The Incredibly Lazy Journalism Of Jonathan Chait

Political Calculations February 2, 2012

What are we to make of journalist, editor and author Jonathan Chait's New York Magazine article "Inequality and the Charles Murray Dodge"?

Here's the particular passage we have in mind as we ask that question:

A more blunt version of this technique was previewed a couple months ago by the American Enterprise Institute's James Pethokoukis, perhaps the right's most enthusiastic inequality denier. Pethokoukis cited a chart, compiled by Political Calculations, purporting to show that the only change in inequality results from changed family status. Pethokoukis triumphantly presented this as the "The one chart that explodes the myth of U.S. income inequality," and used it to segue, as Brooks does today, to Murray's arguments about family values:

So what we have here, as always in America it seems, is culture trumping economics (though the data don't take into account how different income groups have different inflation rates, another equalizer). AEI's Charles Murray has a new book coming out that will expand on how values and culture influence inequality.

But the chart is completely wrong. Reader Jacques Distler pointed out to me that it relies on census data, which only asks households if they earn more than $100,000 a year. Since all the change in income inequality has come within households earning well over that mark, the census data is not going to capture the rise in income inequality. (Think of it this way. Imagine you want to show that basketball centers get taller as you move from high school to college to the NBA. If your tallest category is "six foot two and over," you're not going to show much of an effect.)

I e-mailed Lane Kenworthy, an inequality expert, who confirmed this for me. Inequality between the top one percent and everybody else has increased dramatically.

You know, it occurs to us that there are at least three individuals or entities who could have been contacted, but who weren't consulted at all before the assembling of these paragraphs:

Because, if we had been contacted, we could have easily confirmed that while the Current Population Survey that is used to collect income data is indeed sent to households, it collects data for persons and families, in addition to households! It also doesn't limit those who are sent surveys to placing themselves into a "$100,000 or more" category. The individuals who participate in the survey report the amount of their income from all sources.

One important thing to note about the U.S. Census Bureau's reports is that the agency does indeed "top code" its reported income range categories, grouping the people at the very top end of the income spectrum into one income range in its reports. It does this largely for the sake of preserving the confidentiality of those in that topmost range. Otherwise, given how few people there are at those levels, it would be very easy to identify who is who based upon the information they might provide to the Census through the income survey.

And what's more, although the Census reports the Gini Coefficient, a very common and widely accepted measure of income inequality, in a standard table that groups top-end income earners into the category "100,000 and over", its calculation of the Gini Coefficient it reports for persons, families and households uses all the data it collects for persons, families and households respectively.

Better yet, the Census publishes another income distribution table for persons that goes all the way up to the topmost category of "$250,000 or more", breaking it down for both Men and Women (and by race too, if you're really into that sort of thing). In fact, we're very familiar with this data because we used the data for women for a more fun project.

That's significant because individuals with incomes of $250,000 or larger represent the "Top 0.6%" in 2010, so even the data the Census reports extends well up into the territory of the "Top 1%". That means we can indeed use the Census' data to make assessments of how income inequality for individuals is changing over time, because these are the people whom Jonathan Chait feels is most important for making such a determination!

Not that we need to do that trouble anyway - if you want to see increasing income inequality, you can see it at the bottom of the income spectrum as well.

It seems then that relying upon "Reader Jacques Distler" for a technical assessment of the Census' data collection processes, analysis and reporting procedures isn't looking like too sharp a move on Jonathan Chait's part - he clearly didn't know any of this stuff. Perhaps if Chait had thought to actually direct questions to people who actually work with the data he could have found that out sooner, but he just wasn't curious enough! What a strange trait in a "journalist"!

As for Lane Kenworthy, inequality expert, it seems that Chait wasn't curious enough to ask him about the Census' actual data collection, handling and reporting practices, choosing instead to get some confirmation of what would the results be "if" data were collected and handled in the way he describes.

At this writing, we see that Chait's article on the New York Magazine web site has attracted some 70 comments since it was posted at 3:11 PM (Eastern Standard Time). We first became aware of it when one visitor, some four hours later, was curious enough to follow the link Chait provided to our site.

In the last three hours before we posted this article, no one appears to have been curious enough to click through to our site from the link provided Chait's article (could that be a shared characteristic of both Chait and his readers?) We would almost bet at this point that this post will drive more traffic to Chait's article than vice-versa!

You know, it occurs to us that we could have alternatively titled this post "The Incredibly Lazy Journalism of Jonathan Chait" and have still been right on the money.

Labels: income, income distribution, income inequality, quality, review

- posted by Ironman at 6:55 AM | Permalink | Share | var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true}; | << Home Unexpectedly Intriguing!

