It's called "The Mismeasure of Inequality", but it doesn't live up to it's name, nor does it live up to John Cochrane's hype.
It seems to just recycle a few points about inequality that we already know and that do not invalidate the way that others measure it. Namely:
1. The distribution of consumption is more equal than the distribution of income
2. Income gains are different from welfare gains
3. Higher income people get better benefits so if you choose to exclude that portion of compensation the income distribution looks more equal, and
4. Europe generally has more progressive benefits and less progressive taxes so if you look just at the tax burden the U.S. looks like it is very progressive
The other day we were talking about the general public's understanding of the minimum wage, but let's get back to the economists' bubble on this.
Didn't we already know all of this?
Why is John Cochrane so excited about this study?
Let me know when Emmanuel Saez actually teaches us something new about inequality, like what the most recent data says. It seems to me we know all of this already.
Why Study Economics Philosophically?
4 hours ago