Talk:Economy of the United States/Archive 4

Gini bias
Why is the Gini listed for USA pre tax, while the Gini listed on Wikipedia for Norway for example after tax transfers? Someone was ideologically biased or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.3.13 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably that isn't intentional... probably. Maybe Wikidata will make everything consistent some day. EllenCT (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Graph removal
There are different locations where these graphs are being discussed & disputed. It didn't make sense to have a debate on each article. Sorry I wasn't able to include all the links in the summary. File:US_high-income_effective_tax_rates.png is discussed here Talk:Taxation_in_the_United_States. Such a highly criticized, redacted, non-peer reviewed and partisan graph (created by an Obama campaign donor in the hight of election) is not a proper neutral graph for such a high level article. Since graphs are easy to manipulate, it made sense to remove such a graph until consensus is achieved for actually adding it or a new graph found. It seems many of these highly partisan graphs were inserted all over the place and no one really questioned their inclusion. Sorry if my edit caused disruption - I was just trying to work through the listed articles. Morphh  (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Obama campaign donor" remains a vindicated CRS staffer. Is there any actual evidence against the accuracy of the graph in question? EllenCT (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're well aware of the evidence. It's not a neutral graph and inappropriate for this article.   Morphh   (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I am; as I told you elsewhere, I followed the story for months and Hungerford was never anything but vindicated. Do you have any evidence at all that he wasn't, or that any doubts remain as to the accuracy of any of the material that he was lynched for? EllenCT (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Implications of inequality / Reversion of undiscussed, massive POV addition
I reverted Ellen's recent undiscussed edit, much of which has already been rejected on other articles for, among other things, POV slant. Not only was it totally one sided POV made up of a few leftist economists, think tanks, and Obama donors, but the opening paragraph was literally focused on recounting emotion ("worrying"). The Kenworthy graph she included was overwhelmingly rejected for misleading design flaws. Her edit summary indicates that she expects to be able to post a massive, undiscussed, knowingly contentious edit and have most or all of it stand while other editors have the burden of arguing against specific portions on the Talk Page before reverting, but that's clearly unreasonable, and instead of adding 5,500+ character wall of texts I'd advise her to argue for specific portions first on the Talk Page and try to build support for them. VictorD7 (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: I meant to add that her wealth comparison of "single black and Hispanic women in Oakland" with single white women was rejected here for being convoluted cherry-picking and poorly sourced by a low quality advocacy group. She also added this sentence: "Journalist David Kay Johnston wrote that the average increase in real income reported by the bottom 90 percent of earners in 2011, compared with 1966, if measured at one inch, would extend almost five miles for the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent". The "journalist('s)" visual analogy is also convoluted and far from encyclopedic. It's frivolous at best. VictorD7 (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that each specific portion should be discussed here. All of the text was composed from other articles, some of which where it has been controversial and some of which were it has stood for years uncontested. All of the statements are supported. Do you really object to describing the growing inequality in the US as "worrying", which is echoed by last year's economics Nobel Prize winner? The objections against the Kenworthy graph are trivial, and User:TheVirginiaHistorian is correct to place it side-by-side with the divergence between productivity and median incomes. Would you object to that juxtaposition if a different inequality graph was used? Do you have any other objections to the substance of the text? EllenCT (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I object to "worrying", because it's not our job to peddle emotion here. That segment is vague, ideological, and useless. There are certainly other points of view. I'm also not sure why you're so transfixed by the Nobel Prize. There have been Nobel Prize winners from across the political spectrum, including many from the libertarian leaning Chicago School like Eugene Fama and Lars Peter Hansen, who shared last year's three way prize with Shiller. The prizes are typically awarded for specific technical contributions, not political opinions, as illustrated by Fama and Shiller famously disagreeing on all sorts of issues (Hansen is more moderate).