About Political Calculations

blog advertising is good for you Welcome to the blogosphere's toolchest! Here, unlike other blogs dedicated to analyzing current events, we create easy-to-use, simple tools to do the math related to them so you can get in on the action too! If you would like to learn more about these tools, or if you would like to contribute ideas to develop for this blog, please e-mail us at: ironman at politicalcalculations.com Thanks in advance!

Recent Posts

The Millionaire Decay Function Forecasting GDP: Looking Backwards (2011-Q4) and F... How Good Are Earnings Forecasts? New Jobless Claims: Still on Track, But Increasing... The President's Failing Focus on Jobs The Poison Pill Using the F-Score to Detect Accounting Fraud The Core Business of Planned Parenthood The Volume Pricing of Abortion The Throughput of Abortion Providers

U.S. GDP Temperature Gauge

Political Calculations' U.S. GDP Temperature Gauge provides a means to quickly evaluate the growth rate of the U.S. economy against the backdrop of how the economy has performed since 1980, with the "temperature" color spectrum ranging from a recessionary "cold" (purple) through an expansionary "hot" (red).

The GDP Temperature Gauge presents both the annualized GDP growth rate as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reports for a one-quarter period and also as averaged over a two quarter period, which smooths out the volatility seen in the one-quarter data and provides a better indication of the relative strength of the U.S. economy over time.

Recession Probability Track

Political Calculations' Recession Probability Track shows the probability that the U.S. economy will be in recession 12 months from the indicated date (shown in red) while revealing the probability trend over the past four years.

Previously, the probability of recession peaked at 50% on 4 April 2007, which means that March-April 2008 was the most likely period in which the NBER would have found the U.S. to be in recession.

As it happens, they almost did. The NBER instead chose December 2007 as the beginning month of the most recent recession (we had found a 46% probability for a recession beginning in that month!)

The Recession Probability Track ceased to be a leading indicator of recession in the U.S. following the Federal Reserve's adoption of its current Zero Interest Rate Policy, where the Fed artificially constrains short term U.S. Treasury yields near zero percent. We continue to post the Recession Probability Track to monitor the yield on the 10 Year Constant Maturity Treasury, where a falling value provides a leading indication of a worsening economy.

On the Moneyed Midways

Political Calculations is also the online home of On the Moneyed Midways (aka OMM), a review of the best posts contributed to the week's best business and money-related blog carnivals, which we ran as a regular weekly feature for the five years from 2006 through 2010.

The link below will take you to the running index containing our most recent back issues (you can easily navigate the index to find older editions.)

OMM's Most Recent Editions - with links to our older editions!

Site Data

This site is primarily powered by:

Visitors since December 6, 2004:

var site="sm7politicalcalculations"

CSS Validation

RSS Site Feed

JavaScript

The tools on this site are built using JavaScript. If you would like to learn more, one of the best free resources on the web is available at W3Schools.com.

Other Cool Resources

ZunZun - Exceptional regression analysis tool. Wolfram Integrator - Solve integrals. Do calculus! Create a Graph - Easy-to-use basic graph-making tool. Many Eyes - Data visualization extraordinaire! Wolfram Alpha - Computational knowledge engine. Khan Academy - Math & science video mini-lectures! Picasion - Animate images.

Archives December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 if (location.href.indexOf("archive")!=-1) document.write("Current Posts");

Bloodhoundblog Budgets Are Sexy Cafe Hayek Carpe Diem Cheap, Healthy, Good Copywriting Tips Core77 Coyote Blog Craig Harper Darwin's Finance Digerati Life, The Division of Labour Dough Roller, The Eclectecon Econlog Economics Roundtable EconomicsUK Entrepreneurial Mind Environmental Economics Escape from Cubicle Nation Execupundit FiscalGeek Fortify Your Oasis Get Rich Slowly Gongol Good Financial Cents HR Bartender Hot Air i4cp Productivity Innocent Bystanders Innovation and Growth Instapundit Intangible Economy I've Paid Twice for This Already Joanne Jacobs Kaus Files Len Penzo dot Com Mahalanobis Making Ripples Market Power Mechonomics Mighty Bargain Hunter Monevator Money Blue Book My Dollar Plan New Economist Newmark's Door Nina Simosko Physorg Private Sector Development Radio Equalizer Real Clear Politics Richard Fernandez Roger L. Simon SCSU Scholars Science and Money Skeptical Optimist Sound Politics SOX First Speculist, The Sports Economist, The squawkfox Three Star Leadership Tim Worstall Tough Money Love Townhall Trusted Advisor Uncommon Misperceptions voluntaryXchange WILLisms Winterspeak

Market Links

Big Picture, The Crackerjack Finance CXO Advisory Group Disciplined Approach to Investing Dividend Guy, The Doug Short Evidence Investing Fat Pitch Financials FX Investment Strategies Oilprice

Charities We Support

American Red Cross Children's Heart Foundation SMA Foundation

The Incredibly Lazy Journalism Of Jonathan Chait

Related Articles