistribute Income
Three main ways in which governments in the United States redistribute income are
Income taxes
Income maintenance programs
Subsidized services

36. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Income Taxes
Income taxes may be progressive, regressive, or proportional.
A progressive tax
One that taxes income at an average rate that increases with the level of income.
A regressive tax
One that taxes income at an average rate that decreases with the level of income.
A proportional tax
One that taxes income at a constant rate, regardless of income.

37. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Income Maintenance Programs
Three main types of program are
Social Security programs
Unemployment compensation
Welfare programs

38. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Social Security Programs
OASDHI or Old age, Survivors, Disability, and Health Insurance
Medicare, which provides hospital and health insurance for the elderly and disabled.

39. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Unemployment Compensation
To provide an income to unemployed workers.
A tax is paid based on the income of each covered worker.
Each worker receives a benefit when he or she becomes unemployed.

40. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Welfare Programs
1. Supplementary Security Income (SSI), designed to help the neediest elderly, disabled, and blind people.
2. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, designed to help households that have inadequate income.
3. Food Stamp program, designed to help the poorest households obtain a basic diet.
4. Medicaid, designed to cover the costs of medical care for households receiving help under the SSI and TANF programs.

41. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Subsidized Services
Services provided by the government at prices far below the cost of production. The most important of these are
Education
Health care

42. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
The Scale of Income Redistribution
Market income is the income that a household earns in factor markets with no redistribution.
Money income is the market income plus cash benefits paid by the government.
Disposable income is market income plus cash benefits paid by the government minus taxes.

43. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
The Scale of Income Redistribution
Market income is the income that a household earns in factor markets with no redistribution.
Disposable income is market income plus cash benefits paid by the government minus taxes.
We can measure the scale of income redistribution by calculating the percentage of market income paid in taxes minus the percentage received in benefits at each income level.

44. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Figure 20.7 shows income redistribution in 2005.
In part (a), the Lorenz curve for the distribution of money income is closer to the line of equality than the distribution of market income.
The distribution of disposable income is even closer to the line of equality.

45. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Part (b) shows the amount of redistribution in 2005.
The quintile with the lowest incomes received net benefits that increased their share of total income by 2.9 percent.
The quintile with the highest incomes paid taxes that decreased their share of total income by 6.5 percent of total income.

46. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Why We Redistribute Income
Two approaches:
Normative approach
Discusses why we should compel everyone to help the poor and looks for principles to guide in the appropriate scale of redistribution.
Positive approach
Seeks reasons why we do compel everyone to help the poor and tries to explain the actual scale of redistribution.

47. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Normative Theories of Income Redistribution
Utilitarianism points to the ideal distribution being one of equality. But efficiency is also desirable.
Greater equality can be achieved only at the cost of inefficiency—the big tradeoff.
John Rawls proposed the principle that income should be redistributed to the point at which the poorest person’s share is maximized.

48. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Libertarian philosophers, such as Robert Nozick, say that any redistribution is wrong because it violates the sanctity of private property and voluntary exchange.
Modern political parties stand in the center of these extremes—some favor a bit more redistribution than others, but the major parties are basically happy with the current scale of redistribution.

49. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Positive Theories of Income Redistribution
There is no good positive theory, but economists have a promising idea called the median voter theory.
Median voter theory is a theory that government pursues policies that make the median voter as well off as possible.
In the majority voting system, the voter whose views carry most weight is the one in the middle—the median voter.
Political parties will deliver the scale of redistribution that the median voter prefers.

50. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
The Major Welfare Challenge
The poorest people in the United States are young women who have not completed high school, have a child (or children), live without a partner, and are more likely to be black or Hispanic than white.
These young women and their children present the major welfare challenge:
The long-term solution involves education and job training.
The short-term solution is welfare.

51. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Welfare must be designed to strengthen the incentive to pursue the long-term solution while giving support in the short term.
The Current Approach: TANF
TANF is a block grant paid to the states to administer payments to individuals.
An adult member of a household receiving assistance must work or perform community service. Assistance is limited to 5 years.
Some economists suggest a negative income tax.

52. 20.3 INCOME REDISTRIBUTION
Negative Income Tax
A negative income tax is a tax and redistribution scheme that provides every household with a guaranteed minimum annual income and taxes all earned income above the guaranteed minimum at a fixed rate.
A negative income tax does not remove the burden of the tax but it does improve the incentives to work and save at all levels of income.