One sentence that perfectly explains why the middle class has to care about inequality

Larry Summers sums up the cost of rising inequality to the typical American household: "If the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, the bottom 80 per cent of the population would have $1 trillion — or $11,000 per family — more. The top 1 per cent $1 trillion — or $750,000 — less."

Behind the startling figures is a startling point, at least by the standards of the 20th Century American economy: economic growth alone is no longer enough to address normal people's desire for rising living standards. A rising tide might lift all boats, but the American economy no longer works that way.

Inequality — at least as an abstract concept — doesn't have much juice as a political issue. But income and wage growth for middle class families is the quintessential political issue. And one of the major shifts beneath the surface of American politics over the past few years is the growing conviction among the Democratic Party's wonks — including the centrist, not-so-populist ones like Summers — that you really can't deliver on the thing voters care about without addressing inequality on a policy level.

Summers is the lead US author of a recent report that offers an outline for Hillary Clinton's economic agenda, and the fingerprints of this turnabout are all over it. The "third way" idea that the state should provide education, infrastructure, and relief for the poor but not much else is really gone, in favor of a much more populist vision. And you see the same thing in the Obama administration's latest tax proposals, that would offer much stiffer rates on wealthy investors in order to reduce the burden on middle class workers.

That kind of frank redistributionism isn't the only possible approach to middle class income stagnation. But right now it seems to be the approach Democrats are converging on. And though Republicans have started appropriating populist rhetoric, I don't really think they've articulated an approach to back that rhetoric up. Whoever's able to connect these dots in a way that works substantively and makes sense to people is going to have a huge leg up in grappling with the economic issues of the years to come.

We're here to shed some clarity

One of our core beliefs here at Vox is that everyone needs and deserves access to the information that helps them understand the world, regardless of whether they can pay for a subscription. With the 2024 election on the horizon, more people are turning to us for clear and balanced explanations of the issues and policies at stake. We’re so grateful that we’re on track to hit 85,000 contributions to the Vox Contributions program before the end of the year, which in turn helps us keep this work free. We need to add 2,500 contributions this month to hit that goal. Will you make a contribution today to help us hit this goal and support our policy coverage? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via