How Americans Respond to Idiosyncratic and Exogenous Changes in Household Wealth and Unearned Income
Abstract
We study how Americans respond to idiosyncratic and exogenous changes in household wealth and unearned income. Our analyses combine administrative data on U.S. lottery winners with an event study design. We first examine individual and household earnings responses to these windfall gains, finding significant and sizable wealth and income effects. On average, an extra ${\$}$1 of unearned income in a given period reduces household labor earnings by about 50 cents, decreases total labor taxes by 10 cents, and increases consumption expenditure by 60 cents. These effects are heterogeneous across the income distribution, with households in higher quartiles of the income distribution reducing their earnings by a larger amount. Next we examine margins of adjustment other than earnings and, in the course of doing so, address a number of important economic questions about how additional wealth or unearned income affect retirement decisions and labor market dynamics, family formation and dissolution, entrepreneurship and self-employment, and geographic mobility and neighborhood choice. Last, we carefully compare our findings to those reported in existing lottery studies. This comparison reveals that existing U.S. studies substantially underestimate wealth and income effects because they use measures that understate the earnings responses and overstate the after-tax wealth changes associated with lottery wins.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the case of student loan forgiveness, the precise value of the shock to lifetime wealth is known, allowing the approach of annuitizing the forgiveness over the remaining lifetime.
“In the case of student loan forgiveness, we know the precise value of the shock to lifetime wealth, allowing us to follow the approach taken in the literature on lottery windfalls annuitizing the forgiveness over the remaining lifetime”
From Student Loan Forgiveness (2025) · cites this paper as Golosov et al., 2023
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 125 · Cited by 69
- Authors
- Golosov, M., Graber, M., Mogstad, M., & Novgorodsky, D.
- Affiliations
- National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
- Statistics Norway (NO)
- Australian National University (AU)
- Venue
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2023-10-23
- Volume
- 139
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1321-1395
- ISSN
- 0033-5533 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4650
- OpenAlex
- W4387906804
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 125
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 32.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
- Keywords
- lottery winners, windfall gains, household wealth, unearned income, earnings response, labor supply, consumer spending, labor taxation, retirement decisions, entrepreneurship, spatial mobility, neighborhood selection
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review