 * The criticisms of the Kenworthy graph I linked to are devastating and fundamental. TVH's proposal (which didn't address the pertinent criticisms) wasn't accepted either. The short version is that focusing on the top 1% for the y axis skews the chart and almost entirely obscures very real income increases for the much broader (but still cherry-picked) segments shown below. It's a textbook example of a misleading, biased chart that one might study in a basic statistics class (in other words, how not to make a chart). I object to the productivity/median income chart to begin with since it's currently sourced to a low level leftist think tank (EPI), and based on what it calls its own original calculations of "unpublished" government data. I'm not sure if anyone has checked its verifiability. Regardless, assuming the facts are accurate, there's a legitimate question about how and whether to integrate such a chart into the article. The current chart was apparently added by itself without any textual mention of the productivity/income relationship, presumably as a sort of visual political talking point, though no coherent one has been articulated. Any political talking point emphasizing the divergence between productivity and income would be unsophisticated if not infantile if it didn't address the impact of technology and global competition, along with other factors. Taking that chart and further juxtaposing it with another chart, like one featuring "inequality", would be beyond the pale in terms of unwarranted soapboxing and POV pushing. I don't have room here to explain all the objections to a 5,550+ edit (look how long this post discussing a couple of issues is!), which is one reason why such edits generally aren't a good idea.  They come off as an attempt to throw a bunch of crap at the wall and see if they can get some of it to stick, if for no other reason than it gets overlooked. Indeed I suspect that if any of this material has been long standing on obscure articles somewhere, it's probably due to it being added unnoticed, or at least without a robust discussion.  Also, there was no need to "ping" me; that addition just resulted in an edit conflict. VictorD7 (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Clearly we will have to take this paragraph by paragraph: EllenCT (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Among economists and related experts, most agree that America's growing income inequality is "deeply worrying", unjust, a danger to democracy/social stability,  or a sign of national decline. Yale professor Robert Shiller, who was among three Americans who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2013, said after receiving the award, "The most important problem that we are facing now today, I think, is rising inequality in the United States and elsewhere in the world."


 * Decreased progressiveness in capital gains taxes were the largest contributor to the increase in overall income inequality in the US from 1996 to 2006. Journalist David Kay Johnston wrote that the average increase in real income reported by the bottom 90 percent of earners in 2011, compared with 1966, if measured at one inch, would extend almost five miles for the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent. Single black and Hispanic women in Oakland, California have a median wealth of $100 and $120 respectively, while the median for single white women is $41,500.


 * Inequality in land and income ownership is negatively correlated with subsequent economic growth. A strong demand for redistribution will occur in societies where a large section of the population does not have access to the productive resources of the economy. Rational voters must internalize such issues. High unemployment rates have a significant negative effect when interacting with increases in inequality. Increasing inequality harms growth in countries with high levels of urbanization. High and persistent unemployment also has a negative effect on subsequent long-run economic growth. Unemployment may seriously harm growth because it is a waste of resources, because it generates redistributive pressures and distortions, because it depreciates existing human capital and deters its accumulation, because it drives people to poverty, because it results in liquidity constraints that limit labor mobility, and because it erodes individual self-esteem and promotes social dislocation, unrest and conflict. Policies to control unemployment and reduce its inequality-associated effects can strengthen long-run growth.

So far we have objections to the word "worrying", the Kenworthy graph, the Johnston and Oakland measurements, and a claim that this absurd right-wing editorial should be included even though it conflicts with the peer reviewed conclusions. Anything else? EllenCT (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The editorial should be worked in, as a representation of that viewpoint. However, it should be presented as what it apparently is - a minority viewpoint among economists. The words "peer-reviewed" aren't a magic talisman and the Brookings Institution has a significant POV.
 * Victor, tossing around claims like "low-level leftist think tank" is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. The Economic Policy Institute is no more or less valid a source as Cato and Heritage - biased, right-wing think tanks. We present the research in an NPOV manner, weighted in accordance with its weight in the scientific and public arena. Disagreeing with EPI's conclusions is not reason or justification for removing their conclusions.
 * I have rewritten several of the sections, omitted others and excised the disputed graph. If there is a significant point of view that inequality isn't growing or isn't a significant problem, those POVs should be included in the section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * EPI is a low level leftist think tank, but I can tolerate it as a source if its info is verifiable or corroborated in some way, as the items I add from partisan sources (I use both conservative and liberal sources) are. Do you know of a corroborating source, or even have a rational justification for the giant graph being in a section that doesn't mention the word "productivity"? And no, this isn't an invitation to toss in a sentence on the topic as a flimsy ex post facto justification.


 * Regarding the new additions, how do you defend the "single" minority median wealth comparison in a single freaking town? Isn't that extremely cherry-picked and convoluted for an article on the national US economy? As I linked above, that proposal was laughed off of the United States page when Ellen proposed it. The source is an advocacy group that lobbies in favor of racial discrimination for minorities in finance law. It's so unnotable that it doesn't have a Wiki article. Can you even verify its numbers? Given how problematic wealth measurements can be anyway, why not replace the sentence with one providing a racial/ethnic income breakdown from a relatively neutral, reliable source like the US Census? Actually that's somewhat covered in a later section (underscoring the frivolity of adding the Oakland single minority woman wealth claim), though it doesn't list every group and could be expanded.


 * The section already covered inequality from a fairly factual standpoint, but the other new addition is a one sided list of vague editorial opinions on the topic. The section was somewhat slanted in focus to begin with but is now extremely soapboxed and POV. The first paragraph suddenly launches into the top 1%'s recent income shares, and every other paragraph in the intro (except for the brief one I restored on the ultra wealthy) continues the "inequality" drumbeat. Hungerford's claims require scrutiny (and probably at least in text citation) since he's an Obama donor whose past work has come under intense criticism. Frankly the intro should be shorter and less focused on inequality, but if it stays like this I and possibly others will obviously be adding extensive material for balance and comprehensive coverage of the political dispute, and the section will likely bloat up into a huge point/counterpoint zone. That's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be, but that's what happens when some have a misplaced determination to hijack the encyclopedia for use as a platform for political propagandizing. VictorD7 (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that he's "an Obama donor" is of no consequence. You need to stop asserting that every source whose conclusions you disagree with is somehow unacceptably biased.
 * Actually, yes, in matters of dispute, Wikipedia is supposed to be a "point/counterpoint" zone. That's the NPOV policy's essence. We report the notable points of view in proportion to their prominence in the public sphere. There is a highly-prominent point of view that income and wealth inequality is a major problem in American society. You cannot reject that point of view merely because you disagree with it. Nor may you remove that point of view because you think it's wrong. We are obligated to report that point of view, and we are obligated to report any significant opposing points of view.
 * Asserting that an editor with a left-wing point of view is "propagandizing" while yourself adhering to a strictly-right-wing point of view is an excellent example of the pot calling the kettle black. No one is surprised when a Heritage Foundation study contradicts a Progressive Policy Institute study, or vice versa. You cannot claim that right-wing sources are automatically correct and use them to override the conclusions of left-wing sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That he's an Obama donor is worth pointing out when his opinion is simply being cited in Wikipedia's voice. No, that the US left is currently on an "inequality" theme kick does not mean it should consume the entire Income section, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be a partisan battleground. Particular sections certainly aren't supposed to blow up to undue size because of a lack of big picture editing. It's as if you people never read encyclopedias growing up.  Since there are clearly plenty of other views (one of which I linked here) about income (and not just the inequality dispute), why is the (already long) section so one sided?  Why is it the responsibility of people who don't share your politics to come along and balance your mess? You could have edited in a neutral fashion to begin with, but failed to. I never said anything about right-wing sources being "automatically correct", and I'm not the one bent on stuffing articles with one sided talking points. Your last few sentences degenerate into irrationality. Adding counterpoints isn't my first choice, though you've made it necessary for the sake of neutrality.VictorD7 (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, your POV is blatantly obvious, so your claims that I'm not "editing in a neutral fashion" are hilarious because you aren't either. Pot, kettle, black.
 * Wikipedia articles are not limited by the length of articles in paper encyclopedias. They should not be excessively long, but they are not one-paragraph descriptions, either.
