In all the hand-wringing over the income gap between rich and poor, scant attention is paid to the fact that the disparity of income is often due to the decisions of individuals and their adaptability to change.

"What's happening," according to Sen. Connie Mack (R-FL), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, "is that the country, in essence, is rewarding knowledge and education and the ability to communicate, and those fundamentals are being demanded more and more each day."

Americans seem to be responding to market rewards by boosting the supply of potential employees with a college education.

• The share of 18-to 24-year-olds enrolled in college grew from 26 percent to 35 percent between 1980 and 1994, according to the 1996 Economic Report of the President.

• Even though the population of college-age youth dropped by 15 percent between 1980 and 1993, the numbers of associate, bachelor's and doctoral degrees awarded grew by 28, 25 and 29 percent respectively.

One recent study by economists John E. Dinardo and Jorn-Steffan Pischke of labor data from Germany compared wages on the basis of workplace tools used.

• Workers who used a calculator on their job earned 9 percent to 13 percent more than those who did not.

• Those who used a telephone each day earned 12 percent to 14 percent more.

• Just being in a job that involved sitting rather than standing for much of the day yielded 10 percent better pay.

The message is that being educated, literate, numerate and highly skilled will help people close the "income gap."

Source: Perspective, "In Praise of the Wage Gap," Investor's Business Daily, August 2, 1996.

A study by Oren M. Levin-Waldman, published by the Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, argues that with the shift from an industrial to an information economy, workers' skills become outdated and the proportion of workers who are without a job for more than six months has jumped. Those without work for more than a year now comprise 17.3 percent of the unemployed.

Levin-Waldman suggests doubling unemployment insurance benefits from 26 to 52 weeks. After 26 weeks, the unemployed would be required to enroll in a job training program in order for benefits to continue.

Critics, however, take issue with the proposal on a number of grounds.

• Set up in the midst of the Great Depression, unemployment insurance was supposed only to smooth over rough spots in the business cycle -- not cushion structural shifts.

• Doubling the amount of time that the jobless get benefits will only lengthen unemployment.

• Most people find jobs within the first 26 weeks -- with only 20.2 percent taking longer.

• Some research shows that firms are more likely to lay workers off because they know they can rely on unemployment -- recalling them when benefits begin to run out.

One answer to this problem, suggests Levin-Waldman, is to lower unemployment insurance payroll contributions for firms that rarely lay off workers, and raise them for those that do so often.

Source: Perspective, "Staying Idle," Investor's Business Daily, August 7, 1996.

Raising the long-term growth rate by just one percentage point, from 2 percent to 3 percent, could produce a massive payoff in wages, living standards and economic security by increasing savings and investment.

• Net national savings, the funds available for new investment, average less than 5 percent of the nation's gross domestic product.

• In the 1960s, the savings rate averaged 11 percent, and the economy grew an average of 4 percent a year.

• Today, despite spending on new technology, business investment barely outpaces depreciation on existing plant and equipment, meaning net business investment is a low 2 percent of GDP.

Real growth averaging 3 percent or more would in 10 years add $3,000 in goods and services per person. In 30 years, faster growth would add 35 percent to output.

Suggestions for such pro-growth policies include:

• Balancing the federal budget by reducing the rate of spending growth, which would lower long-term interest rates by almost two percentage points.

• Cutting individual income tax rates enough to reduce the top rate from almost 40 percent today to 28 percent (the top tax rate in 1986) or less.

• Converting Social Security to a fully funded private pension system with individual savings accounts -- increasing plant and equipment by an stimated 25 percent by 2020.

Source: Mike McNamee and Paul Magnusson, "Let's Get Growing," Business Week, July 8, 1996.

Some liberal economists profess to be aghast at Bob Dole's bold plan to cut tax rates 15 percent. Other economists are applauding, comparing the economy's superior performance after the Reagan tax cuts with economic conditions after Clinton's tax increase.

• The real economic growth rate during the 1980s was 3.2 percent per year, compared to 1.8 percent so far in the 1990s.

• lReal median family incomes rose $4,000 in the Reagan years, but have fallen $2,100 since the 1990 and 1993 tax increases.

• The poorest fifth of Americans experienced a 6 percent gain in real income in the 1980s, but have suffered a 7 percent loss in the 1990s.

• Federal revenues grew by 24 percent from 1982 to 1989, but will only increase by 20 percent over a comparable seven-year period from 1990 to 1997.

Some economic analysts conclude that any way one slices it, tax cuts have proven to be people- and voter-friendly.

Source: Stephen Moore (Cato Institute), "The True Reagan Record: One Last Time," Investor's Business Daily, August 13, 1996.