4 ms·
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2543012 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2543012 > We find evidence of pervasive errors
by barry-cotter 7y ago
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2543012 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2543012
> We find evidence of pervasive errors of historical fact, opaque methodological choices, and the cherry-picking of sources to construct favorable patterns from ambiguous data.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-history/article/one-percent-across-two-centuries-a-replication-of-thomas-pikettys-data-on-the-concentration-of-wealth-in-the-united-states/20F44C37D29070B205D5FF33B30131C1 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-histo...
> I conclude that Piketty’s data for the wealth share of the top 10 percent for the period 1870 to 1970 are unreliable.
The values he reported are manufactured from the observations for the top 1 percent inflated by a constant 36 percentage points. Piketty’s data for the top 1 percent of the distribution for the nineteenth century (1810–1910) are also unreliable.
http://voxeu.org/article/piketty-s-housing-capital-results-new-us-facts http://voxeu.org/article/piketty-s-housing-capital-results-n...
> A key observation in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Piketty 2014) is that the share of aggregate income accruing to capital in the US has been rising steadily in recent decades. The growing disparity between the income going to wage earners and capital owners has led to calls for government intervention. But for such interventions to be effective, it is important to ask who the capital owners are.
> Recent research has shown that the long-run rise in the net capital income share is mainly due to the housing sector (e.g. Rognlie 2015, Torrini 2016 – see Figure 1). This phenomenon is not specific to the US but has been evident in almost every advanced economy. This suggests that it is not entrepreneurs and venture capitalists that are taking an increasing share of the economy, but land owners.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99455/how_different_studies_measure_income_inequality.pdf https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99455/...
> The results from at least four studies were compared for three measures of income change: change in median incomes, share of growth captured by the top 10 percent, and the changing income share of the top 1 percent. In all cases, Piketty and Saez (2003) were the outlier, showing the most increased inequality. And in all three measures of income change , Piketty, Saez, and Zucman (2018) found much less growth in income inequality than Piketty and Saez (2003).
- ridgeguy 7y agoThanks for these. Got a couple of interesting evenings' reading ahead.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoThe counter-argument is that Piketty's models and data are at least as credible as the standard models and data used in policy econ. For example Magness & Murphy prefer the UK's Office of National Statistics to Piketty's figures - because it's supposed to generate gold-standard objective economic data. In reality the ONS produces the UK's unemployment figures by considering anyone who works one hour a week as employed. Similarly anyone who labels themselves self-employed for tax purposes is considered "employed" even if they do no work at all. It says this clearly on the ONS site. It's quite strange to accuse Piketty of cherry-picking and distortion when these egregious - even comically obvious - distortions pass for official economic "fact" at the national level.