Wealth inequality is slowing economic growth, S&P study finds

The wealth gap has complicated the US rebound from the Great Recession, economists have long argued. Now, an analysis by the rating agency Standard & Poor's lends its weight to the argument: The widening gap between the richest Americans and everyone else has made the economy more prone to boom-bust cycles and slowed the recovery from the recession.

Henny Ray Abrams/AP/File
55 Water Street, home of Standard & Poor's, in New York. A new analysis from S&P lends weight to the argument that growing wealth inequality is slowing the recovery from the Great Recession.

Economists have long argued that a rising wealth gap has complicated the U.S. rebound from the Great Recession.

Now, an analysis by the rating agency Standard & Poor's lends its weight to the argument: The widening gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else has made the economy more prone to boom-bust cycles and slowed the 5-year-old recovery from the recession.

Economic disparities appear to be reaching extremes that "need to be watched because they're damaging to growth," said Beth Ann Bovino, chief U.S. economist at S&P.

The rising concentration of income among the top 1 percent of earners has contributed to S&P's cutting its growth estimates for the economy. In part because of the disparity, it estimates that the economy will grow at a 2.5 percent annual pace in the next decade, down from a forecast five years ago of a 2.8 percent rate.

The S&P report advises against using the tax code to try to narrow the gap. Instead, it suggests that greater access to education would help ease wealth disparities.

Part of the problem is that educational achievement has stalled in recent decades. More schooling usually translates into higher wages. S&P estimates that the U.S. economy would grow annually by an additional half a percentage point —or $105 billion — over the next five years, if the average the American worker had completed just one more year of school.

By contrast, S&P concludes, heavy taxes that would be meant to reduce inequality could remove incentives for people to work and cause businesses to hire fewer employees because of the costs involved.

The report builds on data from the Congressional Budget Office, the International Monetary Fund and academic economists to explain how income disparities can hurt growth. Many consumers tend to become more dependent on debt to continue spending, thereby worsening the boom-bust cycle. Or they curb their spending, and growth improves only modestly, as it has during the current recovery.

Tax data tracked as part of the World Top Incomes Database project reveal just how much the economic chasm has expanded.

An American in the top 1 percent of earners had an average income of $1.3 million in 2012, the most recent year for which data are available. Average income jumps to $30.8 million for the top 0.01 percent.

Adjusted for inflation, the top 0.01 percent's average earnings have jumped by a factor of seven since 1913. For the bottom 90 percent of Americans, average incomes after inflation have grown by a factor of just three since 1917 and have declined for the past 13 years.

Yet not all economists agree on how much, or even whether, the wealth gap slows growth.

Harvard University economist Greg Mankiw wrote in a 2013 paper that "the evidence is that most of the very wealthy get that way by making substantial economic contributions, not by gaming the system."

But S&P challenges the notion that a rising tide automatically will lift all boats:

"A lifeboat carrying a few, surrounded by many treading water, risks capsizing," it argues.

In May, the Monitor reported on how the wealth gap was shaping the recovery of the housing sector:

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.