Talk:Economic inequality/Archive 4

Use of AKAs in the lede sentence
"Economic inequality" is obviously a broad term that can describe various types of differences in economic measurements. Wealth, income, consumption, etc. are the various types. So trying to say that economic inequality is "also known as ...." is not helpful to the reader. We cannot say 'economic inequality' is aka 'wealth inequality' and 'economic inequality' is aka 'income inequality'; because the next logical step would be to say 'income inequality' is aka 'wealth inequality'. – S. Rich (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Economic inequality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081002044057/http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/iiahr2001.pdf to http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/iiahr2001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Declarative statements on extremes
I changed the "Others studies say too much income equality can be destructive..." to a declarative statement. I think there are plenty of reliable references which argue for a reduction in inequality, but none that advocate the extreme of absolute equality, indicating that the declarative  statement is true. The statement is no more controversial than the declarative statement "Too much inequality can be destructive". These two statements are not in conflict, they are apples and oranges, one points out that the upper extreme is destructive, the other that the lower extreme is destructive. The "other studies" do not deny that extreme inequality is destructive, and to portray the two statements as two sides of a controversy is incorrect. PAR (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Inspected?
The following is under Measurement Concepts: "The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has inspected the following eight types of income inequality concepts." I don't see how a concept can be inspected, but I don't know what is meant. Maurreen (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it should be "analyzed".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually from the context it seems like it just means "provides data on".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge gap hypothesis
Should the knowledge gap hypothesis be mentioned in this article? — Gaute chat - email - sign 13:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Tripathi's comment on this article
Dr. Tripathi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Excellent article. However, we need to add the following

1. Hirschman and Rothschild (1973) coined the term “tunnel effect” to describe how inequality can lead to conflict. The tunnel effect refers to a parable about multi-lane traffic that the authors used to describe inequality’s impact. Ray (2010) presented a modified parable to explain this effect. 2. There are some studies used regression based inequality decomposition to find the source of inequality using household level study. I think we need to add their findings as reveals the source of inequality at micro level.

Otherwise all right."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Tripathi has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : Tripathi, Sabyasachi, 2012. "Does higher economic growth reduce poverty and increase inequality? Evidence from Urban India," MPRA Paper 42022, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Bonfiglioli's comment on this article
Dr. Bonfiglioli has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Way to long! Split at least in two, as previously suggested, if not in three...

On trade and inequality, much more is being done. See, for instance, Helpman, Itskhoki and Redding (Econometrica 2010) and related papers on trade and residual wage dispersion; Acemoglu, Gancia and ZIlibotti (American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2015) on trade, offshoring and the skill premium; Gancia and Epifani (Economic Journal, 2008), Feenstra and Hanso (JIE, 1997)...

On finance and inequality there is a large literature. See Galor and Zeira (REStud, 1993), Greenwood and Jovanovich (JPE, 1990), Banerjee and Newman (JPE, 1993), Acemoglu and Zilibotti (JPE, 1997), Bonfiglioli (JDE, 2012)"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Bonfiglioli has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference 1: Bonfiglioli, Alessandra & Gancia, Gino A, 2014. "Heterogeneity, Selection and Labor Market Disparities," CEPR Discussion Papers 9981, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.


 * Reference 2: Alessandra Bonfiglioli, 2007. "Investor Protection, Risk Sharing and Inequality," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 679.07, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Analisi Economica (UAB) and Institut d'Analisi Economica (CSIC), revised 20 Jun 2008.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Growth sources
Please see, with a popular treatment at ("In other words, inequality has increased more than we previously thought based on research that assumes that all households, rich and poor, face the same inflation rate"), the peer reviewed literature review at  ("when inequality was rising, economic growth was related to only a modest improvement in health, whereas during periods of decreasing inequality, there was a very strong effect of rising Gross Domestic Product"), and  which includes the following table from Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances data: EllenCT (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Lane's comment on this article
Dr. Lane has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Looks good - but the bar chart with volumes is really horrible - and not sourced. Not clear what it's trying to convey"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Lane has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : Fredrik Andersson & Elizabeth E. Davis & Matthew L. Freedman & Julia I. Lane & Brian P. McCall & L. Kristin Sandusky, 2010. "Decomposing the Sources of Earnings Inequality: Assessing the Role of Reallocation," Working Papers 10-32, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Carrieri's comment on this article
Dr. Carrieri has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"I think the article should consider the economic research linking economic inequality and happiness (as general measures of well-being) and health (as a relevant determinant of well-being). The link between economic inequality and happiness has been studied for instance by Alesina, Di Tella, MacCulloch (2004) while the relationship between economic inequality and health has been studied by Deaton (2003).

References:

Alesina, A., Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, R., (2004), Inequality and happiness: are Europeans and Americans different?, Journal of Public Economics, 88,9: 2009-2042.

Deaton, A. (2003), Health, Inequality, and Economic Development, Journal of Economic Literature, Volume 41, Number 1, 1 March 2003, pp. 113-158."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Carrieri has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference 1: Vincenzo Carrieri & Vito Peragine, 2014. "Decomposing inequality 'at work': Cross-country evidence from EU-SILC," Working papers 15, Societa Italiana di Economia Pubblica.


 * Reference 2: Carrieri, V.; & Wuebker, A.;, 2012. "Assessing inequalities in preventive care use in Europe: A special case of health-care inequalities?," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 12/25, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Kverndokk's comment on this article
Dr. Kverndokk has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"I think this is a rich and good article."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Kverndokk has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Brekke, Kjell Arne & Kverndokk, Snorre, 2014. "Health contingent income transfers. Are they relevant?," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2014:5, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Lopez's comment on this article
Dr. Lopez has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"I think it would be worth to highlight that from a welfare perspective the level of income inequality that matters is not that of market income (i.e. the income emerging from work and returns to capital) but rather disposable income (i.e. market income corrected by taxes paid and transfers received). This is a critical issues given that market income inequality depends to a large extend on the country's comparative advantage (on which governments can admittedly do little) but this can be corrected by appropriate fiscal policy."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Lopez has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference 1: Lopez, J. Humberto & Perry, Guillermo, 2008. "Inequality in Latin America : determinants and consequences," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4504, The World Bank.


