Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last 30 years saw substantial increases in wealth inequality and in stock market participation, smaller increases in consumption inequality and the fraction of indebted households, a decline in interest rates and in the expected equity premium, as well as a prolonged stock market boom. Understanding the causes of these trends is crucial for many questions in finance and economics. In an incomplete markets, overlapping generations model we show that these trends can be jointly explained by the observed rise in wage inequality, as well as a decrease in participation costs and a loosening of borrowing constraints. Once we account for these changes, we show that the observed pattern of stock prices played a major role in increasing wealth inequality because stockholders, who tend to be wealthy, benefit most from a bull market. Crucially, these phenomena must be considered jointly; studying one independently leads to counterfactual predictions about others. For example, a loosening of credit standards is expected to raise, rather than lower interest rates through decreased precautionary savings as well as vastly increase the fraction of households in debt; an increase in labor inequality is (somewhat counterintuitively) expected to lower rather than raise wealth inequality, again through precautionary savings; increased stock market participation should also lower wealth inequality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".