One was a paper, by Ed Wolff, presented an eye-popping chart of the redistribution of wealth in the 1980s and 90's based on data that has never been presented before (AFIK).
We have seen (a bit) published on the extraordinary shift in income inequality in these years. For example, from 1983 to 2001, Wolff calculates that although the *mean* annual household income went up by 29%, the *median* household income (what the typical household got) only went up by 14%. The 15% spread shows that much of the extra income went to the better off.
Another measure of equality (but harder to estimate) is the 'Net Wealth' of households: home value, stocks, 'cash', etc. Since the rich can use tax deferrements, tax shelters, etc much of their money will not appear as "income" or will only appear after retirement - so the true extent of inequality is hidden. The conventional version of 'Net Weath' does include the new types of pensions ('defined contributions' such as 401ks or Keoghs) since they are "individual", BUT this data does not include the traditional type of pensions ('defined benefits'). In the past, Wolff (and some others) have shown that by the conventional measure wealth distribution over these years has perhaps been even MORE unequal than income distribution: a mean growth of 65% versus a median growth of 24%. A very large percent of the household wealth created over these years went to the rich. [For data reasons, these numbers and below are for ages 47-65.]
NOW - for the first time - someone has calculated the full picture. For working-class households the 'defined benefits' pensions have traditionally been a major source of wealth holdings - and this source has been savaged over the last two decades. At the same time, the 'new' sources of pension wealth holdings (401ks, etc) are set up in ways that make them exceptionally unequal.
The new picture shows that over these years there was a substantial increase in household wealth - up by 43% -- but the median actually DECLINED by 2%. Yes, that is right. After 18 years of hard work and during prosperous times, the poorer half of the country actually lost wealth. ALL of the new wealth created went to the better off, principally to the top 25%. (Indeed, the top 1% enjoyed a 94% increase in their wealth ; the top 10% saw a 76% increase). And if that was not enough, significant amounts of already existing wealth was redistributed to the wealthy. The eye-popping chart of this change breaks down wealth in 5% increments, poorest to richest - and the bars start deeply negative and march up to the sky. If Wolff were not one of the world's foremost "authorities" on this issue, I might have suspected that it was made up.
Paul