 * Reference 2: Lopez, Humberto, 2008. "The social discount rate : estimates for nine Latin American countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4639, The World Bank.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Splitting income and wealth inequality
Income and wealth are two different things. Income is money earned through either a job or an investment. Wealth is an abundance of money (not income) or valuable possessions. Individuals can have significantly varying degrees of income, say from $0 to $250,000 a year as an example. What people do with that income determines whether the income becomes wealth or simply spent on expenses. This is important in the context of the topic of Economic Inequality. Part of the argument is that a person who earns below a certain dollar figure per year (approx. $32K per year) is considered poor, while someone who earns $150K to $250K is fairly well off. We can agree that someone who earns income in the poverty range will find it difficult if not impossible to create wealth. And we can agree that those who make between $150K to $250K would find a lot more opportunity to create wealth. How people earn income is different than how people generate or create wealth. Income, generally speaking, requires the application of some skillset to an available job. Skillsets are within an individuals ability to improve, but not the availability of a job or the income level of that job. Wealth requires knowledge in how to leverage available income to generate or create wealth. That knowledge is within the individuals ability to improve. The only limiting factor is the availability of extraneous income.

A person making between $150K to $250K may not be wealthy, but not due to any imposed inequality, simply their lack of knowledge or failure to leverage extra income into wealth. Whereas a person in poverty has a limiting inequality of not being able to find jobs within his skillset that pay a sufficient wage to further his knowledge to improve his skillset toward more lucrative and available jobs. So, in my opinion, income inequality and wealth inequality need to be split. 73.235.221.207 (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Dennis Klaman


 * Are you suggesting that we split the article up into two articles or that we clarify the difference in the lead? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Economic inequality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206221033/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/57/40846335.pdf to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/57/40846335.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110310100258/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=2386&title=gender-mdgs-gender-lens-vital-pro-poor-results to http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=2386&title=gender-mdgs-gender-lens-vital-pro-poor-results
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113032210/http://www.argentumlux.org/documents/JEL_6.pdf to http://www.argentumlux.org/documents/JEL_6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

How much do the top 1% earn per year?
Does anyone here know the answer, or have a source that would provide insight? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the mean wage per year?
I have seen this number before, but can't recall the source. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Intelligence theory
A critically important point that is under covered is the role of intelligence. For example see: IQ and the Wealth of Nations Phmoreno (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Better yet, see author Richard Lynn wikipage: "A number of people, such as historian of psychology William Tucker, have said that Lynn is associated with a network of academics and organizations that promote scientific racism." This seems to be an example of what this article does not need, unless you seek to justify scientific racism. Any such section would have to give due weight to criticism of such highly controversial and widely disputed theories.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Calling out racism is not honest discussion. Censorship like you are proposing is what is not scientific. You cannot have a serious article about economic inequality without discussing differences in intelligence.  Intelligence is not the only issue in inequality.  Politics also plays a part. Liberal politics and elitism prevented China, a country with an average IQ of 106, whose it's bureaucratic scholars administered government but who hated successful business people, from breaking out of the Malthusian trap and creating the scientific and industrial revolutions.  Sub Saharan Africa (average IQ 70's) never developed writing, much less written history, philosophy, mathematics.  In between those extremes of IQ you have a mixed bag of economic development.  Also, there is plenty of high quality literature showing the correlation between income and intelligence for advanced countries.  This is indisputable.Phmoreno (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , this is a controversial subject, so I suggest you write a draft section and add it here on the talk page. We can then discuss it and make changes before adding it to the article (and having lots of edit wars). I suggest you add lots of reliable secondary sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm calling out the source you provided as an example. What do you expect when one of its authors has been described by peers and civil rights organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center as a virulent White Nationalist? [source]. It seems like a pretty honest discussion to me. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm calling you out for blocking the truth. Honest discussion means we discuss both sides of the argument.Phmoreno (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Besides, history is the biggest argument for intelligence theory. The recent research that uses IQ measurement is the quantitative evidence.  China was the most technologically advanced society until paper and printing reached the West, which lacked censorship.Phmoreno (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum. Here we discuss issues related to the article, like reliable sources. If you wish to believe what you posted above is the absolute truth, by all means have at it. Here we let the sources do the talking. And what you seek to insert will never find its way into the encyclopedia with the sources you are pushing, not without severe criticism of such sources and their ideas in the text, anyway. Other wiki articles which discuss these authors and their works highlight their controversial nature and that their findings are disputed and denounced by their peers. So much for "the truth".... --C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Any source that is non PC seems to come under extreme criticism, even though their claims should be obvious to anyone with common sense. But let's present the argument and let there be criticism. We shouldn't let the fact that their arguments are non PC detract from whether they have a sound basis and are logical.Phmoreno (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economic inequality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209142138/http://bartleby.com/61/69/P0586900.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/69/P0586900.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613152949/http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economic inequality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=Progressive+tax
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130613160454/http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/review/1999_3/Q1_99Bookexcerpt.pdf to http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/review/1999_3/Q1_99Bookexcerpt.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130806195638/http://www.icphusa.org/PDF/reports/ICP%20Report_Pushed%20Out.pdf to http://www.icphusa.org/PDF/reports/ICP%20Report_Pushed%20Out.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economic inequality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708181250/http://jim.com/econ/chap20p2.html to http://jim.com/econ/chap20p2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708181214/http://jim.com/econ/chap20p1.html to http://jim.com/econ/chap20p1.html
 * Added tag to http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/docs/research-update-income-inequality-and-participation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Would like to reorganize table of contents
I would like to get a consensus on a new table of contents. I think the focus should be narrow and then there should be lots of links to main articles elsewhere on Wikipedia. To that end, I see something like:


 * Description (what is economic inequality)
 * Current trends: Global and United States (or developed countries)
 * History of economic inequality

There are several issues I don't think are being addressed on this page (although, everything else is):


 * Mechanisms for income redistribution
 * Current government efforts to mitigate economic inequality
 * Organizations and campaigns involved in changing things

So, keep it simple...what is it, what are the trends, how are things changing over time, what are people doing right now to change things.

Of course, it will be a lot of work to just shorten or split this page first, before anyone can rewrite it. Thanks and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on restructuring this page. Seahawk01 (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The goal is indeed laudable, and Summary style recommends it. I do not see a need for additional detail articles; they are already many. The need is to follow the guideline and shrink the sections in this general article. A few years ago I did this to the United States Constitution which was similarly bloated with material belonging in the existing child articles. In many cases the general article contained details lacking in the detail article, which meant simply moving that text and making adjustments to both articles. Others were duplicative, which meant killing some paragraphs in the parent article or reducing them to a sentence or two, and shrinking some subsections to a paragraph or even a sentence. It all took a few months, and I quit when the going became more difficult rather than when the job had gone as far as it ideally would.


 * The meat cleaver approach has the advantages of speed and simplicity; but some parts call for surgery. Recently with Jet engine I started with the surgical approach, first moving details that were neglected in the detail articles, then trimming details that were covered in both. Most recently, after an initial failure and a bit of discussion, I chopped off the large "thrust" subsection and made it a new article. Unfortunately this exposed inadequacies of the severed text which are partly due to being separated from introductory material in the parent article but mainly due to excess jargon and poor prose that had been hidden in the oversize article. I'm only halfway through the reduction project, if that much, and it has already been more than a month.


