Freakonomics: Shattering the Conventional Wisdom on Growing Inequality
...Inequality has not grown over the last decade — at least not very much. What we think is a rise in inequality is merely an artifact of how we measure things.
As improbable as it may seem, I believe them.
Their argument could hardly be simpler. How rich you are depends on two things: how much money you have, and how much the stuff you want to buy costs. If your income doubles, but the prices of the things you consume also double, then you are no better off.
When people talk about inequality, they tend to focus exclusively on the income part of the equation. According to all our measures, the gap in income between the rich and the poor has been growing. What Broda and Romalis quite convincingly demonstrate, however, is that the prices of goods that poor people tend to consume have fallen sharply relative to the prices of goods that rich people consume. Consequently, when you measure the true buying power of the rich and the poor, inequality grew only one-third as fast as economists previously thought it did — or maybe didn’t grow at all.
Why did the prices of the things poor people buy fall relative to the stuff rich people buy? Lefties aren’t going to like the answers one bit: globalization and Wal-Mart! ...
Michael,
Freakonomics does indeed help reinterpret some of the conventional wisdom. But "shattering" is just some Steven D. Levitt hyperbole. It may just be plain hype, of his book, which is now three years old, and after three million copies sold, might just be experiencing a first-time slump in sales.
That kind of puts a different spin on economic inequities.
So in 2007, when the book was making Levitt richer than ever, do we remember the inequities for women authors? Would you mind too much if we look again at how really bad, unequal, women compared to men had it in 2007?
Posted by: J. K. Gayle | May 20, 2008 at 07:35 AM