Income Inequality and Economic Mobility, and More from CRS
Income inequality in the United States is more pronounced than in other developed countries, a new report from the Congressional Research Service finds, while the possibility of economic mobility is more constrained than commonly believed.
“Based on the limited data that are comparable across nations, the U.S. income distribution appears to be among the most uneven of all major industrialized countries and the United States appears to be among the nations experiencing the greatest increases in measures of inequality.”
“Americans may be less concerned about inequality in the distribution of income at any given point in time partly because of a belief that everyone has an equal opportunity to move up the income ladder. A review of the literature suggests that Americans’ perceptions about their likelihood of changing position in the income distribution may be exaggerated,” the CRS report said.
“It… appears that going from rags to riches is relatively rare; that is, where one starts in the income distribution greatly influences where one ends up.” See The U.S. Income Distribution and Mobility: Trends and International Comparisons, March 7, 2012.
Other new and updated CRS reports that Congress has withheld from direct public access include the following.
Changing the Federal Reserve’s Mandate: An Economic Analysis, March 13, 2012
Cybersecurity: Cyber Crime Protection Security Act (S.2111) — A Legal Analysis, March 12, 2012
Change in the Middle East: Implications for U.S. Policy, March 7, 2012
U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel, March 12, 2012
Cuba: Issues for the 112th Congress, February 24, 2012
Europe’s Energy Security: Options and Challenges to Natural Gas Supply Diversification, March 13, 2012
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.