Originally Posted by tonton
Hahaha!!! What's absolutely not unexpected is that you interpret the data from 1993 to be the effect of Clinton's policies.
Thanks for your "in-depth" analysis.
I used consistent timeline ranges for all of them. And chose the first full year of their presidencies for a reason. But, okay, let's deal with your objection.
If you assume
that the incoming President did not implement any
policies in their first year that effect this metric, the picture changes:
From 1981-1989 income inequality increased 6.2%.
From 1993-2001 income inequality increased 2.6%.
From 2001 - 2009 income inequality increased 1.3%.
So income inequality increased twice as fast under Clinton than Bush. Much faster under Reagan. What's still interesting is that we heard lots about the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" under Bush, but not so much about Clinton.
Now we can debate which start and end years are the best picks and for what reasons.
BTW...I don't actually claim the Gini coefficient to be a useful measure. Just the one the left likes to use.
A more important measure would be rising median incomes. Because while the rich might get rich faster, it doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer. They might just be getting rich more slowly. In fact, during the Clinton years, mean household income rose faster in the top 5% and top fifth than in either of the other two administrations while the bottom 4/5 stayed pretty steady.
The other issue is class mobility. The people at the bottom in the earlier years are not necessarily the same people in the bottom in the later years.