Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bgreezy 2135 days ago
i'm reading piketty right now and have to say, some overwhelmingly clear and rigorously collected data in this one book alone convincingly contradict this ill-informed statement
1 comments

First of all, the observation that US's shrinking middle class is attributable to an increasing upper-middle class is objectively true, it's not that controversial [4].

Second of all, Piketty's argument is more that capital's share of growth will necessarily outpace labor's share of growth (r > g).

Third of all, Piketty isn't gospel. There have been a number of rebuttals published since his findings that make fairly strong refutations.

The IMF studied empirical evidence to see if it matches up with Piketty/Saez/Zucman's theoretical models, and was unable to validate their finding[1].

Further studies showed that r > g almost entirely goes away when you exclude land/housing appreciation, mostly attributable to restrictive zoning regulations [2].

Auten & Splinter found that Piketty failed to account for existing taxes and transfers. When you do that, the perceived growth in inequality goes away almost entirely[3][5].

[1] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf

[2] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/35310497.pdf

[3] http://davidsplinter.com/AutenSplinter-Tax_Data_and_Inequali...

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrink...

[5] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3546668

Your link [4] shows that, since 2000, the lower class has been growing and the middle and upper classes have been shrinking.
Sure, but look from 1967. The trend-line is still positive at a macro level. Since 2000 we had a huge recession, so it's not super conclusive.