 * So, yes, you're on the right track but you should be aware of probable difficulties that will require fussy work on the text itself. Proper discussion with your fellow editors will mean also delays, since not all careful watchers will be looking every day. Be aware of how big a chaw you have bitten off, but perseverance, precise editing, and respectful discussion are likely to bring a good result. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * really great infomation, thanks so much! United States Constitution looks good, but I can see how unwieldy reworking that would be. At 151 kB I do kind of feel like slapping a "very long" banner at the top :-) I like Jet engine, you are doing a great job. I can see the problem is what level of detail to include on the page. For myself, on Economic inequality, I'm going to take a step back and see what others want to do. It is good advice to learn how to wait a week or two since not everyone is always online. Also, I am pretty inspired by your description of how to approach this problem and will use this in the future, either here or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Is poverty decreasing?
We could use some more eyes on this: Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions. Also, there is the question of whether the proposed misconception should be added to an article on poverty. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I've seen several articles on Zero Hedge in recent years about the decline in world poverty. Too many to list here but you can search their archives. Phmoreno (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @ David Tornheim I'm going to take a guess here that world poverty in decreasing, but developed world inequality is increasing. You can google "elephant chart" for more on this. User:Seahawk01 —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Added "Economic inequality" sidebar
Hello, I added an Economic inequality sidebar to the page. I thought this would help with directing people to the topic they are interested in, since this page is so broad.

As far as the template is concerned, please consider it a first pass. It was the best I could do tonight and I expect to revisit it over the next week or two. Also, feel free to modify it!

Thanks Seahawk01 (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose this article be split up
Hello, according to Splitting above 50 kB an article should be considered for splitting. This article is around 202 kB in size. So, I'd like to propose to split it in sections. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What articles are you proposing it be split into? There's currently a tag on the article referencing a 2016 proposal to split it into income inequality vs. wealth inequality, but that doesn't really align well with the article text. Splitting off causes of economic inequality and effects of economic inequality would probably be easier to accomplish, but I'm not sure if you had something else in mind? MarginalCost (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for coming down to join the discussion. Really, I just think this page is so overwhelming as it stands. I think splitting it up into causes and effects sounds good. Maybe we can also split off measurement of inequality. Then, have a nice overview here of global and country trends. Seahawk01 (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I put a split notice on top of the article and two split notices at proposed change: Causes and Effects. Note, this is still open for discussion. I left out measurement for now, since it seems to be core for the topic. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Did someone take an Economics Book Index and make their 42 categories for this article? I don't know if your suggested Measurement of inequality article and suggested Effects of inequality are already covered with these Social inequality and Income inequality metrics.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * AgainstI would argue against splitting this article up. There are already so many related articles. E.g. the measurement of income inequality is already discussed in the article on Income_inequality_metrics. Plus there are articles on individual measures of income inequality e.g. the Gini coefficient and the Atkinson index. Not to say the articles that discuss social inequality, poverty, inequality in individual countries, etc. It's a real pain go through an article like this, cut out all of the unnecessary stuff, and redirect people to the relevant pages. But that's the better solution. Anything else just compounds the problem, because the split off articles will get longer and longer, because people won't find what they're looking for in those articles, and then those will have to be split up.... Fwoolley (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * An alternative is to take sections out of the article and park them into the Talk page and then start working on them. Totally agree that A) a lot of stuff in the proposed split is covered elsewhere and B) pages will continue to grow here. I am arguing for this merely on the basis of size. If we take 3/4 of the text out, that will make it the suggested size. Question is how many people are willing to work on this. Also, thanks for adding to the discussion! Seahawk01 (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see the necessity in breaking the article up into pieces that, by themselves, readers might find confusing. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

