To: Blasher who wrote (765512 ) 1/24/2014 12:14:33 PM From: combjelly Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573939 Blasher, you wouldn't know the truth if it piddled on your shoes. Tabloids aren't the greatest source of information, you know. In “ Rising Inequality: Transitory or Permanent: New Evidence from a Panel of U.S. Tax Returns ” (PDF), Vasia Panousi and Ivan Vidangos of the Federal Reserve Board, Shanti Ramnath of the U.S. Treasury Department, Jason DeBacker of Middle Tennessee State and Bradley Heim of Indiana University use new data to closely examine inequality, finding an increase in “permanent inequality” -- the advantaged becoming permanently better-off, while the disadvantaged becoming permanently worse-off. The paper has important public policy implications because rising income inequality will lead to greater disparity in families’ well-being that is unlikely to reverse, whereas “transitory inequality” or year-to-year income variability would imply greater income mobility—those who fare worse today might be able to do better in later years. The authors are among the first to examine various measures of income in great detail, including earnings from work activities as well as broader measures of family resources such as total household income. Rising Inequality: Transitory or Permanent: New Evidence from a Panel of U.S. Tax Returns ABSTRACT American Exceptionalism in a New Light: A Comparison of Intergenerational Earnings Mobility in the Nordic Countries, the United Kingdom and the United States * We develop methods and employ similar sample restrictions to analyse differences in intergenerational earnings mobility across the United States, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. We examine earn ings mobility among pairs of fathers and sons as well as fathers and daughters using both mobility matrices and regression and correlation coefficients. Our results suggest that all countries exhibit substantial earnings persistence across generations, but with statistically significant differences across countries. Mobility is lower in the U.S. than in the U.K., where it is lower again compared to the Nordic countries. Persistence is greatest in the tails of the distributions and tends to be particularly high in the upper tails: though in the U.S. this is reversed with a particularly high likelihood that sons of the poorest fathers will remain in the lowest earnings quintile. This is a challenge to the popular notion of ’American exceptionalism’. The U.S. also differs from the Nordic countries in its very low likelihood that sons of the highest earners will show downward ’long- distance’ mobility into the lowest earnings quintile. In this, the U.K. is more similar to the U.S.ftp.iza.org Intergenerational Economic Mobility in the U.S., 1940 to 2000 Daniel Aaronson Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Bhashkar Mazumder Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago February 2007 Abstract: We estimate a time series of intergenerational economic mobility using a two sample estimation approach that matches individuals in the Census to synthetic parents in the prior generation based on state of birth and cohort. We find that mobility increased from 1950 to 1980 but has declined sharply since 1980. While our estimator places greater weight on birth location effects than the standard intergenerational coefficient, evidence suggests that the size of the bias is small and unlikely to account for the sharp change since 1980. The recent decline in mobility is only partially explained by education. Our preferred set of results suggest that the rate at which earnings are regressing to the mean is slower now than at any time in the post World War II period causing economic differences between families to persist longer than they had mid-century. However, current rates of positional mobility, as measured by the intergenerational correlation, appear historically normalchicagofed.org