Income Inequality and Income Risk: Old Myths vs. New Facts 1 Fatih Guvenen University of Minnesota and NBER JDP Lecture Series on Dilemmas in Inequality at Princeton University, Fall 2013 (Updated: May 2015) 1 This lecture summarizes research conducted jointly with Serdar Ozkan, Fatih Karahan, Greg Kaplan, Nick Bloom, David Price, and Jae Song. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 1 / 55
Not everything that counts can be counted...... and not everything that can be counted counts. Sign on Einstein s office wall at Princeton
Motivation Nature of income inequality/risk: critical for many questions in social sciences. Survey-based US panel datasets have important limitations: small sample size large measurement (survey-response) error non-random attrition top-coding, etc. =) myths about income inequality and income risk. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 3 / 55
Data: SSA Master Earnings File Population sample: Universe of all individuals with a U.S. Social Security number Currently covers 35 years: 1978 to 2013 Basic demographic info: sex, age, race, place of birth, etc. Earnings data: Salary and wage earnings from W-2 form, Box 1 No topcoding Unique employer identifier (EIN) for each job held in a given year. 4 5 digit SIC codes for each employer Self-employment earnings from IRS tax forms (Schedule SE) Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 4 / 55
Our Sample Individuals: 10% representative panel of US population from 1978 to 2013 Salary and wage workers (from W-2 forms) exclude self-employed (data top coded before 1994) Focus on workers aged 25 60 Key Advantages: Very large sample size (400+ million individual-year observations) No survey response error (W-2 forms sent from employer directly to SSA) No sample attrition No top-coding (earnings measure includes exercised stock options and vested restricted stock units) Firms: Full population (100%) of US firms. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 5 / 55
Five Myths
Five Myths 1 Long-run trends: 1 Myth #1: Rise in income inequality partly (or largely) driven by rising within-firm inequality (e.g., CEO pay) 2 Myth #2: Income risk has been trending up in the past 40 years. 2 Business cycle: 1 Myth #3: Income risk over the business cycle is... mostly about countercyclical variance of shocks 2 Myth #4: Top 1% are largely immune to business cycle risk 3 Life-cycle: 1 Myth #5: Idiosyncratic income shocks can be modeled fairly well with a lognormal distribution. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 7 / 55
Long-Run Trends in Inequality and Risk
Rise in Income Inequality 20+ years of research into the determinants of rising wage inequality. Conventional wisdom: Today: 1/3 is observables (education and age) 2/3 residual or unobservables (innate ability? search frictions?) Rising between-firm or within-firm inequality? var(w i t ) var j (w j {z } ) betw. firm inequality + var(w i t w j ) {z } with.-firm ineq. Results from Firming Up Inequality with Song, Price, and Bloom (2015) Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 9 / 55
Where Do the Wage Gains Go? As for wages and salaries... all the big gains are going to a tiny group of individuals holding strategic positions in corporate suites or astride the crossroads of finance. Paul Krugman (NY Times, Feb 23 2015) ) Suggests rise in inequality is mainly due to growing gap between bottom 99% and top 1% or 0.1%. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 10 / 55
Fact #1: Rise in Inequality is Fractal Level Ratios Within Industries, 1982 2012 Ln ratio of levels.2 0.2.4.6 Individuals 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentile Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 11 / 55
Our findings 1 Result 1: Inequality Rose Across the Entire Wage Distribution. Contradicts Krugman s claim. 2 Next question: What is the role of employer s in rising inequality? Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 12 / 55
Fact #1: What is the Role of Employers? Level Ratios Within Industries, 1982 2012 Ln ratio of levels.2 0.2.4.6 Individuals Firms 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentile Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 13 / 55
Fact #1: What is the Role of Employers? Level Ratios Within Industries, 1982 2012 Ln ratio of levels.2 0.2.4.6 Individuals Firms Individual/Firm 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentile Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 14 / 55
Our findings, cont d 1 Result 1: Inequality rose across the entire wage distribution. Contradicts Krugman s claims (and many other such claims made in the media). 2 Result 2: Almost all of the rise in wage inequality happened across firms, i.e., by rising gap in the average pay across firms. Almost no change in pay inequality within employers since 1982. 3 Next question: What is the role of employers in rising top end inequality? Alternatively put: has the ratio of top executive to average employee pay increased as some have claimed? Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 15 / 55
Rise in Income Inequality The primary reason for increased income inequality in recent decades is the rise of the supermanager. Piketty (2013, p. 315) Wage inequalities increased rapidly in the United States and Britain because US and British corporations became much more tolerant of extremely generous pay packages after 1970. Piketty (2013, p. 332) A key driver of wage inequality is the growth of chief executive officer earnings and compensation. Mishel and Sabadish (2014) Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 16 / 55
Fact #1: CEO and Top Executive Pay By Individual s Percentile: Top 1%, 1982 2012 Ln ratio of levels.5 0.5 1 1.5 Individuals Firms Individual/Firm 99 99.2 99.4 99.6 99.8 100 Percentile Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 17 / 55