OK...I did a little experiment and shortened all the entries under Causes. I kept only the first paragraph and gave a link to the appropriate main topic page in Wikipedia. It's a little sloppy, but if people like it, we can rewrite. Otherwise, please revert. Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support if done carefully. It would be better to work on text in draft space or personal space rather than 'park'ing on talkpage. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , , , , (pinged everyone who voted, commented recently plus three users that gave advice on this topic at the Teahouse)
 * I'm going to vote: Support
 * Tally: 3 support (4 if you include MarginalCost) and 2 opposed. Plus, I will reference WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY and point out that nobody is taking steps to consolidate this page. So, if we leave it like it is, it will remain unmanageable. Thanks everyone for voting! Seahawk01 (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to this discussion, and just noticed the page was split. That's okay, I guess, but you should at least leave a small section summarizing what was there. Also, that list of references shouldn't just be removed. It's okay to have a further reading section. If you must remove it from the article, at least move it permanently to the talk page or something. Benjamin (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * hey, give me a sec Seahawk01 (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * added back in the Further Reading section. I do think it is too long, but we can leave it in for now. At the top of the page are two links to the new pages. Hope this works for you! Seahawk01 (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the work you're doing cleaning this up! Benjamin (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Benjamin, there needs to be small or section or sections with brief summaries on the material that was removed and placed in its own articles. Simply adding a link to these new articles is not enough. This is now the main article of the bunch and the causes and effects of inequality have to be briefly summarized, as many readers will only view this article and not the other two. This is why I opposed breaking the article into pieces. The onus should be on the editor or editors who broke up the article to get this process started.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Sammartinlai (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And it appears that this material doesn't exist anymore, because the new article it was supposedly moved to, Causes of economic inequality, simply links back the the Economic inequality article. This needs to be fixed asap. EDIT: I propose that if this is not fixed soon, the deleted material should be restored to the Economic inequality article for the time being.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree it should not be a re-direct. Sammartinlai (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * now I am checking my history and for some dumb reason, I failed to move the content to Causes of economic inequality. Well, thanks for catching that! Seahawk01 (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ok, I will try to rewrite the introduction soon to include more pointers to relevant pages outside this page. BTW, can we start a new topic...this topic is getting too big! Seahawk01 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarify
How many sections should it be split again?Sammartinlai (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * initially we were going to split "causes of economic inequality" and "effects of economic inequality". Basically, page size is recommended at 30-50 kB of readable prose (see WP:SPLIT), although the group can agree to have a longer page. You can get a rough idea of the readable page size here, although I think that also includes all the markup. Seahawk01 (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. I agree there shouldn't be a redirect for "causes of economic inequality". Sammartinlai (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the best path forward is to forge a consensus. Remember, whatever changes are made can always be reverted and discussed as per WP:BOLD. So make an attempt to improve the page and then step back and see how others feel about it! Seahawk01 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be working it out. Trimming United States Constitution, I was fortunate to have the help of the editor who had contributed the largest fraction of the text, a master of prose, who understood my purpose, politely corrected the minor errors I made, and kindly restored his well crafted phrases to their original prettiness and precision but not their original size. More than two of us cooperated in that one. All the subordinate detail articles already existed; which complicated the matter of distributing the prose without spoiling it.
 * The splits for Harlem and Long Island Rail Road were easier because I could make the detail articles simply from existing sections, expanding slightly so they could stand alone, and composing a tiny bit in the parent article to show how they had to do with the rest of that article. I was soon asked to clean up Wall Street but after pondering a couple weeks decided it's too much for me. Maybe some other year. I was less successful in Jet engine, mainly because I didn't give it enough thought myself, rather than by dissent from others.
 * Currently I'm paring History of Christianity. In this case other editors are not dissenting or even much discussing. This essentially solo project has thus far been a matter of the salami method, slicing out approximately a paragraph at a time, after ensuring that the linked detail article can handle the particular sliced detail, perhaps with a little beefing up.
 * In no case (except simple article splits) did I offer or see an overall plan. Thinking ahead by just two or three steps, I handled whatever section or paragraph or phrase struck me as unnecessary in this place. Each step was followed by a few days of rest. Sometimes another editor adjusted what I had done, sometimes in a direction that I hadn't thought about, but that I could live with by scrapping a bit of my intention. Sometimes my action triggered an undo or a dissent in Talk, which brought progress to a temporary halt, but usually the required argument was settled in a week or two.
 * When the process seemed to have gone far enough, I merely kept watch for a few months if the article didn't grow and other editors seemed to be taking care of it. The most usual problem is, a new reader will read the master article and have an idea, or worse a feeling about a related topic, and put it in the master article. After years, I'm still watching the Constitution article and when it gets that kind of addition I not only move the new material to a detail article, but usually some of the surrounding words. Kind of like cancer surgery; you cut out some healthy tissue so regrowth will become less probable. This need of vigilance is an important reason why I'm giving advice here rather than undertaking the task myself; it isn't a topic on which I want to keep watch indefinitely. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm mostly indifferent to organization as long as content is preserved, but I'd like to thank you for your efforts in that regard. Benjamin (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"Class Studies" text
There is some disagreement over this edit inserting some new text on "class analysis" under perspectives, so I am taking it here for now. My concerns with this text are fourfold: I am pinging and  who added and restored the material, respectively. MarginalCost (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Primarily, it greatly oversimplifies how economic inequality relates to class, and takes the classification scheme of one article (in a low-ranked journal), and states as gospel that class divisions are decided by wealth (not income), and that, for instance Upper class consists 10% of the wealthiest people. There are a lot of ideas on how best to measure and classify class distinctions, and it doesn't make sense to pick one and present it as the "class analysis" perspective.
 * 2) It is not really a "perspective" at all as currently written. All the other subsections present some ideas on the causes or consequences of economic inequality, while this is just a list of a few statistics on the Distribution of wealth
 * 3) The material is better covered in a number of other articles, such as Social class, Class conflict, Capital accumulation, etc. which present a far more robust view of the ways of measuring class.
 * 4) Least importantly, the current article text is improperly formatted and grammatically disjointed. These are easily fixable problems, but if the text is kept these need to be addressed.
 * What reliable sources are you citing that make these very strong claims in a couple sentences about a 14 page article??? did you actually read the article?--Wiki rules state your own personal views do not trump a scholarly article in a scientific journal written by a PhD in political science. The journal is published in Britain by a leading publisher (Taylor & Francis) for decades and its editors are professors at National University of Singapore,  Seoul National University, U of Heidelberg; U of Hong Kong, U of Edinburgh, Tsinghua University, etc.   Take a look at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=editorialBoard&journalCode=rasi20 before making unsupported statements based in ignorance.  Rjensen (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, first, I think I'm plainly showing I'm operating in good faith here by leaving up the text in question and immediately bringing my concerns to the talk page, so I'd ask you to be a little more courteous. Second, I think it's pretty clear I am not trying to substitute my own theory of how economic inequality relates to class, just noting that no single article can give such definitive definitions as is being stated here. It is precisely because I respect the work of so many economists and political scientists that I think it is unfair to take one particular author's approach as a summary of the field. As I said, there are many, many ways to measure and define class, all supported in plenty of published journals, and I think this line was an oversimplification compared to the more nuanced treatment in the other articles I mentioned.
 * Finally, I am pinging, who has made substantial edits to the text in question, including a request for clarification, but might not be aware of this talk page discussion. While I largely support these changes, as both making fewer broad generalizations and presenting a clearer perspective on the topic, it still seems suited to other articles like Redistribution of income and wealth, rather than this one. MarginalCost (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Marginal; cost claims to respect lots of scholars--all unnamed. Wiki says if you think RS disagree with a sourced statement in the article then please quote and cite these mystery people. Rjensen (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with, this is better suited to the Redistribution of income and wealth article, (thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't aware that article existed) because it doesn't talk about people's ATTITUDES toward (income inequality).

My other comments about the study were made in my edit summaries.

FWIW, the journal cited has a rather low impact factor of 0.25. --- Avatar317 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

 * Economic growth summary: the study I cite is not cherrypicking. It is a meta-study. The current sentence (Research suggests that greater inequality hinders the duration of growth but not its rate.), which strangely refers to this meta-study, is not in line with the findings of this meta-study. The meta-study says the effect of inequality on growth is significantly negative in less developed countries. So the current sentence about economic growth is not in line with the current scientific findings. --PJ Geest (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right, I adjusted that statement. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Social effects summary: I think there should be said something in the lead section about social effects. I agree the source Equalitytrust is not a neutral source to use, so this source should be removed. However the written sentences where still backed by the other source. I took the summary of the studies of Wilkinson and Picket because it is the most extensive about the subject. But I can rewrite the introduced sentences, and only mention examples which are backed by multiple studies. --PJ Geest (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would prefer summary statements backed by multiple studies, since there are so many studies with differing conclusions, both in results and degree. Thanks! --- Avatar317 (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Activist Editing
Most of this article reads like an advertisement for the Elizabeth Warren campaign. The section on "economic liberalism", for instance, is sourced to a 2006 paper that was published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The CEPR is described as:

"The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) is an economic policy think-tank based in Washington, D.C. which was co-founded by economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot.[2] CEPR contributors include Nobel prize in Economic science Award winning members Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Solow. Founded in 1983, It has been described as both progressive[3] and left-leaning."

If it must be known, I myself am a Democrat (although not a progressive), so my concern isn't a political one. This has to do with editors sourcing entire sections to partisan think tanks as opposed to research that's been vetted and published in professional journals. If proper sourcing isn't available, I'm going to start deleting some of these sections.Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The IMF, and Business Insider articles about it, are also used as corroborating sources in that section. Do you believe there are any reliable sources contradicting it? It's easy to find peer reviewed corroborating sources, e.g., , and were on the first page of a Google Scholar search on the pertinent keywords. Instead of blanking a sourced section because you don't like it, please consider searching for peer reviewed literature review-grade sources about the topic. EllenCT (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * If it's so easy then why is the section sourced to a partisan think tank? Of course it's easy to trawl through google scholar looking for obscure papers that say what you want them to say. Here are the backgrounds of some of these authors:

https://www.lauracbucci.com/

https://health.oregonstate.edu/people/leanne-giordono


 * None of them are professional economists, or even researchers with solid standings in their field.


