Finance Terms: Permanent Income Hypothesis

A graph showing the relationship between income and savings over time

The Permanent Income Hypothesis is a theory that suggests how individuals and households make decisions about their spending and savings. According to this theory, people base their consumption decisions not only on their current income, but also on their expected future income – or their “permanent income”.

What is the Permanent Income Hypothesis and how does it work?

The Permanent Income Hypothesis was first introduced by Milton Friedman in 1957, and it is based on the idea that people view their income as a stream of expected future income, rather than a series of random fluctuations. This means that household consumption is based on average income over an extended period of time, rather than year-to-year changes in income.

In other words, if people expect their income to remain the same in the future, they will likely spend a proportionate amount of their current income. Similarly, if people expect their income to change in the future, they may adjust their spending accordingly.

One of the key implications of the Permanent Income Hypothesis is that changes in income that are perceived as temporary, such as a bonus or a tax refund, are unlikely to have a significant impact on consumption. Instead, households are more likely to save this additional income, as they do not view it as a permanent increase in their expected future income.

Another important aspect of the Permanent Income Hypothesis is that it suggests that changes in interest rates are unlikely to have a significant impact on consumption. This is because households base their consumption decisions on their expected future income, rather than the interest rate on their savings or loans.

Understanding the basics of income smoothing

To better understand the Permanent Income Hypothesis, it’s important to talk about the concept of “income smoothing”. Essentially, this means that people try to maintain steady levels of consumption, even when their income changes.

For example, if an individual receives a bonus at work, they might save some of the extra money instead of immediately spending it. On the other hand, if their income decreases, they may dip into their savings to maintain their standard of living. This idea of income smoothing helps explain why people don’t always spend every penny of a pay raise or bonus, and why they don’t immediately slash their spending when they experience a temporary drop in income.

Income smoothing can also be achieved through borrowing. For instance, if an individual experiences a temporary drop in income, they may take out a loan to maintain their standard of living. Similarly, if they receive a sudden increase in income, they may use the extra money to pay off their debts. This way, they can maintain a steady level of consumption without having to dip into their savings. However, it’s important to note that relying too heavily on borrowing can lead to financial instability in the long run.

The role of consumption in determining permanent income

One of the key ideas behind the Permanent Income Hypothesis is that consumption habits are closely tied to expected future income. If an individual believes their income will be higher in the future, they may spend more now to maintain a certain standard of living. Similarly, if someone expects their income to decrease in the future, they may start cutting back on spending now to prepare for the change.

This approach to consumption decisions is fundamentally different from the idea that people base their spending solely on their current income. By considering both current income and expected future income, individuals and households can make more informed decisions about their financial planning and spending habits.

However, it is important to note that the Permanent Income Hypothesis assumes that individuals have perfect foresight about their future income. In reality, this is not always the case, and unexpected changes in income can lead to changes in consumption habits that are not necessarily in line with the theory. For example, a sudden job loss or unexpected medical expenses can lead to a decrease in consumption, even if the individual had previously expected their income to remain stable.

Additionally, the Permanent Income Hypothesis does not take into account the role of credit and debt in consumption decisions. Many individuals may choose to borrow money to maintain their standard of living, even if they do not expect their income to increase in the future. This can lead to a cycle of debt and financial instability that is not accounted for in the theory.

Analyzing the relationship between permanent and transitory income

Another key concept in the Permanent Income Hypothesis is the idea of “transitory income” – that is, temporary fluctuations in income that are not expected to continue into the future. This could include things like a one-time bonus or a period of unemployment.

According to the Permanent Income Hypothesis, people are more likely to use transitory income to increase their savings or pay down debt, rather than immediately increasing their spending. This is because they are focused more on their expected permanent income, rather than short-term changes in income.

However, some researchers have challenged the Permanent Income Hypothesis, arguing that people may actually be more likely to increase their spending in response to transitory income. They suggest that people may view these temporary increases in income as an opportunity to indulge in luxury goods or experiences that they would not normally be able to afford.

Additionally, the Permanent Income Hypothesis has been criticized for not taking into account the impact of psychological factors on spending behavior. For example, people may be more likely to spend money if they feel happy or optimistic about their financial situation, regardless of whether the increase in income is permanent or temporary.

Exploring the impact of government policies on permanent income hypothesis

Government policies can also have an impact on the Permanent Income Hypothesis. For example, policies that increase income tax rates or reduce social welfare programs may lead individuals to adjust their permanent income expectations downward, which could result in decreased spending.

On the other hand, policies that increase social welfare programs or lower income tax rates could lead people to increase their expected permanent income, which could lead to increased spending and a boost to the economy as a whole.

Another factor that can impact the Permanent Income Hypothesis is changes in interest rates. When interest rates rise, individuals may choose to save more in order to take advantage of the higher rates, which could lead to decreased spending and a slowdown in the economy. Conversely, when interest rates are low, individuals may be more likely to borrow and spend, which could stimulate economic growth.

It is also important to consider the impact of demographic changes on the Permanent Income Hypothesis. For example, as the population ages and individuals approach retirement, they may adjust their permanent income expectations downward in anticipation of a decrease in income. This could lead to decreased spending and a potential economic slowdown, unless offset by policies that encourage spending or investment.