Our findings, cont d 1 Result 3: 1 The pay of workers in the top 0.01% increased by 500% from 1982 to 2012. 2 The pay gap between these top earners and the average employee at the same firm has increased by only 20% during the same time. 3 Alternatively put: the rise in CEO to average employee wage ratio explains a very small part of rising inequality. The bulk of the action comes between firms. 2 Next question: Why? What is driving the rise in between-firm inequality? Answer: We don t know yet. We are currently investigating possible mechanisms. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 18 / 55
Robustness This pattern is pervasive. It holds within most industries regions across firms of different sizes Non-changing within-firm inequality does not mean pay structure did not change: Younger workers are now paid less relative to firm average gender gap has shrunk within firms at all levels. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 19 / 55
Trends in Income Risk Myth #2: The volatility of income shocks... has increased significantly over the past 40 years. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 20 / 55
Myth #2: Upward Trend in Income Risk This conclusion has been reached by virtually all papers that use PSID data. Moffitt and Gottschalk (1995) documented it first in a now-famous paper, and it has been confirmed by a large subsequent literature. Opening quote from Ljungqvist and Sargent (2008, ECMA): A growing body of evidence points to the fact that the world economy is more variable and less predictable today than it was 30 years ago... [There is] more variability and unpredictability in economic life Heckman (2003). Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 21 / 55
Figure 10: Permanent, Transitory, and Total Variances for those 30-39 with Education Greater than 12 0.45 0.4 0.35 permanent transitory total 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 year Source: Moffitt and Gottschalk (2012)
Fact #2: No Upward Trend in Volatility Administrative data: the opposite conclusion emerges robustly See, e.g., Congressional Budget Office (2007); Sabelhaus and Song (2010); Guvenen et al. (2014b) In fact, volatility of earnings changes has been declining within most industries age groups gender groups U.S. regions etc. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 23 / 55
Fact #2: No Upward Trend in Volatility 0.5 1 1.5 Individuals Firms Individual/Firm 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 24 / 55
Robustness Declining wage volatility holds within every private industry, with the exception of agriculture (2% of employment). It is also robust to alternative measures of dispersion (top end: P90-50, bottom end, P50-10, and so on) Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 25 / 55
Risk and Inequality Over the Business Cycle
Business Cycle Variation in Shocks Myth #3: The variance of idiosyncratic income shocks rises substantially during recessions. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 27 / 55
Myth #3: Countercyclical Shock Variances Expansion Density Recession 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 y t+k y t Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 28 / 55
Countercyclical Variance Constantinides and Duffie (1996): countercyclical variance can generate interesting and plausible asset pricing behavior. Existing indirect parametric estimates find a tripling of the variance of persistent innovations during recessions (e.g., Storesletten et al (2004)). Our direct and non-parametric estimates show no change in variance over the cycle. See the next figure. The following figures on Myths 2 to 4 are from Guvenen et al. (2014b). Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 29 / 55
Fact #3: No Change in Variance Dispersion in Recession/Dispersion in Expansion 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 Storesletten et al (2004) s benchmark estimate: 1.75 Std. dev. ratio L90 10 ratio 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentiles of 5-Year Average Income Distribution (Y t 1 ) Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 30 / 55
Fact #3: Countercyclical Left-Skewness Density Expansion Recession 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 y y t+k t Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 31 / 55
Fact #3: Countercyclical Skewness Kelley s Skewness Measure of yt +k yt, k =1,5 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Expansion Recession 0.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentiles of 5-Year Average Income Distribution (Y t 1 ) Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 32 / 55
Robustness In ongoing work (with Busch, Domeij, and Madera), we find precisely the same patterns for Sweden and Germany. Moving from individual to household income, as well as incorporating government policy has little effect on countercyclical left-skewness in the US. Gov t policy more effective in Germany and Sweden. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 33 / 55
Is Business Cycle Risk Predictable? Myth #4: Business cycle risk is mostly ex-post risk Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 34 / 55
Fact #4: Business Cycle Risk is Predictable 0.1 Mean Log Income Change During Recession 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 1979-83 1990-92 2000-02 2007-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentiles of 5-Year Average Income Distribution (Y t 1 ) Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 35 / 55
Business Cycle Risk for Top 1% Myth #4: The top 1% are largely immune to the pain of business cycles. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 36 / 55