 * I'm looking for something along the lines of this,


 * But this paper doesn't support the argument that a "decline in union membership" is responsible for much income inequality.

"the decline in unionization in the US explains a relatively small 14 percent of the growth in the variance of male wages between 1973 and 2001 and none of the increased variance of female wages. Averaging these results for males and females, the decline of unionization might explain 10 percent of the increase in the 90‐10 ratio."


 * The authors of this paper couldn't really identify any main cause of inequality, but did find evidence that Skill-biased technological change plays a significant role at certain income levels.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * do you know of any reliable sources which claim that the decline in union membership has not contributed to inequality? As for the Economist, WP:RSP has it listed as top quality after four separate discussions. You might want to look through those. EllenCT (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Elephant curve
I looked up "Elephant curve" in wikipedia, and was redirected here. That makes sense. However, it would make much more sense if the term was actually mentioned in this article.--Nø (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Potential Race Section
Since this article briefly addresses some potential causes of global economic inequality and includes subsections such as Gender, I was thinking about adding a small section detailing Race as a factor as well. There doesn't appear to be any substantive discussion of how race and ethnicity play a role in economic inequality on the page yet, so perhaps this would be a good starting point. You can find a more detailed version of my sources and plan in my sandbox. Thanks! -- UnoDosTrey (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on new "race" section
The contributions made to the race section of this article improved the article as a whole. I would suggest considering splitting the ‘western nations’ heading into smaller regions. I would also do more research on the ‘Asia’ and ‘Latin America’ subheadings. In line citations as well as added links to other articles could really strengthen this section. Overall, the edits made to the article addressed a crucial part of economic inequality, and did so in a clear manner. Kef1170 (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review on edits and additions
Great job on providing much needed information on the potential effects race may have on economic inequality. I suggest adding links to other pages in your additions, as well as seperating larger paragraphs into smaller sections. I would also add more information on the region specific sections, to provide a more comprehensive view of inequality across geographic regions. Great work on presenting information in a clear manner on a very important topic. Melired (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Initial statement that inequality negatively affects growth.
Hi everyone, I am a researcher interested in economic inequality. My background knowledge is that the evidence on the relationship between growth and inequality is mixed, and tends to follow a non-linear relationship (that is, the impact is negative in developing countries, but null or even positive in developing countries). That was the case in a pioneering article: Barro, R. J. (2000). Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries. Journal of economic growth, 5(1), 5-32.

See also this chapter in the recently published International Panel on Social Progress: https://www.ipsp.org/download/chapter-3-economic-inequality-social-progress

I was then very surprised to read the following:

Research suggests that greater inequality hinders economic growth, with land and human capital inequality reducing growth more than inequality of income.

I then went on to read the abstract, and saw that this is true ONLY for developing countries! The above statement should definitely be better qualified. I can take care of that.

I also think that the notions of fairness Vs. equality can be better explained.

In general terms, I would refrain from general statements when it comes to describing individual preferences. There is an incredible richness in behaviour, there are people who are truly egalitarians, others are libertarians, and others meritocratics. A recently published article estimantes the relative share of each type of preferences in the US and Norway:

Almås, I., Cappelen, A. W., & Tungodden, B. (2020). Cutthroat capitalism versus cuddly socialism: Are Americans more meritocratic and efficiency-seeking than Scandinavians?. Journal of Political Economy, 128(5), 1753-1788.

I could also contribute something on this topic.

Thanks, gianluca grimalda Gianluca.grimalda (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

More activist editing...
In the section on globalization, sourcing includes The Economist (a magazine) and a book written by an anthropologist.

Come on, guys. Can you be any more transparent? Support for trade liberalization has been a longstanding consensus among professional economists. They view it as a an overall benefit to the economy, and not a significant driver of income inequality.

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/fast-track-authority

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/import-duties

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tariffs

If editors can't find actual economists (not anthropologists) with research published in professional journals (not by magazines or "left-leaning" think tanks), I am deleting this section as well.Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You might want to find consensus before you go on some massive purge of the article. The Economist is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, as are books written by academics so long as proper attribution is provided, and the work is not self published.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The Economist absolutely isn't a proper source for an economics article. It's a magazine. I find can find articles in the same magazine that come out in favor of free trade,


 * https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/14/why-is-free-trade-good


 * and then we'll have dueling magazine articles. This is highly inappropriate.


 * Again, there is a clear economic consensus in favor of free trade, as I've demonstrated. The view you're promoting isn't only fringe, but it's sourced to a magazine and to the work of an anthropologist- which is the social science equivalent to citing a physicist's contrarian views on an article about biological evolution, and then claiming it's legitimate because an "academic" published it. Unfortunately, the anthropologist in question is a conspicuous amateur, who is talking about trade in zero-sum terms, which no economist does. The idea that outward investment (outsourcing and offshoring) is zero-sum (benefiting host economies over the home economy) has been discredited by just about every top economist who has expertise in this area.


 * Here's some research by recognized trade experts (published by a think tank, but vetted by professional economists for quality) which discredits the political myth that outsourcing "kills jobs"


 * If you can't find appropriate research, I'm deleting the section and I'll have every right to do so. Giving space to fringe views is in violation of Wiki policy, and so is your sourcing.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that those are poor sources and the statements supported by them should go. Better yet, if you have knowledge of where to find sources, could you replace that content with something like "Economists are clear that globalization is NOT a cause of IE" or "The losses of IE caused by globalization are more than overridden by the benefits of globalization" ?  That info (if true and sourced) would be great to have in this article, maybe under a heading "Factors determined NOT to cause IE", to show that the academic world has knowledge of something that many people may wrongly believe. --- Avatar317 (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The notion that globalization has played a role in increasing inequality is hardly fringe. Just a quick google search demonstrates that there are numerous reliable sources on this subject:


 * https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/06/23/theorist-eric-maskin-globalization-is-increasing-inequality


 * https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/the-new-globalisation-and-income-inequality/


 * https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-Global-Perspective-42986


 * https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-10/inequality-globalization-and-the-missteps-of-1990s-economics


 * https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-05-08/globalization-boosted-income-inequality-study-says


 * The sources cited above (and I'm sure I can find myriad others) confirm that this is far from a fringe view. And some are even in favor of globalization, but nevertheless acknowledge that it has played a role in rising inequality in numerous countries around the world, especially in the West. So no, the section does not violate fringe policy. If anything, the section should be updated, not deleted outright (especially without consensus given the sources are indeed considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards). And Jason Hickel has been described as an economic anthropologist by The Guardian, and much of his research pertains to economics and economic issues. So your constant belittling of this source as "the anthropologist" who is out of his field of expertise here is not accurate.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Avatar, the second statement is more accurate. No one is arguing that trade has no impact on wages or jobs. That's not what's important. What's important is that the costs borne by US workers from trade are minimal compared to the gains, which outweigh them by a factor of 100 to 1. In addition, the alternative to open trade is protectionism (trade barriers) which one, fails to bring back lost jobs; and two, kills existing jobs within the US. So the argument that trade is some type of driving force of wage inequality and unemployment is patently and provably false. When US companies engage in investment abroad, they do so in a way that compliments employment levels and wages at home.


