The Journal of Economic Perspectives is an academic journal that summarizes the state of research in various fields of Economics. Perusing this journal shows the extreme political bias of much of modern day economic research. The Summer 2013 issue was devoted to "income inequality." The main theme was that rich folks are getting richer, but, of course, the facts actually show just the opposite. Not deterred by the facts, the various economists that opine in this edition blithely parrot absurdities such as wealthholders ability to "sustain their preeminence.
What is the analysis? Imagine that you wanted to know if baseball teams created dynasties and "perpetuate" their dominance of baseball. What facts would you want to assemble to prove this?
Here's the way economists think: collect data that shows that back in the old days, the baseball teams that won the pennant won 65 percent of their games each year. Then show that, today, the teams that win the pennant win 70 percent of their games each year. (Don't bother to check whether the teams that won in the old days are the same teams that win today. Why would that matter, say economists?) Would that evidence convince you that certain teams are dominant and "maintain their preeminence?" That is the precisely the kind of logic that perpetuates the factually incorrect myth that the rich get richer. Check out the articles in the JEP and you will see.
The truth is that if you list out the 100 richest Americans today and then compare that to the one hundred richest Americans 25 years ago, you will find very little overlap. The richest folks have more of the wealth (if you totally leave out the huge proportion of wealth transferred by government transfers such as social security, welfare, medicaid, food stamps and on and on), but it is a different set of rich folks as time goes on. Wealth rises and falls in the US.
The opposite is true in Europe. The wealthiest families in Europe are the same families that were wealthy 50 years ago. Contrary to the complete nonsense you read from economists, the chances of improving your lot in Europe are almost non-existent.
Now, in the US, the Obama Administration would like to create the European model, which traps people into whatever economic group that are born in....or, actually reduces the life chances of the folks born into the bottom half of the income distribution.
Notice the data since Obama came into office. Since mid-2009, long after the bottom of the financial collapse and well after the Obama $ 800 billion stimulus package, the economic position of lower income folks in the US has deteriorated. The Obama sledgehammer on business has delivered results. Jobs are scarce and what few jobs there are, are part-time. (Obamacare, of course, influences this trend toward part-time employment by creating built-in disincentives to businesses to hire full time employees).
The real truth is that the US has historically always been the best place to be born if you want a chance to move up in the income distribution and it remains the best place for that purpose. Obama is trying to kill off that opportunity, but so far he has not totally succeeded in this strange endeavor.
Economists have done a disservice to the public by presenting facts in a way that is totally misleading and obscuring the real truth about the economy and about the historical dynamism of the US economy.