Social Mobility and Income Equality

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

Damn pesky Australians

Canucks too.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

What other answers would you expect to such a question Jack?

Ones with substance.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

Other countries that have values similar to the US ie 45 - Iran, Argentina, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Mozambique, Nigeria, Peru, and Uganda. Generally countries with values above 45 are in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of the former Soviet Union and its satellites.

To all the WRW's on the forum - nice neighborhood you're in! You may want to think some more about the concept of income distribution and "confiscating" more of the wealth of the few. Or do you actually WANT your country's social order to be on par with Uganda in the name of some ideologically pure "liberty"?

[killarney_sailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Just saying ...

While the Gini gives a broad measure, it is far from a definitive one. Kinda like a hand drawn map to a fishin' hole, rather than an actual chart.

Sometimes a handrawn map to the fishing hole gets you to where the fish is. You cannot reject the entire concept of Gini coefficients without proving with specific reference to the data where the inaccuracies come. Let's say for the sake of simplicity that benefits are not included for the US (I have no idea and don't have time to do the research) and are for ALL of the other countries (sounds like a conspiracy to me to make the US look bad) to include them, this will not come close to making up the huge differentials here. As well, there is direction. In most countries, look at Germany for example, a model of how a modern country should be run, they are reducing differences, about as fast as the US is increasing them and methodologies within a country are likely not to have changed. Also Wikipedia may or may not be the most objective source of information there is.

A final point ... you are sounding pretty squishy, left wing here by saying that income differentials in the US are not as 'bad' as they appear. If the 1% (or 5%, that next 4% seems to be getting away without criticism in the current climate) really got there because they are smarter and harder working and the welfare queens and assembly line workers are only getting what their laziness and sense of entitlement suggests they should, then a high GINI number is only a descriptor and carries no value judgement attached to it.

[PBzeer]

BTW - when we quote sources we give them credit. Wikipedia said it, not you.

Perhaps you do, but I don't quote myself, without so noting. As I have previously posted this information, with attribution, I didn't include it this time.

There is no definitive measurement, country to country, if it doesn't make the basic measures of comparison the same.

[PBzeer]

The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)

Oh goody, more subjective "data".

[PBzeer]

It is too convenient to reject data out of hand when you have no replacement.

Well, see, I didn't "reject" the data. I pointed out it isn't all that exact to be drawing definitive conclusions from.

[killarney_sailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Well, see, I didn't "reject" the data. I pointed out it isn't all that exact to be drawing definitive conclusions from.

Of course you rejected. Could I suggest you reread the comments you posted about the Gini Index and keep in mind where they came from. One criticism said that all statistics can be inaccurate - well duh!. Another said there is a difference between individuals and households, if you check the CIA source all these values are for households. Thirdly, it said that Gini values could be skewed by things like barter and subsisdence agriculture. Can't imagine this is significant when we are comparing the US to countries like Canada, Germany, and Oz. If we are comparing US to countries around a value of 45 like Uganda and the others, perhaps this would be significant but it could work in either direction. This leaves the question about whether government benefits are included or not. If you can prove that the US does not count them and others do then I will concede this point.

The United States was prepared to go to war based on the cogent fact gathering and analysis of the CIA. I think you should be able to trust them to obtain reasonably comparable economic data like this. (Oh no, I think I just shot down my whole case.)

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Well, see, I didn't "reject" the data. I pointed out it isn't all that exact to be drawing definitive conclusions from.

Which would still be rejecting the data for purposes of this discussion. Or are you after indefinite conclusions now? Doesn't sound like it given...

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Oh goody, more subjective "data".

Prediction: more dissembling to distract from the fact PB cannot present any better evidence, let alone better evidence to the contrary.

[PBzeer]

From the negatives associated with the Gini: Comparing income distributions among countries may be difficult because benefits systems may differ. For example, some countries give benefits in the form of money while others give food stamps, which might not be counted by some economists and researchers as income in the Lorenz curve and therefore not taken into account in the Gini coefficient. Income in the United States is counted before benefits, while in France it is counted after benefits, which may lead the United States to appear somewhat more unequal vis-a-vis France.

This, to me, is the biggest drawback to the Gini. It's like comparing a Granny Smith to a Winesap, they're both apples, but they aren't the same.

Let's see, what was it I said? Oh yeah, it's a broad measure, but not a definitive one. How you construe that as a rejection of the data, is a bit too nuanced for me.