 * Furthermore, there are far more sectors of the economy that benefit from trade than sectors impacted by it. This was recently outlined by over 1,000 economists who signed an open letter condemning the Trump administration's protectionist agenda.


 * So we have 1,100 economists stepping out in favor of free trade, and Griffin is still citing sources from "usnews" and referencing "The Guardian" while insisting his views aren't fringe. Is Griffin even aware that anti-trade liberalization was one of the principal causes of the Great Depression? Look it up, and then tell me that this is some kind of tornado in the path of US jobs.


 * In any event, it's hard to find research that explicitly says "trade is good, we support it", because this subject has been studied for over 200 years and economists no longer debate it. It's in league with trying to find a biologist publishing research that says "evolution is real". It's just beyond that level of scrutiny at this point.


 * Here's one source, though.


 * Here's another.


 * Here's another.


 * This section of the article is misleading readers into thinking this is some kind of debate among economists, and it isn't.Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess we can keep going around and around with this, but you seem to be missing the point entirely. The argument is not for or against "free trade", the argument is that globalization has increased inequality, and even those economists IN FAVOR of globalization concur with this assertion. The links above are notable sources, including the IMF, the World Bank, The World Economic Forum and renowned economists such as Paul Krugman. And I'm sure I could find plenty of others given the time. As another example, IMF economists again in 2016 pointed out that globalization has contributed to rising inequality: "Globalization's True Believers Are Having Second Thoughts". So your argument that linking globalization to inequality is "fringe" is complete BS, and you routinely obfuscate the issue by claiming that economists, all 1,100 of them apparently, are in favor of globalization. And, again, that's not the point of the section in question. So to reiterate, the section should not be deleted, but expanded with the sources I provided above, among others. Given the time I'll contribute to this endeavor myself. And last I checked, like The Economist, The Guardian and USNews are reliable sources for Wikipedia.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a clever strategy, I'll give you that. Trying to delink the near-unanimous professional support for trade from the issue of economic inequality. But you are still talking about trade in zero-sum terms, which suggests to me a failure to grasp how this stuff works. First allow me to make three points, that are established well in the literature, and then we'll talk about why and where your sourcing falls short.


 * i. As I mentioned multiple times, globalization is not a zero-sum game. When a US company (or UK, if that's where you're located) offshores some of its operations, it's a two-way street; foreign companies in the host nation will offshore operations in the US. And, more importantly, it's been proven in the literature (over and over) that foreign companies offer higher wages to workers than do domestic firms in the same country. This is true when a US (or UK) company moves its operations overseas into a developing country, or when foreign firms relocate to the US. (It's a myth that US firms offshore for "cheap" labor. Trade is based on comparative advantage, where firms look for the most "efficient" labor.)


 * All of this causes a bit of a shuffling in the workforce (which you appear to fixate on incessantly), but the net effect of offshoring is an increase in employment levels (both high-paying and low-paying jobs) and wages.


 * ii. The globalization of trade enhances economic growth and raises living standards for all countries involved in it.


 * iii. The benefits of trade not only outweigh the costs by many orders, but they are widely dispersed throughout the population, and slightly favor those in the lower economic strata. This last point alone is enough to discredit the views you've been trying to advance here.


 * I'll remind you again there's a consensus on these core issues. The Chicago School routinely takes representative samples of top tier economists and polls them on issues to determine where agreement exists. On the issue of trade and employment, the results are near-unanimous.


 * 96% of economists either "agree" or "strongly agree" that the benefits of trade completely override any employment effects. To put that in perspective, about 97% of climate scientists support man-made global warming, which is as robust a consensus as you're ever going to get in any science, particularly a social science. And this agreement has been longstanding among economists, dating over 200 years to the time of Ricardo. And, as any economics historian will tell you, none of the views you're trying to publish here are new, challenging, or credible. They are age-old criticisms of trade and globalization, and completely fringe at this point.


 * Which is why your sourcing relies on a mishmash of magazine articles, politicized think tanks, and appeals to the authority of Paul Krugman and a certain anthropologist who's been crowned an "economic anthropologist" by The Guardian. Well economics isn't settled on the authority of Paul Krugman or any other individual, nor is any other science or domain of scholarship. It's settled when hypotheses are tested, scrutinized and challenged, until a consensus emerges. And even if it were true that Hickel is an "economic anthropologist", he still doesn't have the requisite credentials to be opining on trade, especially when his views are contrarian. Economics is divided into multiple sub-specialties, so that you would not ask a labor economist a question more suitable for health economics, or a question about trade to a health economist or an "economic anthropologist".


 * Another thing you're doing, to thicken the air of credibility, is mixing these magazine articles and "think" pieces with outlier research from organizations like the IMF. Of course we could find climate science outliers, publishing legitimate research through legit outlets, but still representing minority opinion. Which means it should take me all of two mins. to find IMF research which completely discredits your reference.


 * Start the clock.


 * Here it is. (Cerdiero, Diego; Komaromi, Andras and Cerra, Valerie. "The Effect of Trade on Income and Inequality: A Cross-Sectional Approach." IMF (2017))


 * "The evidence suggests that, if anything, trade tends to reduce overall income
 * inequality. Panel (b) shows trade’s impact on the top-to-bottom income ratio for the available vintages of data. Point estimates suggest that one ::::::percentage-point higher openness causes the income of the top decile to decrease by about 4 percent relative to the income of the bottom decile of ::::::the income distribution. This estimated effect is significant across all vintages. Panels (c) and (d) show the estimated effect of trade openness on ::::::the market and net Gini coefficients, respectively. Again, almost all of the point estimates suggest an inequality-reducing effect of trade."


 * This accords with my summary of the literature, above mentioned. Trade slightly favors the lower economic strata, so that the net effect is a reduction of economic inequality, not an increase.


