What Does Chris Christie Think About his Top Adviser’s Take on Inequality?

January 5th, 2014 at 10:13 am

You can waste a lot of time going after opeds from the WSJ, but this one caught my interest because the author is apparently Christie’s top economic adviser.  One gets an unsettling sense of where the governor is coming from on economic policy from his positions like those I link to at the end of the piece.  But is this how he thinks about income inequality?  That’s worth knowing.

Over at the NJ Star-Ledger.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One comment in reply to "What Does Chris Christie Think About his Top Adviser’s Take on Inequality?"

  1. smith says:

    If inequality is so bad, why don’t things change? Also, if nearly all the gains accrue to the top 1%, how come the very powerful top 25% to top 2% grouping doesn’t rebel.
    To answer, I refer to the very enlightening distribution graph, which admittedly dated 2010 needs some updating (I didn’t produce this one, but the newer data is available)
    Top 25% to 2% are making at least 4 times the average of the bottom third.

    The bottom third makes no more than $30,000, with an average around $20,000. The bottom of the top 25% are making at least $85,000 or over 4 times the average and nearly 3 times the top of the bottom third. Overall, the current system and inequality has treated them well, even though many are losing ground and falling behind.

    Furthermore, in the top 25% to 2%, your boss is in the top 1%. That’s assuming your boss has perhaps as many as 20 people reporting directly to them. A more realistic scenario is it’s mostly the top 10% who report to the 1%, the top 25% to the top 10%. The cultural influence of this phenomena can not be dismissed.

    Then there are politicians like Chuck Schumer who insist on keeping Bush tax cuts for $450,000/year incomes to curry favor with Wall Street contributors.