Beyond having it backwards, gini over persons looking at timescales going to the 40s is probably distorted by women entering the workforce massively increasing the baseline equality.
Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?
21–30 of 97 posts
Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?
#22This type of statistics is useless, it does not include army of unemployed people.
Fine, I'll bite. How do you figure "it does not include army of unemployed people"? Census data should reflect members of the population regardless of employment status.
From a quick read of the census website linked, it appears that what unemployment data there is comes from the 2000 Census, whereas income data is much more current and numerous. That's rather concerning.
It's also the case that unemployment numbers are always underreported, something which gets worse during periods of extended unemployment. The government bases its estimates primarily on unemployment benefits filings. People who are unemployed beyond the period of available benefits don't get counted.
So, the unemployed are somewhat factored into the study, but it doesn't seem like a very clear picture of the situation.
That's my prima facie judgement at least.
Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?
#23This is a side show. Whether or not the statistics show rising or falling income inequality is irrelevant. There is massive income inequality. Its trajectory isn't nearly as large of an issue as the status quo, which is pretty dismal. Until that gini coefficient is much better, and we have no one living below the poverty line, we still have a ton of work to do. This article seems to be making a shallow point only to…
Institutionalized theft isn't an acceptable solution. Such class jealousy does not, historically, end well.
Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?
#24[edit: the author has since corrected the Gini definition in the article] I've never encountered the Gini coefficient before, but reading up on it on Wikipedia, the author appears to have the measure flat backward. "A score of "0" on the Gini coefficient represents complete equality, i.e., every person has the same income. A score of 1 would represent complete inequality, i.e., where one person has all the income and…
Thanks, updated post. Conclusions were based off looking at the numbers the correct way.
Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?
#25This is a side show. Whether or not the statistics show rising or falling income inequality is irrelevant. There is massive income inequality. Its trajectory isn't nearly as large of an issue as the status quo, which is pretty dismal. Until that gini coefficient is much better, and we have no one living below the poverty line, we still have a ton of work to do. This article seems to be making a shallow point only to…
Institutionalized theft isn't an acceptable solution. Such class jealousy does not, historically, end well.
Calling progressive tax systems institutionalized theft is incredibly clever, and incredibly false.
No one who has wealth created it by themselves. You don't print your own money, you don't extract wealth from a vaccum. Wealth is built by extracting that wealth from a shared economy. Asking those who were able to extract the most wealth to help the most in paying to protect this shared system, and help those who were exploited by it, is not theft.
You are being intellectually dishonest. I would not be surprised if deliberately so.
Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?
#26Where is this guy getting his numbers? From wikipedia[1]: 2011 had a pre-tax Gini coefficient of 0.477 whereas 1967 had 0.397 (the first year the Gini was actually measured), demonstrating considerable increase in inequality.
There's an Economist article[2] that puts the US's pre-tax Gini at 0.57 for 2013.
So yeah, income inequality has increased astronomically, undeniably, conclusively. The author seems to write off income inequality as a metric because it "doesn't track societal progress" and "isn't helpful for policy making purposes" both of which I would strongly reject.
First, let's explicitly state the axiom that money is equal to political and social power. An increasing Gini means we're moving farther and farther away from an equitable society and closer to feudalism or a plutocracy where the richest control everything via their ability to manipulate the political process with money. I think that it's fairly clear that our current government has been repeatedly bought, sold, and manipulated by a few plutocrats with special interests for the sake of making them and their buddies even more money. If you're looking for an example to support this argument, consider the billionaire Koch brothers and their political empire.
Next, let's consider what a rising Gini means for policy making purposes. If you are a policymaker whose primary constituents are the rich, a rising Gini is a stat which you can bring out at your fundraisers (a bit ridiculous, sure) to show that you're on average channeling wealth into the right pockets with your policies. On the flip side (and more realistic side), if you're an Elizabeth Warren type, you can connect your constituent's cries for a stronger safety net to a statistic which proves they're not just perpetually hungry for more. If you bring a piece of information like a Gini to the public, it's possible to win over people who may have been skeptical about supporting stronger social programs because they're unwilling to support "deadbeats" or the like-- after all, this Gini thing says that even if they're productive members of society, they're still not as well off as before. Their piece of the pie has actually become smaller over time, and their complaints are not baseless.
That said, I like the author's plug for basic income. The sooner we chop up the concept of capitalism and move on to a more just system, the sooner we'll unlock the underclass from the survival grind and free them to pursue more socially useful ends.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient [2]: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/in...
Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?
#27This type of statistics is useless, it does not include army of unemployed people.
Fine, I'll bite. How do you figure "it does not include army of unemployed people"? Census data should reflect members of the population regardless of employment status.
There are many people who are not in census: illegal immigrants, homeless..
Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?
#28This is a side show. Whether or not the statistics show rising or falling income inequality is irrelevant. There is massive income inequality. Its trajectory isn't nearly as large of an issue as the status quo, which is pretty dismal. Until that gini coefficient is much better, and we have no one living below the poverty line, we still have a ton of work to do. This article seems to be making a shallow point only to…
Institutionalized theft isn't an acceptable solution. Such class jealousy does not, historically, end well.
Class antagonism around here has ended pretty well historically. The 19th-century working class agitated against the aristocracy and landlord classes, and after a rocky start, the workers' parties successfully gained power in the 20th century. From around the 1920s/30s to about the 1970s most of the Nordic countries were led by nearly unchallenged social-democratic governments, which used their power to create the modern prosperous society. They did grow increasingly moderate as time went on, the system stabilized, and people lost appetite for more sweeping changes (the 1920s social democrats were solidly part of the socialist movement and much more radical in their ultimate aims, while nowadays they're more like the left wing of the liberal movement, and no longer have much association with Marxism).
The Nordic countries of the 19th century looked much different, and much worse. Huge income inequality, entrenched aristocracy, terrible living conditions for the urban working class, etc.
Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?
#29This is a side show. Whether or not the statistics show rising or falling income inequality is irrelevant. There is massive income inequality. Its trajectory isn't nearly as large of an issue as the status quo, which is pretty dismal. Until that gini coefficient is much better, and we have no one living below the poverty line, we still have a ton of work to do. This article seems to be making a shallow point only to…
I'm not sure you read the article, because you make some of the same points I do.
"There is massive income inequality. Its trajectory isn't nearly as large of an issue as the status quo, which is pretty dismal." The point of the article is that inequality is itself isn't a good metric.
"The right thing to do is to keep working to solve the core problem....Maybe even consider doing what Switzerland is considering, and give everyone (rich and poor) a reasonable guaranteed income as an alternative to expensive and sometimes ineffective welfare program" -I suggest this briefly as my preferred solution.
Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?
#30This is a side show. Whether or not the statistics show rising or falling income inequality is irrelevant. There is massive income inequality. Its trajectory isn't nearly as large of an issue as the status quo, which is pretty dismal. Until that gini coefficient is much better, and we have no one living below the poverty line, we still have a ton of work to do. This article seems to be making a shallow point only to…
Institutionalized theft isn't an acceptable solution. Such class jealousy does not, historically, end well.
Such class jealousy does not, historically, end well for the rich. Overall the Magna Carta was a boon for the English economy and the french revolution was surprisingly helpful for there economy in fact most of Europe prospered after similar disruptions. People with wealth and or power want to keep it, but concentrated power does not lead to efficient resource allocation.