SPRIGGS: Why Inequality Matters — or Why Joseph Stiglitz Hits It and Paul Krugman Misses
William Spriggs, Special to The Informer | 2/7/2014, 4:41 p.m.
With the Super Bowl just ending, fantasy football fans will have to wait until next season to ponder the success of Russell Wilson. But it turns out there is a fantasy league for economists. So sorry to those of you with Paul Krugman on your team, because I am siding with Joseph Stiglitz in his argument that income inequality is slowing the recovery.
Both Stiglitz and Krugman are Nobel laureates in economics. Both agree that inequality hurts the economy in the long run, mostly because in a market-based economy, high levels of income inequality lead to too many very talented and smart poor children being trapped by low income out of the investments in their schooling, enriching life experiences and opportunities to become the scientists, engineers, doctors and leaders we need to grow as a nation.
Where Stiglitz and Krugman disagree is on how inequality shapes the important outcomes of the market in the present. Here they differ because Krugman argues against the idea that income growth that favors the rich hurts restoring demand for goods and services that make employers hire more people because the rich save rather than consume. Krugman points to the evidence showing that despite rising income inequality, aggregate consumption has been quite healthy.
But, while consumption by the rich is helping the sale of goods and services, and so keeping Gross Domestic Product (the value of all goods and services produced in the country) growing, rich people spending is a not poor person spending. Stiglitz believes inequality is slowing the current recovery.
Economists Steven Fazzari and Barry Cynamon point out that consumption by the top 1 percent has grown by 17 percent since 2009 when the "recovery" began and just 1 percent for the bottom 95 percent. Business knows that spending patterns are different, as a New York Times article explained this week. Darden, a chain of sit-down restaurants, grew from a base of its middle-class restaurants, Olive Garden and Red Lobster.
Those brands now sag in sales, while their upscale brand Capital Grille is growing fast. But it is more than restaurants that differ. If it is simply that more is spent at Capital Grille than Red Lobster, Kruger argues then presumably the wages and number of workers Darden would allocate to Red Lobster would fall but rise at the Capital Grille, so employment and income for the bottom 95 percent also would grow.
But something else happens with inequality; a rising share of all consumption takes place at the top. There are two problems when a high share of consumption is concentrated at the top.
First, for things like housing and education, where the rich consume the bulk of private consumption, it tilts prices toward their income levels. Just as Darden will chase the dollars in the market place by changing its mix of restaurants, home builders will chase the dollars and tastes and preferences and willingness to pay of the rich in building homes.
Elite institutions favored by the rich, like Harvard and Stanford, will raise tuition to capture the ability and willingness to pay of the rich, and in turn use those resources to bid for the best faculties in business and engineering. The ripple effect of those price shifts is to up the ante for those in the middle who want to become homeowners or send their children to college.