Fact #4: The Suffering of the Top 1% 0.1 Mean Log Income Change During Recession 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 1979-83 1990-92 2000-02 2007-10 0.35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentiles of 5-Year Average Income Distribution (Y t 1 ) Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 37 / 55
Fact #4: 1-Year Income Growth, Top 1% Log 1-Year Change in Mean Income Level 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Top 0.1% Top 1% P50 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 38 / 55
Fact #4: 5-Year Income Growth, Top 0.1% Log 5-Year Change in Mean Income Level 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Top 0.1% 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 39 / 55
Cyclicality of Top Earnings, By Industry Table: Y j t = a j + j GDP t + error Sector j : P99.9+ Bottom 99% Durable Manufacturing 9.72 0.91 Engineers, Soft., Comp. 9.40 0.83 Business Consult. 9.46 0.43 Finance, Insurance 6.99 0.60 Construct., Real Estate 6.83 1.40 Transport., Communic. 6.54 0.26 Nondur. Manufacturing 5.20 0.65 Wholesale Trade 4.65 0.86 Legal 1.17 0.32 Media, Arts, Sports 0.31 0.58 Health 0.75 0.45 Note: t-stats are computed using bootstrapped standard errors. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 40 / 55 j
Risk and Inequality Over the Life Cycle
Distribution of Income Shocks Myth #5: It is OK to model income growth......as a lognormal distribution =) it is OK to assume......zero skewness and no excess kurtosis y t = z i t + " i t z i t = z i t + i t " i t N(0, i t N(0, 2 " ) 2 ) Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 42 / 55
Myth #5: Lifecycle Profile of Income 10.6 10.4 Average Log Earnings 10.2 10 127% rise 9.8 9.6 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Age Source for the rest of this section: Guvenen et al. (2014a) Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 43 / 55
Fact #5: Lifecycle Profiles of Income 3 2.5 Top 1%: 15 fold increase! 2 log(y 55) log(y 25) 1.5 1 0.5 Income Growth from Pooled Regression Random Walk Model 0 0.5 HIP (Guvenen (2009)) 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentiles of Lifetime Income Distribution Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 44 / 55
Kurtosis
Myth #5: Lognormal Histogram of y t+1 y t 5 4.5 N(0,0.43 2 ) 4 3.5 3 Density 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 y t +1 y t Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 46 / 55
Fact #5: Excess Kurtosis 5 4.5 N(0,0.43 2 ) US Data, Ages 35-54, P90 of Y 4 3.5 Density 3 2.5 2 Kurtosis: 28.5 1.5 1 Kurtosis: 3.0 0.5 0 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 y t +1 y t Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 47 / 55
Fact #5: Excess Kurtosis Prob( y t+1 y t < x) x # Data N(0, 0.43 2 ) 0.05 0.39 0.08 0.10 0.57 0.16 0.20 0.70 0.30 0.50 0.80 0.59 1.00 0.93 0.94 Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 48 / 55
Fact #5: Excess Kurtosis 32 28 Kurtosis of (yt+1 yt) 24 20 16 12 8 4 Ages 25-29 Ages 30-34 Ages 35-39 Ages 40-54 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentiles of Past 5-Year Average Income Distribution Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 49 / 55
Skewness
Fact #5: Skewness of y t+1 y t 0 0.5 Age=25-34 Age=35-44 Age=45-49 Age=50-54 Skewness of (yt+1 yt) 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentiles of Past 5-Year Average Income Distribution Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 51 / 55
Double Pareto Tails of Earnings Growth 2 0 US Data Normal (0.0.48 2 ) Log Density -2-4 -6-8 -3-2 -1 y 0 t+1 y 1 2 3 t Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 52 / 55
Final Thoughts Public funding for collecting micro panel data for research purposes is woefully inadequate. To provide perspective: NASA s annual budget: ~20 Billion dollars International Space Station total cost: ~150 Billion dollars. All worthy efforts. Now consider this: US gov t transfer payments in 2014: ~1.9 trillion dollars. For micro research on distributional issues, PSID s annual budget (only US panel with consumption data): ~3 million dollars! Increased public funding for good quality data is essential for good quality economic research. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 53 / 55
Final Thoughts, cont d In the absence of good quality data, we have played the blind men and the elephant for too long. But there is hope: some fantastic datasets are becoming more accessible: Data on earnings and covariates available from IRS, SSA, and LEHD through various calls for proposals. Administrative data for Europe is especially impressive and becoming more accessible Challenges: Data on consumption.. still very limited. Still there is hope: Data from various private companies (Mint.com, Credit agencies) are becoming more useful for researchers. We hope these new (or revised) facts will feed back into theory and policy work. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 54 / 55
References Congressional Budget Office, Trends in Earnings Variability over the Past 20 Years, Technical Report, Congressional Budget Office 2007. Guvenen, Fatih, Fatih Karahan, Serdar Ozkan, and Jae Song, What Do Data on Millions of U.S. Workers Say About Labor Income Risk?, Working Paper, University of Minnesota 2014., Serdar Ozkan, and Jae Song, The Nature of Countercyclical Income Risk, Journal of Political Economy, 2014, 122 (3), 621 660. Moffitt, Robert A. and Peter Gottschalk, Trends in the Variances of Permanent and Transitory Earnings in the U.S. and Their Relation to Earnings Mobility, Boston College Working Papers in Economics 444, Boston College July 1995. Moffitt, Robert and Peter Gottschalk, Trends in the Transitory Variance of Male Earnings: Methods and Evidence, Winter 2012, 47 (2), 204 236. Sabelhaus, John and Jae Song, The Great Moderation in Micro Labor Earnings, Journal of Monetary Economics, 2010, 57, 391 403. Fatih Guvenen (Minnesota) Myths vs. Facts 55 / 55