Study Undermines Liberal Media's 'Inequality' Meme
Members of the “mainstream” press have worked hard to promote what President Barack Obama calls an “income-inequality crisis” based on studies claiming that the middle class is shrinking and got left behind in the greatest economic expansion in modern American history.
However, a new, more comprehensive investigation indicates that the earlier research isn't wrong, it's just “incredibly, massively incomplete.”
Obama has been saying, and the liberal media have unquestioningly parroted, comments like this:
The president's claims are based on the initial research on income inequality from 1913 to 1998 by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, and an updated report by Saez. According to them, median American incomes rose just 3.2% from 1979 through 2007, with all figures adjusted for inflation.
Citing the same study, Washington Post Opinion Writer Harold Meyerson stated in a March 27 column that while the Occupy Wall Street movement isn't known for precise economic analysis, the group's “sloganeering provides a stunningly accurate picture of the economy” with the gap between the top 1 percent and the other 99 percent growing ever wider.
However, a new study entitled “A Second Opinion on the Economic Health of the American Middle Class” by Cornell University researchers led by Richard Burkhauser, found that when properly measured, the median household income rose 36.7%, not 3.2%.
So why the significant difference? The Cornell economists state that Piketty and Saez made many “odd choices” about what to measure and how to measure it. They focused on something called “tax units” rather than households, a move that ignores the impact of couples who live together, kids who move back in with their parents after college, and senior parents who live with their adult children.
And that's not all. In the earlier study, Piketty and Saez also ignored the value of all government transfers, including welfare, Social Security, and other government provided cash assistance, along with the value of health-care benefits and tax returns.
“ So the tax and regulatory polices of the past three decades did not lead to stagnation for the middle class at the hands of the rapacious rich,” James Pethokoukis stated in his article on the new research.
Even more interesting is an article written by Alexander Eichler for the Huffington Post Website that has as its headline: “ Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush.”
Ed Morrissey stated in his post on the new study that “the bottom line is clear: there is no income-inequality 'crisis.' At best it’s a misunderstanding of the data based on incomplete and irregular analysis, and at worst, it’s a demagogic lie intended to divide Americans along false lines. In fact, it’s most likely both.”
- Randy Hall's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
OK
Submitted by texastommy on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 12:32pm.
Alright, I've had it. Instead of writing about everytime the LMSM lies, misleads, fools, and asserts a double standard, how about presenting those articles that are factually correct and devoid of bias. Then, I can get more work done. A lot more work. There will be nothing to read.
Thank you for your consideration.
Well Tommy
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 12:44pm.
You know that if you don't show the LIARS in the media for what they are..... "All hat no cattle" then you allow them to throw mud on the wall (in the LSM case its more mud mixed with BOVINE EXCREMENT) I personally will be using this study to show the DIFFERENCES between the two studies, using the Cornell study to show just how the other study was written with a certain outcome in mind before it was even written. So I don't mind PLEASE show me EVERYTIME the LSM LIES!!! I will use it as a club to show the LIBERALS where they are being LIED TO, and where their LIBERAL WEASEL (NON) leaders are LYING TO US!
choosing sides
Submitted by MidAmerica on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 2:15pm.
It's tax time and 50% of the country don't care. They don't pay. In fact many look forward to April bec ause of the money they will receive.
The contest now is between the Makers and the Takers.
obama is the leader of the Takers and Romney is the leader of the Makers.
November will decide what kind of country we will be.
MSM Malpractice
Submitted by giatn on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 2:49pm.
With Obama's propaganda machine running on steroids, little truth is allowed to escape.
Those of us who have studied the biggest factor contributing to the exploding disparity
know that it was Congressional legislation in 1993 (under Clinton) that capped deductible
executive pay at $1 million. That quickly led to an explosion in stock warrant grants
in lieu of executive salaries. The roaring bull market did the rest. The left also refuses
to acknowledge the millions who moved upwards into the 1% during that time. As soon
as someone shows me an historical example of a government-controlled production and
distribution structure that actually led to economic prosperity and income equality, I will
vote for Obama myself. However, all of my research shows that bureaucratic control
brings prosperity only to the bureaucrats, leads to tyranny, starvation, the collapse of
the economy and the slaughter of millions with opposing views.
We've reached the fork in the road....
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 3:13pm.
Either we clean-out all the socialists in elected offices over the next couple of elections and get back to the free-market republic, or the "Atlases" (those still actually producing stuff) will begin to "shrug" and separate from society leaving less and less production and a shrinking GDP and lower government revenues and larger and larger deficits...till the implosion happens.
It's possible that we are already too far gone...I hope that is not true.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Income equality is not a good
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 4:47pm.
Income equality is not a good thing. income inequality is a function of capitalism and the reason why jobs are created and the standard of living increases every time some one (and their investors) becomes rich because they introduced a new product that we all want.
Libs just can't comprehend common economic sense.
A related article.
Submitted by Par for the Course on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 5:02pm.