The article argues that much of the modern debate about U.S. inequality is driven by measurement choices rather than purely economic change. Census statistics use pre-tax household income and omit many transfers, employer benefits and state/local payments, making inequality look larger than it appears when redistribution and in-kind support are counted. Household measures and rising assortative mating amplify measured inequality, while lifetime mobility means many people move across income brackets. The piece concludes that policy should prioritize reducing poverty and improving spending effectiveness rather than focusing only on headline inequality figures.
Why America’s Inequality Story Doesn’t Add Up: The Measurement Problem Behind the Headlines
Why America's Inequality Story Doesn't Add Up
If you follow the headlines, it can feel like inequality in the United States is spiraling out of control. That narrative is powerful — and partly misplaced. Much of the apparent rise in inequality stems from how we measure income, not only from changes in people’s economic lives.
A Measurement Problem, Not Just An Inequality Crisis
Most widely cited statistics on U.S. inequality come from the Census Bureau, which reports pre-tax household income. That means if you earn $100,000 and pay $20,000 in taxes, the Census records your income as $100,000 rather than the $80,000 you keep. The missing $20,000 doesn’t disappear: governments redistribute it through taxes and a wide range of programs.
The Census count omits many of those redistributions. There are more than 100 federal programs that each move over $100 million annually, yet only eight are counted as "income" in the standard Census series. Most state and local transfer payments are excluded as well. By one calculation using Census data, roughly two-thirds of government transfer payments to individuals and households do not appear in commonly reported inequality measures.
When transfers and in-kind benefits are included, the average household in the bottom quintile receives about $40,000 per year in cash and support that typically drops out of headline charts.
Compensation, Benefits, And The Wage Picture
Another important omission is employer-provided compensation. Health insurance premiums, dental and vision coverage, retirement contributions and Health Savings Account deposits are often not treated as household income in headline statistics. A portion of what is described as "wage stagnation" reflects compensation shifting into benefits that don’t show up in pre-tax income tallies.
Households, Assortative Mating, And Mobility
How income is measured compounds the issue. The Census reports household income, not individual earnings; that made some sense in 1947, but household composition has changed dramatically. Millions of women now work, and people increasingly marry partners with similar incomes. Two individuals earning $100,000 each (a married couple) will appear to be far richer than a single person earning $100,000, even though their individual earnings are identical. This "pairing" effect inflates measures of inequality based on household income.
Income statistics are also snapshots, not life stories. Most Americans move between income brackets over their lifetimes: between ages 25 and 60, roughly three-quarters of households will enter the top income quintile for at least one year. Looking at static distributions over decades can therefore exaggerate long-term immobility.
What This Means For Policy
None of this implies income inequality is imaginary. Rather, accounting for taxes, transfers, employer benefits and lifecycle mobility shows the gap is less abyssal than some headlines suggest. That distinction matters for policy: if the goal is to reduce poverty and raise living standards, focusing on how resources are spent and on targeted transfers has different implications than focusing solely on headline inequality statistics.
Consider a thought experiment: if everyone’s real wealth doubled (houses and groceries cost half as much and paychecks go twice as far), measured inequality might widen because the rich would gain more dollars in absolute terms — yet poverty would decline sharply. For many policymakers and advocates, raising the floor matters more than compressing the ceiling.
In short: measurement choices shape the story we tell about inequality. Better data and clearer metrics would lead to better-informed debates about taxes, spending and the most effective ways to reduce poverty.
Help us improve.