Permanent Income Hypothesis vs. Life-Cycle Hypothesis: Which one is better?

Another theory related to the Permanent Income Hypothesis is the Life-Cycle Hypothesis, which suggests that people plan their consumption and savings decisions over their entire lifetime, rather than just focusing on expected permanent income.

While there are similarities between these two theories, there are also important differences. For example, the Life-Cycle Hypothesis suggests that people will deliberately save money during their working years in order to maintain a certain level of consumption in retirement. The Permanent Income Hypothesis, on the other hand, suggests that people will consume more in the present if they expect their income to be higher in the future.

One of the criticisms of the Permanent Income Hypothesis is that it assumes people have perfect foresight about their future income. In reality, people may not have a clear idea of what their future income will be, which could lead to suboptimal consumption and savings decisions. The Life-Cycle Hypothesis takes this into account by suggesting that people plan for a range of possible income scenarios and adjust their consumption and savings accordingly.

Evaluating the empirical evidence supporting the Permanent Income Hypothesis

There has been significant research over the years to test the predictions of the Permanent Income Hypothesis. Some studies have found support for the theory, while others have found more mixed results.

For example, one study found that households tend to smooth their consumption over large intervals of time, even when their income changes significantly. Another study found that there is a strong relationship between consumption and expected future income, which supports the key idea behind the Permanent Income Hypothesis.

However, there are also studies that have challenged the Permanent Income Hypothesis. One study found that households tend to adjust their consumption based on their current income, rather than their expected future income. Another study found that households tend to save more when their income increases, rather than increasing their consumption, which contradicts the predictions of the theory.

The relevance of Permanent Income Hypothesis in modern economic theory

The Permanent Income Hypothesis continues to be a valuable tool for economists in understanding how individuals and households make decisions about spending and saving. Its focus on expected future income is particularly relevant in today’s rapidly changing economic landscape, where people’s income prospects can shift dramatically over a short period of time.

Furthermore, the Permanent Income Hypothesis has also been applied to macroeconomic analysis, where it has been used to explain fluctuations in aggregate consumption and savings. By understanding how individuals make decisions about their own consumption and savings based on their expected future income, economists can better predict and explain overall trends in the economy.

Implications of Permanent Income Hypothesis for personal finance planning

For individuals, the Permanent Income Hypothesis can be a useful framework for making decisions about saving and spending. By considering both current and expected future income, individuals can make more informed decisions about buying a home, investing in the stock market, or taking on debt.

Additionally, the idea of income smoothing can be helpful in planning for unexpected financial events, such as a job loss or unexpected medical expenses. By building up an emergency fund, individuals can smooth out the impact of transitory changes in income and maintain their standard of living over the long term.

Another implication of the Permanent Income Hypothesis is that individuals should focus on long-term financial planning rather than short-term fluctuations in income. This means that individuals should prioritize saving for retirement and other long-term goals, rather than spending all of their income on immediate wants and needs.

Furthermore, the Permanent Income Hypothesis suggests that individuals should be cautious about taking on debt, especially if it is for non-essential purchases. By taking on debt, individuals are essentially borrowing from their future income, which can lead to financial instability in the long run. Therefore, individuals should carefully consider the long-term implications of taking on debt before making any decisions.

How to apply the Permanent Income Hypothesis to investment decisions

The Permanent Income Hypothesis can also be informative in making investment decisions. Investors who expect their future income to increase may be more likely to take on higher levels of risk, while those who expect their income to decrease may prefer safer investments.

Additionally, the Permanent Income Hypothesis suggests that investors should consider their overall expected income, rather than just focusing on current income. This means that for long-term investors, it may be more important to focus on the potential long-term growth of their investment, rather than short-term fluctuations in value.

Furthermore, the Permanent Income Hypothesis can also be used to determine the appropriate level of savings for an individual. By estimating their expected future income, individuals can calculate how much they need to save in order to maintain a consistent level of consumption throughout their lifetime. This can help individuals make informed decisions about their spending and saving habits, and ensure that they are adequately prepared for the future.

Criticisms and limitations of the Permanent Income Hypothesis

As with any economic theory, there are criticisms and limitations to the Permanent Income Hypothesis. Some have argued, for example, that the theory does not take into account the impact of psychological factors on consumption decisions, or that it does not adequately consider the impact of interest rates and other financial factors.

However, despite these criticisms, the Permanent Income Hypothesis continues to be a valuable framework for understanding how individuals and households make decisions about their financial lives. By considering both current and future income, individuals can make more informed decisions about their spending, saving, and investing habits.

Another criticism of the Permanent Income Hypothesis is that it assumes individuals have perfect information about their future income. In reality, individuals may not have a clear understanding of their future income, which can lead to inaccurate consumption decisions. Additionally, the theory assumes that individuals have access to credit markets, which may not be the case for everyone.

Furthermore, the Permanent Income Hypothesis does not account for unexpected events, such as job loss or illness, which can significantly impact an individual’s income and consumption decisions. These unexpected events can lead to a mismatch between an individual’s current income and their permanent income, which can result in financial hardship.

Related Posts

Annual Vet Bills: $1,500+

Be Prepared for the unexpected.