 * You can continue this if you'd like, but this stuff is going to keep pouring out. For every reference you find, I'm going to find 3,4,5 references that say the opposite. Which is why Wiki holds a high standard for primary research on academic articles such as this. What we want to find is a reliable secondary source that reviews the literature and states in explicit terms what the major opinion is. And I'll bet you a Christmas goose that any meta-analysis we find will support me.


 * I'm not going to delete anything yet. I came here to find consensus first, but I think we're at the point when other editors need to get involved. Globalization and trade have no significant negative effect on employment and inequality, and if anything they reduce unemployment and economic inequality in both developed and developing nations. This whole section either needs to be removed completely or moved to a new section that's themed on factors that politicians, pundits, and activists erroneously attribute to economic inequality. But of course this new section, if we start it, can't provide undue weight to fringe views, unless the purpose is to highlight the ways in which political activists manipulate research and data to advance an ideology.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for the specific claim that globalization reduces inequality in developed nations? EllenCT (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't make a "specific" claim. I made an extremely generalized claim that is (or should be) as uncontroversial as claiming "the Earth isn't flat" or "the sun doesn't revolve around it." Serious economists hardly use the word "globalization" in their research, because it's more of an umbrella term that encompasses economic integration and the flow of trade, investment, and technology across international borders. Searching for terms like "globalization" and "inequality" on G-scholar produces nothing but a bevy of nonsense from sociologists, health policy researchers, and anthropologists. If you want to know what economists think on the matter (which is what editors here should be striving for), you have to look for specific aspects of globalization that interest them, such as foreign direct investment (FDI).


 * This World Bank Group paper claims FDI is essential for the reduction of poverty.


 * The IMF paper (cited above) claims trade openness reduces income inequality.


 * Here's a paper published in the Global Economy Journal, which actually did use the word "globalization." They looked at 60 developed and developing countries and found a reduction in income inequality in all 60 countries on account of globalization..


 * Here's another one published by the World Bank Group which found poverty reductions most significant in developed countries, which are more integrated in the global economy.


 * Globalization has led to the sharpest reduction in global poverty in world history, no question about it. Anti-globalization propaganda tends to come from either far-right xenophobes or far-left "progressives" who have an anti-corporate bias. Among the latter there seems to be a folk belief that economic growth is something that benefits corporations, but may also lead to inequality at the same time. This goes well beyond the facts, which show that inequality is an obstacle to growth, and growth is essential for addressing inequality. It is growth that funds social services, welfare programs, and other policies aimed at the poor, and it is trade openness that reduces prices and increases purchasing power, which also disproportionately benefits the lower classes. That we're still arguing about this 80 odd years after The Great Depression is just astounding.Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Could the reason that the topic results in so much verbiage may have something to do is because people caught up in the tribalism of a unidimensional political spectrum instead of statistical reality honestly believe that progressives are more anti-corporate than they are anti-poverty in both the developed and developing world? I'm progressive, and I just spent the better part of the last 48 hours working on an encyclopedia article about a corporation that I didn't even know existed a month ago. EllenCT (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with being anti-poverty. The World Bank Group was established as an anti-poverty organization, but they're also pro-trade. Global corporations are not the source of poverty and inequality in the US. They employ over 20% of the labor force (they're the largest employers); they pay the highest wages; and they invest more money into communities than governments (local, state, federal), small businesses, nonprofits, and charities combined.


 * The argument that trade openness is a main, significant, important, whatever driver of economic inequality just doesn't hold water. If this were true, then we would expect to see massive levels of inequality in all open trading nations. But we don't. The Economy of Sweden, for instance, is completely trade-oriented, far more open than the US and UK, and the Swedes have some of the lowest levels of inequality in the world. Anti-trade arguments have long been associated with economic populism, and they've always been untenable.


 * If I have time tomorrow, I'm going to go on a source hunt and search for references that are much better than the ones offered thus far (including by me). I'll get back to you soon.Jonathan f1 (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, you should use the economist sources you have the knowledge and skill to find and make a statement summary of EACH one (yes, a meta-analysis would be best) and add them to the "Globalization" section we are discussing. That way you can prove to others that all the statements you have made in this conversation are valid.

The prevailing societal view may be more based on what people WANT to believe (policy-based evidence making) rather than true understanding. Here is a quote that may be very pertinent: --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I apologize for taking nearly a year to respond, but I honestly forgot I posted here (recent political debates returned me to this topic).


 * Indeed, economists have been "notoriously thorough" in convincing themselves of the benefits of free trade and "notoriously inept" at convincing the general public. And they know it, too. These arguments about wage competition, inequality, worker displacement etc etc in opposition to trade have been around since the 17th Century, when mercantilism was popular in Europe. Adam Smith not only dismantled mercantilism as a logically inconsistent doctrine, but correctly predicted that opposition to trade would never go away. He was right about that.


 * There is a serious disconnect between the way economists think about the economy and how politicians and the general public discuss it. Economics is not about "creating jobs", "protecting jobs", or anything to do with jobs, any more than biology is about building microscopes. Economics is about getting consumers what they want when they want it, at the lowest costs, in the most efficient way, within the limits of production (scarcity). That is, it's about creating wealth for a society under the constraint of limited or finite resources. Thus, wealth is more important than jobs. Thus, jobs are only useful insofar as they create wealth (just as microscopes are only useful insofar as they are a tool to help scientists study lifeforms). Thus, jobs must always shift from less prosperous to more prosperous activities.


 * Economists evaluate free trade agreements on two criteria: one, do they allow consumers to access more goods and services at cheaper costs?; and two, do they improve the productive efficiency of US firms? The answer to both is yes, every time. Trade liberalization delivers those benefits on an economy-wide scale which offsets the effects these policies have on employment. That needs to be made crystal clear in this article, as it is the prevailing view in the economics discipline.


 * I would suggest the following source for revision of the globalization section. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's my first talk and I am not sure how this works. I think this debate needs a lot of qualifications. (1) The impact of globalization may differ for rich and poor country. The basic theoretical model of trade would predict that when a rich and a poor country start trading with each other, the rich country will sell a good intensive in skilled labour, while the poor country will sell back a good intensive in unskilled labor. As a result, inequality will increase in the rich country and decrease in the poor country. (2) The economic system is complex, so one factor can't explain everything. I would say that the general wisdom is that, yes, trade tends to increase inequality (especially in developed countries), but technological change has had a larger role in increasing inequality. See for instance: { Van Reenen, John. "Wage inequality, technology and trade: 21st century evidence." Labour economics 18, no. 6 (2011): 730-741.} User:Gianluca Grimalda Gianluca.grimalda (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UnoDosTrey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead Section
The current lead section does not properly reflect the content of the article per MOS:LEAD. It even gives the misleading impression that inequality is decreasing worldwide while the opposite is true (as the rest of the article states correctly). Let's remember that The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.

