Income Inequality Rose Most Under President Clinton

expat_panama

Gold Member
Apr 12, 2011
3,814
758
130
By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

In his weekend radio address, President Obama decried that "over the past three decades, the middle class has lost ground while the wealthiest few have become even wealthier." Although he was trying to leverage the Occupy Wall Street movement, the income gap has been a longstanding concern of his.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama said, "The project of the next president is figuring out how do you create bottom-up economic growth, as opposed to the trickle-down economic growth that George Bush has been so enamored with."

But it turns out that the rich actually got poorer under President Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama.

What's more, the biggest increase in income inequality over the past three decades took place when Democrat Bill Clinton was in the White House.

The wealthiest 5% of U.S. households saw incomes fall 7% after inflation in Bush's eight years in office, according to an IBD analysis of Census Bureau data. A widely used household income inequality measure, the Gini index, was essentially flat over that span. Another inequality gauge, the Theil index, showed a decline.

In contrast, the Gini index rose — slightly — in Obama's first two years. Another Census measure of inequality shows it's climbed 5.7% since he took office.

Meanwhile, during Clinton's eight years, the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their incomes jump 45% vs. 26% under Reagan. The Gini index shot up 6.7% under Clinton, more than any other president since 1980.

To the extent that income inequality is a problem, it's not clear what can be done to resolve it. Among the contributing factors:

Economic growth. Strong economic growth, rising stock prices and household income inequality tend to go hand in hand.

Technology. Tech advances have put a premium on skilled labor, according to a Congressional Budget Office report . Because the pool of skilled workers hasn't grown as much as demand, their wages have climbed faster.

Free trade and immigration. Cheap labor abroad and an influx in low-skilled immigrants can depress wages at the bottom, according to the CBO.

Women in the workforce. As the CBO put it, "an increase in the earnings of women could boost inequality by raising the income of couples relative to that of households headed by single people."

Tax policy changes don't explain the widening income gap. The CBO found that, by one measure, "the federal tax system as a whole is about as progressive in 2007 as it was in 1979."
WEBrich110311.jpg.cms


Read more at Business News - Financial News, Stock Market & Investing News - IBD - Investors.com .
 
True, I will give you that. But at least incomes for the middle class and poor were also rising during this period unlike now. To be honest, much of the rise in income for the top 5% during the Clinton years was due to in part because the Stock Market was rising so quickly during this time. That would also explain why it reversed under Bush, because the stock market was well below it's 2000 level when Bush left in 2009.
 
Last edited:
True, I will give you that. But at least incomes for the middle class and poor were also rising during this period unlike now. To be honest, much of the rise in income for the top 5% during the Clinton years was due to in part because the Stock Market was rising so quickly during this time.


I'd say that is true, and I suspect the overall decline of the stock market over the past 3 years has lead to a reduction in income inequality since 2008. Low and middle got hurt over the past 3 years, but not as much as the rich guys. I think we'll see fewer numbers of new millionaires and a drop in average AGI for the top 1%.
 
True, I will give you that. But at least incomes for the middle class and poor were also rising during this period unlike now. To be honest, much of the rise in income for the top 5% during the Clinton years was due to in part because the Stock Market was rising so quickly during this time.


I'd say that is true, and I suspect the overall decline of the stock market over the past 3 years has lead to a reduction in income inequality since 2008. Low and middle got hurt over the past 3 years, but not as much as the rich guys. I think we'll see fewer numbers of new millionaires and a drop in average AGI for the top 1%.

We have, but I'd be interested to see what the 2011 numbers show. The Stock Market is now only about 15% off its 2007 highs and average wage earners have continued to see their incomes stagnate in an economy where inflation is well above the levels of a couple years ago.
 
True, I will give you that. But at least incomes for the middle class and poor were also rising during this period unlike now. To be honest, much of the rise in income for the top 5% during the Clinton years was due to in part because the Stock Market was rising so quickly during this time.


I'd say that is true, and I suspect the overall decline of the stock market over the past 3 years has lead to a reduction in income inequality since 2008. Low and middle got hurt over the past 3 years, but not as much as the rich guys. I think we'll see fewer numbers of new millionaires and a drop in average AGI for the top 1%.

We have, but I'd be interested to see what the 2011 numbers show. The Stock Market is now only about 15% off its 2007 highs and average wage earners have continued to see their incomes stagnate in an economy where inflation is well above the levels of a couple years ago.


Yeah, I'm interested too. I'm thinking that the capital gains income has really dropped since 2008, and although the salaries of some high profile CEOs and maybe some of the top celebrities has gone up, I don't think a real big increase in salaries was enough to make a big difference. We'll see.
 
