PAUL KRUGMAN: The rich spend differently from you and me
Wednesday, March 6, 2024 -- Does it matter that the rich spend differently from you and me -- or actually, that those of us in the top quintile spend differently from Americans in the middle? Yes, in some important ways. But it doesn't change the story of a remarkably equalizing economic recovery.
Posted — UpdatedAs it happens, a few days ago I flew into Newark Liberty International Airport’s new Terminal A, which drove home a point that’s obvious to anyone who has been flying commercial over the years: America’s airports have in fact become a lot spiffier. I’d certainly rather fly into Newark, New Jersey, than into the many European airports where you still have to take a bus from the plane to the terminal.
But this got me thinking. Why do U.S. airports have so many more amenities than they used to? (The flying experience can still be miserable because of security lines, but that’s another issue.) The obvious answer is that they’re catering to their clientele, but surely that was always true.
Well, one main reason probably is that while flying isn’t the elite-only experience it was in the “jet set” era, people who fly frequently and spend a lot of time in airports are a lot more affluent than average. And over the past 40 years, high-income Americans — we’re talking the top 10% or 20%, not the super-elite that doesn’t fly commercial at all — have seen much bigger income gains than the middle class. Here are estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (never mind the number for the bottom quintile, which is the source of considerable controversy but isn’t relevant for today’s discussion):
So my guess is that airports are catering to this wealthier clientele. That is, the same clientele that is driving the proliferation of gourmet supermarkets and the gentrification of some urban neighborhoods and so on is causing airports to have better food and shops than they used to. I’m not making a value judgment here — hey, I’m in that class myself, so I benefit from the trend.
My point instead is that airports, like many other institutions, cater to a particular income class. And it follows that the affluent buy different things than those less fortunate — which means in turn that they care about different prices. There have been innumerable posts on social media complaining about the prices of airport meals or room service in fancy hotels, , like this one from the investor Kyle Bass:
But these aren’t prices that matter to most Americans. And because people spend their money differently, the convenient abstraction that we think of as “the level of consumer prices” gives way to the truth that different groups face at least somewhat different rates of inflation: different slopes for different folks.
For the truth is that while it’s fun to mock well-off people complaining about the prices of fancy meals, there’s good reason to believe that recent inflation has actually been worse for people lower down on the income scale. Why? Mainly because of rising grocery prices.
But what those accurate BLS numbers say is that food prices have risen more than overall prices, reflecting a variety of factors, from climate change to the war in Ukraine:
Note that while the y-axis says “percent change,” 0.1 actually means 10%.
The chart shows a striking process of equalization — the highest quintile’s real wages going down while everyone else gains, and the lowest quintile gaining the most. But real wages are calculated using the same consumer price index for everyone. As I’ve said, however, recent inflation has probably been higher for lower-income Americans who spend more on groceries. Does taking that into account undermine the conclusion?
- Bottom 20%: 19.5
- Next 20%: 19.3
- Middle 20%: 19.1
- Fourth 20%: 18.9
- Top 20%: 18.0
So yes, inflation has been higher for lower-income Americans. But the spread from bottom to top, 1.5 percentage points, is much smaller than the spread suggested in Dube’s wage data. In other words, taking differences in relevant inflation into account slightly softens the case for an “unexpected compression,” but doesn’t change the basic result.
So does it matter that the rich spend differently from you and me — or actually, that those of us in the top quintile spend differently from Americans in the middle? Yes, in some important ways. But it doesn’t change the story of a remarkably equalizing economic recovery.
Copyright 2024 New York Times News Service. All rights reserved.