Has the U.S. Distribution of Wealth Worsened?

Wealth inequality in the United States is obvious to everyone. The Federal Reserve’s triennial Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF) documents the glaring and persistent divide between rich and poor, confirming that ownership of financial and real assets in the United States has been highly concentrated for decades (see our earlier post). The most recent 2016 estimates suggest that the top 10% of the wealth distribution own nearly three-quarters of all marketable assets, with the top 1% owning more than half of that. And, Saez and Zucman (SZ) estimate that the U.S. distribution has been getting worse, with the top 1% share of marketable wealth rising by more than 10 full percentage points since 1989.

But, as Catherine, Miller and Sarin (CMS) recently highlight, adding in the present discounted value of Social Security benefits (net of taxes) to construct a more comprehensive measure of wealth alters these patterns. First, according to CMS’s estimates, the share of marketable wealth in total wealth has plunged by more than 18 percentage points since 1989. Second, over the past three decades, the top 1% share of total wealth has risen only modestly, while the share owned by the top 10% has declined somewhat.

In this post, we highlight the CMS results, and decompose their changes in total wealth shares into two parts: the changes in marketable and Social Security wealth shares accruing to each group, and the aggregate decline over time of marketable wealth as a share of total wealth. We show that the latter dominates the overall trend in this more comprehensive measure of inequality….

Improving U.S. Healthcare and Coverage

We see health as a basic human right. Every society should provide medical care for its citizens at the level it can afford. And, while the United States has made some progress in improving access to care, the results do not justify the costs. So, while we agree with President Trump’s statement that the U.S. health care system should be cheaper, better and universal, the question is how to get there.

In this post, we start by setting the stage: where matters stand today and why they are unacceptable. This leads us to the real question: where can and should we go? As economists, we are genuinely partial to market-based solutions that allow individuals to make tradeoffs between quality and price, while competition pushes suppliers to contain costs. But, in the case of health care, we are skeptical that such a solution can be made workable. This leads us to propose a gradual lowering of the age at which people become eligible for Medicare, while promoting supplier competition....

Steve Cecchetti and Kim SchoenholtzMarch 13, 2017Health care costs, Health insurance, Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Universal coverage, Life expectancy, Health care expenditure, Adverse selection, Moral hazard, Free riding, Monopoly, Information asymmetry, Incentives, Longevity

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets