Why Obama can't (and shouldn't) close the income gap

President Obama's recent comments about income inequality have reignited the debate over whether the government can help reduce it. But even if the government can take on income inequality, should it? 

Carolyn Kaster/AP
President Obama speaks about the economy in the South Court Auditorium on the White House complex, Monday, Sept. 16, 2013, in Washington.

President Obama's recent comments about income inequality are providing more fuel to the debate over whether the government can really do anything to reduce it, but perhaps the bigger question is, Do voters really want it to?

"I think the president can stop it," Mr. Obama said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" when asked about the top 1 percent capturing most of the country's income gains. The problem, he said, is that "you've got a portion of Congress whose policies … just want to, you know, leave things alone. They actually want to accelerate these trends."

It's easy to blame the other party for deeper economic problems, of course. But the president's comments are on the minds of economists and policymakers.

Many argue that inequality is an unavoidable byproduct of growth – a function of investors and entrepreneurs benefiting from successful demand for their products and value creation in financial markets. Inequality rose quickly during economic expansions (1980s and '90s) and declined during the most recent recession. In other words, the wealthy gain more during good times and lose more during bad times.

But recent data suggest that the recovery has so far favored the rich, largely because of the run-up in stocks. New data from Emmanuel Saez at the University of California, Berkeley found that the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the gains during the recovery.

In a paper titled "Why Hasn't Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?," four political scientists asked why voters haven't forced politicians to close the gap between the rich and the rest. Adam Bonica of Stanford, Nolan McCarty of Princeton, Keith T. Poole of the University of Georgia, and Howard Rosenthal of New York University cited several reasons.

First, they said, both parties have embraced free-market capitalism, which they say benefits those at the top. Second, they said, changes in immigration and voter turnout mean the voting population is now skewed toward the wealthy.

They said rising overall wealth in the country has made part of the population less reliant on government. The rich have also used their resources to "influence electoral, legislative, and regulatory processes," and the political process is now distorted by gerrymandering.

The authors assume that most Americans see inequality as a leading problem. But they may not – and they may not understand the statistical extent of the problem.

A 2012 survey from GlobeScan found that 58 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that "the rich deserve their wealth."That's actually higher than it was in 2008, before the economic crisis, Wall Street bailouts and the "Occupy" movement.

An earlier Gallup poll found that the number of Americans who want inequality to be "fixed" has declined since 1998. In 1998, 52 percent of Americans wanted the gap between rich and poor to be fixed. Today 48 percent say so.

A majority of Americans said that inequality is "an acceptable part of our economic system," a number that has also increased since the late 1990s.

What's more, Americans dramatically understate their perceived level of inequality. When asked about the share of wealth held by the top 20 percent, most Americans were way off (they said 59 percent; it's closer to 85 percent).

So, yes, government could do more to offset inequality. But voters – whether out of poor understanding or personal aspiration – don't seem to be pressing the issue as much as the president would imply.

—By CNBC's Robert Frank. Follow him on Twitter 

@robtfrank.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.