 * You're right, Wikipedia should not be a partisan battleground. So stop trying to delete, water down or neutralize descriptions of the left-wing point of view. Both left and right must be represented fairly. That is the essence of NPOV policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one stuffing the article with partisan talking points, though apparently now I have to add balance since you failed to edit in a NPOV fashion. You still haven't answered my question about specific inclusions below. Pretend a fellow left winger asked them. Demonstrate good faith by dealing with the substance, not the screenname. Why include a segment covering a single town when the article is about the entire country? VictorD7 (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you didn't answer my questions about how you defend the convoluted single minority woman in Oakland wealth comparison, or the productivity graph when the section text doesn't mention productivity. VictorD7 (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The best answer to VictorD7's questions is that he needs to follow source accuracy and reliability policies. The viewpoint of the secondary peer reviewed literature must always be included, in any subject which has peer reviewed literature reviews or meta-analyses. That is the policy. When any think tank, left, right, or center, disagrees with the peer reviewed secondary literature, that viewpoint must be excluded unless it is held by a large enough proportion of the population to be noteworthy, at individual editors' discretion, but it must always be described as diverging from the most accurate and reliable sources. Because I follow the policy and left wing think tanks agree with the secondary peer reviewed literature more often than right wing think tanks do, VictorD7 pointlessly wastes everyone's time trying to excuse his right-wing POV-pushing by accusing me of pushing a left-wing POV. Why the admins allow that behavior is beyond me. EllenCT (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer any of my questions about your Oakland inclusion or the productivity graph, neither of which were peer reviewed. Indeed none of the contentious material you added being discussed here was peer reviewed. Frankly, Ellen, you haven't demonstrated the competence to understand or speak with authority about the state of peer reviewed literature on any of these topics, or even Wiki policy for that matter (e.g. this boomeranged on you: ). In fact you've been repeatedly called out for tendentious, POV, low quality editing, and your proposals have been consistently shot down by strong, ideologically diverse consensus whenever examined by a sufficiently sized group (e.g. ; scroll down for the survey for clearer reading). You never could answer my challenge to support your claim about peer reviewed literature supposedly saying "half to three fourths" of the corporate incidence falls on "consumers" with a single sourced quote. You couldn't produce even one, despite you repeating these false charges on numerous different talk pages (just a few examples:;;,;) and even in the frivolous report to admin that blew up in your face. This is about NPOV anyway, not "peer review", and whether material (peer reviewed or not) is appropriate for a particular section/page. Since you've turned this section into a DNC Hillary in 2016 pamphlet, for some semblance of balance I'll develop an edit when I get a chance, hopefully within the next couple of weeks. Oh and I'm glad I didn't hold my breath waiting for you to support your claim or admit you were wrong, much less apologize for your false personal attacks. VictorD7 (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the IMF fudging the GDP PPP numbers?
I hate to ask a stupid question, I'm sure there really is a better explanation... but I notice that in 2012 the USA's real GDP (the "PPP") was 15.6 trillion US$, and is still listed as such. In 2013 it is 16.7 trillion, a 7% growth. However, the IMF also keeps GDP growth rate data, and suggests that the US grew at a rate of 1.7% for the year, not 7%. So the 2013 numbers should be aobut 15.86 trillion, not more than 16.7 trillion — the 1.7% was accurate through the first half of the year, which means the second half would have had to have been closer to 14% to average out to 7% overall. Obviously that is not the case, and the IMF data does show 16.7 trillion. So the question is, what is going on with the data? Did the USA grow by 7%, or is the PPP for the US dollar no longer equal to the GDP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.52.199 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the real GDP growth rate. The reported number for GDP also includes inflation. Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 16:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

