Ben Moll Profile picture
13 May, 16 tweets, 10 min read
Do wealthier households save a larger share of their incomes than poorer ones?

I suspect most people's prior is that the answer is "yes." Turns out that's incorrect, or rather: things are considerably more subtle, at least in our Norwegian wealth tax registry data.

A short 🧵:
The 🧵 is based on a major revision of "Saving Behavior Across the Wealth Distribution: The Importance of Capital Gains", which is joint with @AndreasFagereng @BlomhoffHolm & @GNatvik

benjaminmoll.com/SBWD/

1/
Why do saving rates matter? Answer: for (i) secular trends in income & wealth inequality and (ii) how such distributional shifts feed back to macro aggregates

See eg great work by @M_De_Nardi @ludwigstraub @AtifRMian @profsufi @ProfGreenwald @SVNieuwerburgh @HannoLustig

2/
What do we find?

If we measure saving net of capital gains, i.e. "net" or "active saving", then saving rates are flat across the wealth distribution, i.e., the rich do *not* actively save a larger share of their incomes than the poor.

3/
At the same time, saving rates *including capital gains* increase strongly with wealth.

Why? Wealthier households own assets that experience capital gains which they hold onto instead of selling them off to consume.

4/
Also here's what saving rates look like in different years 2005-2015: in all years "net or active" saving rates are flat & vary little, while saving rates incl capital gains fluctuate lots depending on asset markets (e.g. it's way down in 2008, also note the different scales)

5/
Aside: the flat active saving rates are v different from what Saez & @gabriel_zucman found using "synthetic" saving rates. Instead our results are more in line with Smith @omzidar Zwick's attenuated saving rate disparities and more important role for asset price changes.

6/
What's going on?

We show that our findings are actually consistent with completely standard models of wealth accumulation with homothetic preferences under one additional assumption: rising asset prices are accompanied by declining asset returns rather than rising cashflows.

7/
Intuitively, when asset prices rise even though cashflows do not, richer households do not experience a larger income effect than poorer ones and therefore consume approximately the same fraction of their disposable incomes. See Proposition 1.

8/
Part of the booming asset prices of recent years are due to falling interest/discount rates. That this probably matters for wealth distribution is also catching on -- see the great work of @ProfGreenwald @HannoLustig @SVNieuwerburgh, Gomez & Gouin-B



9/
What does it all mean?

We do some counterfactuals to flesh out the implications. We conclude that saving rate heterogeneity across wealth groups is not likely to be an important contributor to changes in aggregate saving and the wealth distribution, but capital gains are.

10/
Now a final important point: some of you may now think "oh, in that case these capital gains and the accompanying changes in wealth distribution are just welfare-irrelevant paper gains."

Absolutely not! See Section 5.2 in the paper and



11/
Takeaway same as here: the macro, wealth inequality and PF literatures need to consider changing asset prices with more care. Fortunately this has started to happen, see e.g. the great work of @cmtneztt, @kuhnmo @schularick & Steins



12/
Oh and we've put together a whole seminar series dedicated to these types of topics: micro-macro-household-finance.co.uk 🙂

13/13
p.s. given some comments, let me add an important clarification: our graphs have *wealth* on the x-axis as opposed to *income*.

Saving rates by income instead look like this (Fig 9c) so higher *income* hh's do in fact have higher net saving rates as intuition may suggest

14/
That pattern for net saving rates by income is also qualitatively consistent with standard theory:

15/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ben Moll

Ben Moll Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ben_moll

15 Feb
#EconTwitter hivemind: what are your favorite papers combining “causal” micro estimates (say from DiD or RCT) with a general-equilibrium macro model to answer an interesting macro question?

This is for my PhD teaching so the easier to read the better. Thanks in advance!
p.s. self-submissions are definitely welcome, i.e. your favorite paper can be your own (aren't they usually? 😃)
Read 6 tweets
9 Feb
The benefits of new technologies accrue not only to high-skilled labor but also to owners of capital in the form of higher capital incomes. This increases income and wealth inequality.

New version of our work with @LukaszRachel and @pascualrpo and summary thread 👇 Image
Coincidentally this @voxdotcom "Billionaires Explained" show has a pretty good intuitive version of our theory netflix.com/watch/81097618 (from minute 8:00), there explained by @JeffDSachs. ImageImage
It's also worth adding that standard theories predict exactly the opposite, namely that (in the long-run) all benefits of automation accrue to labor in the form higher wages.

See for example aeaweb.org/articles?id=10… and the 2019 ERP govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ER… ImageImageImage
Read 4 tweets
16 Nov 20
When a small minority of loud economists attacks researchers from other disciplines, it makes us all look bad.

And allows the media to pit economists against epidemiologists in this unhelpful way economist.com/finance-and-ec…

A short thread:
This @TheEconomist article does not reflect the views of most economists I know.

Most economists I know did not "get off on the wrong foot" with epidemiologists. Instead they highly value their work and just try to learn from it as much as possible.

1/
They do not "intensely criticize" epidemiologists' models or their use. Instead they have hugely benefited from them and been very much aware of how difficult it is to forecast an epidemic in the face of limited and fast-changing data availability and quality.

2/
Read 9 tweets
20 Oct 20
Want some insight into the evolution of macro but weren’t around in the 70s & 80s?

Read Tom Sargent’s 1979/1987 “Macroeconomic Theory” (1st/2nd edn). h/t @GregWKaplan for recommending it!

Intro and ToC: benjaminmoll.com/sargent_ToC_in…

So many gems! These are the first two chapters: Image
Definitely make sure to read the whole intro in full benjaminmoll.com/sargent_ToC_in… for passages like this: Image
This is the book’s very last paragraph – sounds familiar? Image
Read 10 tweets
17 Mar 20
Covid-19 simulations for US & UK:

imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial…

Many conclusions not new though numbers still crazy, eg low red line in 1st graph = max ICU capacity.

To me long-run scenarios most striking though. Economists, what should policy response be w cycles in 2nd graph?
@R2Rsquared @christianbaye13 @pogourinchas @BachmannRudi @bornecon

As far as I can tell, your and others' economic policy advice assumes single-peaked epidemic scenario.

What if epidemic cycles? Same policies for longer? Or should the policies also cycle?
Clarification: "what should policy response be w cycles in 2nd graph" should have said "what should *economic* policy response be" eg how structure liquidity injections to firms and households?
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(