We have, but I'd be interested to see what the 2011 numbers show. The Stock Market is now only about 15% off its 2007 highs and average wage earners have continued to see their incomes stagnate in an economy where inflation is well above the levels of a couple years ago.


Yeah, I'm interested too. I'm thinking that the capital gains income has really dropped since 2008, and although the salaries of some high profile CEOs and maybe some of the top celebrities has gone up, I don't think a real big increase in salaries was enough to make a big difference. We'll see.

We may be in a period where there's huge gains for the top 1% while the top 5% (those who's income depend more on interest income and dividends) stay about the same.
 
I'd say that is true, and I suspect the overall decline of the stock market over the past 3 years has lead to a reduction in income inequality since 2008. Low and middle got hurt over the past 3 years, but not as much as the rich guys. I think we'll see fewer numbers of new millionaires and a drop in average AGI for the top 1%.
fwiw, the past 3 years have seen stocks soar:
stckmrk3.png

We have, but I'd be interested to see what the 2011 numbers show. The Stock Market is now only about 15% off its 2007 highs and average wage earners have continued to see their incomes stagnate in an economy where inflation is well above the levels of a couple years ago.
--and inflation's just back to normal; it went up, down and it's now back where it was 4 years ago:
cpi3yrs.png

Yeah, I'm interested too. I'm thinking that the capital gains income has really dropped since 2008, and although the salaries of some high profile CEOs and maybe some of the top celebrities has gone up, I don't think a real big increase in salaries was enough to make a big difference. We'll see.
This is the nut of the problem, whether we're talking about income or the change of wealth. Intuitively we know it's the same, but the numbers come from different sources.
 
Income Inequality Rose Most Under President Clinton

THAT does NOT surpise me one bit.

William Jefferson Clinton was the most successful crypto-Republican POTUS in US history
 
The government has been following policies designed to increase the gaps in wealth and income for more than thirty years. That includes the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency. The Democrats are fully as corrupt as the Republicans.

We need to reverse the policies not of George W. Bush, but of Ronald Reagan.
 
We have, but I'd be interested to see what the 2011 numbers show. The Stock Market is now only about 15% off its 2007 highs and average wage earners have continued to see their incomes stagnate in an economy where inflation is well above the levels of a couple years ago.
--and inflation's just back to normal; it went up, down and it's now back where it was 4 years ago:
cpi3yrs.png

Yes but at least in 2006-2007 when the inflation was this high it was mostly if not completely offset by wage gains for the most part.
 
...in 2006-2007 when the inflation was this high it was mostly if not completely offset by wage gains for the most part.
Thanks for the tip; I hadn't realized how good wages were before the 08 election and how bad after--
PAY01.png

btw, the numbers/graphs are super easy to get out these days. It's just a matter of starting with Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject . I like to click 'Top Picks' for the topic, then a check in the box with a click for 'Retrieve Data' and then I check 'Include graphs' and 'GO'.

It's even possible to right click on the graph for the web location for posting on these threads.
 
Clinton was a DINO.
Of course the income disparity rose under his rule.

There is some validity in this claim only if you aggregate the entirety of the labor market. But remember a couple of things..more people entered the workforce, which would skew wages downward..and wages for people already employed went up a great deal. By the end of the Clinton administration we were at near full employment. We had a very tight labor market. And if that trajectory continued, you would have seen something that mirrored what happened under Eisenhower..which was growth in the middle class. Unfortunately, Bush lead the way to erode labor rights, and off shore new jobs. That heralded what we are seeing today.
 
...in 2006-2007 when the inflation was this high it was mostly if not completely offset by wage gains for the most part.
Thanks for the tip; I hadn't realized how good wages were before the 08 election and how bad after--
PAY01.png

btw, the numbers/graphs are super easy to get out these days. It's just a matter of starting with Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject . I like to click 'Top Picks' for the topic, then a check in the box with a click for 'Retrieve Data' and then I check 'Include graphs' and 'GO'.

It's even possible to right click on the graph for the web location for posting on these threads.

:lol:

Do you even know how to read this? Wages go down after Bush assumes office, then recover slightly..and remain stagnant.

That's an astonishingly bad record.
 
Sometimes, I despair of both sides and their blatant inability to see past the label of the President and consider the actual facts that matter. You guys are why this country is a clusterfuck. Dishonest partisan bullshit instead of honesty and reason.
 
...I hadn't realized how good wages were before the 08 election and how bad after--
PAY01.png
....
...Do you even know how to read this? Wages go down after Bush assumes office...
laughing.GIF

OK, I've finished cleaning the coffee I splattered all over my monitor.

First, the graph doesn't show wages going up and down, it's showing wages continuously increasing but at rates that go up and down. Second, the data start with 2001 with GW Bush in office. The graph doesn't show whether that's better or worse than before.
 

Forum List

Back
Top