I've tried to summarise in the last paragraph of the lead the sources contained in the article but it has been reverted (here by @Avatar317). All the content I've added is just a summary of what is contained in the rest of the article. The sources were already present. What is your issue with this new lead? You seem to think it's new content and that it is worse than the current one. Could you elaborate so that we can fix this together? Maybe we can shorten it a bit? Thanks &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it is not that simple: inequality is DECREASING BETWEEN countries while at the same time increasing WITHIN countries, such that there are more opportunities for people to become rich in what used to be "poor" countries like China and India, causing greater inequality within countries. That info is explained in the current lead as in the article.  In addition, global extreme poverty, which stood at 40% in 1990, has now (pre-COVID) been reduced to 10%, even with enormous population growth, so in fact, inequality has been decreasing, since most of the "extreme poor" have moved to the "middle income" category, which academic sources cover and the lead properly explains.
 * One problem is that from a simple minded (and POV way of looking at things, propagated by Oxfam) the fact that a few have lots of WEALTH (ignoring INCOME changes) while most have almost no WEALTH ignores the greater facts of this reduction of poverty, which IS documented in academic sources, but ignored by the liberal media who like to tell the liberal (and click-bait) slant to the situation, and (either because they don't understand economics, or don't WANT to understand economics) propagate the simple-minded myth that taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor will magically fix poverty, or that the existence of the ultra-rich are an example to be held up as a "moral" problem in societies, which is true in places like Russia (based on HOW they gained their wealth), but not everywhere.
 * You also added three POV statements, one published by an advocacy org (oxfam-see above) talking about the extreme example of the richest people (only WEALTH inequality), and the TWO statements you added sourced to the IMF are OPINION that this is a politically important issue. - Neither of these three statements is a summary of the article's greater content and therefore do not belong in the lead. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's try to avoid WP:OR and let's stick to reliable sources. This IMF page on inequality sums up things pretty nicely: Global inequality has fallen in the past three decades. However, in most countries—especially advanced economies—within-country inequality has increased. High inequality can be detrimental for macroeconomic stability and for sustained long-term growth. Policies can be designed to tackle inequality without negative repercussions for growth. source. We should probably also use this source: https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/Inequality/introduction-to-inequality Inequality is at the center stage of economic policy debate across the globe. A fair and equitable distribution of income is a fundamental element of the social contract. Macroeconomic policies (including government tax and spending policies) have significant effects on income distribution and that inequality can have adverse political and social consequences, with the potential to undermine macroeconomic stability and sustainable growth. Inequality is thus, without any surprise, an important issue for the IMF in all three of its core activities:. This is the official position of the IMF. How about we use them in the lead? -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 23:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How about you stop trying to insert NON-SUMMARIES into the lead just because you'd like it to say something you want. Wikipedia isn't here for you to publish what you want said; you can do that on Facebook, here we have policies for how articles should be written, and the lead is supposed to be a SUMMARY of the article. --- Avatar317 (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOSLEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. I don't think the current lead achieves this goal. The notability of this topic is not sufficiently established and the discussions/controversy surrounding this topic is not covered. Also I think it can be misleading: inequality has been rapidly decreasing is a false statement for example. Do you think the IMF's summary of this topic is reliable and accurate? If yes I will use it as a guide for our own lead and attempt another edit in the coming days. If you have other sources to recommend it would be helpful. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the IMF (a single source) accurately summarizes this article, and I think that almost all of the lead is good as it stands, but this sentence could be changed: "Since then, inequality has been rapidly decreasing, and this trend seems to be accelerating." which you are right, is the opposite of most sources, but we should be careful to differentiate between income and wealth inequality, and between vs. within countries, as most of the lead already does. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Made another attempt let me know. I think the IMF is a very important and reputable source for this article but I obviously agree it shouldn't be the only one. I've used it as a "structural" source in combination with what was already there to solidify the lead. The only changes in content are mostly related to the correction and clarification of the increasing/decresing national/global inequality situation. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow!! That's a MUCH BETTER lead change than your previous ones, THANK YOU!! It expresses the political debate well, and I now see what you meant by the "notability not being established".  Good edit!! --- Avatar317 (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it :-) &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Effects on growth in the US
You reverted my recent insertion pertaining to the effect of inequality on growth and recovery time in the US. Why do you believe it is WP:UNDUE? I note that you did not reply to my statement two weeks ago at Talk:Economics that I intended to add it here. Dan Ratan (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:UNDUE. You have been making various edits that are weakly-sourced, e.g. to working papers or self-published documents of the Economic Policy Group. and that do not reflect the broad center of mainstream thinking. Please consider this with respect to the various articles you've recently been editing. In general, editors will not show up to say they disagree with you. The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate affirmative agreement. When nobody comments, or few comment favorably, that means your suggestions have not garnered consensus for inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 12:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * my reading is that the UNDUE policy, and WP:NPOV generally, require that we relate at least two antithetical perspectives when there is more than one mainstream view. Where do you see reference to only including the "broad center" instead of multiple contrary views? I am also unable to find any policy stating that, as you suggest, more than a few comments in agreement are required to achieve consensus for inclusion. For example, WP:BRD states, "when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion...." I intend to do this after about another couple weeks, unless you think that's insufficient or can show how it's contrary to guidelines or policy. Dan Ratan (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are adding poorly sourced self-published content that is not mainstream and is poorly verified by the references you provide. You can go to various pages for help but I hope you will study all of our sourcing and content policies and guidelines for yourself first. Unfortunately I don't have the time to interact with you on fundamental policy. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't require us to present 'at least two antithetical perspectives' of an argument, that leads to WP:FALSEBALANCE. You should have better sources than think tanks that are designed to push a particular point of view. We need some indication that a view is wide spread enough to be worth talking about. If you're getting reverted, that in itself is evidence that you don't have consensus. While WP:BRD (an essay, not a policy) does envision bold attempts to garner a compromise, that must be balanced against repeating the same sort of edits. Waiting a couple of weeks to repeat the same edits that you know are disputed is still edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I will certainly not repeat the same edits. I will try to address all of the concerns raised that I can. The easiest way to do so would be to include the same measurement from other authors. It is not an uncommon measurement, and there are plenty of review articles in which other attempts at it can be found. Dan Ratan (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Labels: Global Wealth Inequality Chart
These seem to be be NPOV and inaccurate. e.g. the source mentions the growing Chinese middle class as being part of the "Poor" segment. Neutral labels would be more appropriate. The stratification is also not very useful here, as it is mainly from the view of a bank. The 55% "Miserable" might just not be an interesting segment for business. A large number of those people are still part of their country's middle class and definitely not "Miserable". 2A01:8B81:7005:6000:1D41:C944:9647:B14C (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Random Visitor

Wiki Education assignment: The Economics of Social Justice and Injustice
— Assignment last updated by Pitbulls004 (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)