GA nomination
I would like to make it to Good Article. Is anyone ready to nominate this article? I think it meets GA already. WHAT SAY YOU? 67.87.50.54 (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say so. There's a ton of sourcing and prose issues that need to be resolved. Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 16:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree but this is SECONDARY to a large extend (in my opinion). FACTS, content, stability, neutrality, structure are PRIMARY. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is quite far from GA status, both in terms of disorganized/poorly written content and outdated/broken sources. Please familiarize yourself with the GA criteria and with other Good articles. Also, I would suggest making a Wikipedia account if you plan on contributing to the improvement of articles. Cadiomals (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixing broken links and improving prose can be done in 1 day or less. This is not my concern when bringing this article to GA. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If by "one day or less", you mean "24 hours of continuous work", then possibly so. The entire "Income and wealth" section is just a rant about how horrible inequality is. I've tried to fix it up a little bit, but it's still a mess. And then there's the dead links and bare URLs, the outdated information, the poorly formatted company lists, and for some reason someone stuck the 2012 federal budget into the article. Additionally, the "History" section is greatly lacking and appears to stop in 2006. Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 17:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contribution, Zach. And yes I mean "24 hours of work":) Any more remarks about the general structure or accuracy? 67.87.50.54 (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE
Hello everyone! I will be the GOCE copyeditor for this article. Was/is there consensus to change the infoboxes' name o "Economy of the United States" instead of "Economy of the United States of America?" Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon!  03:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No consensus as I can recall. Cheers!

Productivity and income divergence graph
The qualifier needed to be added to the caption and the graph should be kept, mainly to do some myth debunking and to add some additional facts.Phmoreno (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Economic history section
The economic history section should be limited to no further back than the last quarter of the 20th century. Even that is not necessary because it is included in the Main: Economic history of the United States, which I am in the process of re-writing, although it is going to take some time to finish the post-depression era's technology and business section, which is entirely lacking.Phmoreno (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight -Income and wealth
This section is too long for what amounts to a separate topic. Any discussion of income inequality should say how this affects the economy to be included here.

Articles related to these topics are referenced.Phmoreno (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it's too long, and overly focused on income inequality. An even bigger problem was that it was entirely one sided until my recent additions, in violation of NPOV. At least now it roughly covers both broadly defined POV sides, though it's still skewed some toward emphasizing inequality factual claims as an implied problem (e.g. cherry-picking the 1970s as the start date for the top 1%'s share of income, a time when it was at its record low; misleading trough to peak fallacy designed for emotive impact that ignores the wild fluctuations since then),  as opposed to facts about other income/standard of living topics that might distract from or be inconvenient to that narrative.  Any reductions should preserve or enhance the section's neutrality, and not skew it worse. VictorD7 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the edit comment about refuting Piketty's claims, I haven't read Piketty but have read some accounts of the inaccuracies. But the question I have is how does Piketty, or anybody else, tie inequality to the economy? Without some sort of explanation of how this is related to the economy, this much space is not justified.  Existing separate articles are the place for that.  And trimming down content needs to be done in a balanced matter, with the focus on "how is this related to the economy?"Phmoreno (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Incomes without increased inequality since 1979
Figure B on is an interesting graph showing how much incomes would have risen in the 20th-80th percentiles if income inequality had not increased since 1979, compared to how much they actually did. How do other editors feel about including a sentence summarizing that? EllenCT (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we can include the graph, but I'm not sure we can fully attribute the lower than projected growth to income inequality. The reasons for lower income growth rates among the 20th to 80th is multifaceted, including off-shoring of work, computerization, and automation.Mattnad (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Income inequality is not a main characteristic of the US economy. There is another main article that covers that. Also I never hear any mention of the deterioration of the competitiveness of US labor in the world market, which is an important reason their wages are stagnating.  It's not because the high end is making more.Phmoreno (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Real wages have been stagnant since the introduction of the 16-bit microprocessor in 1973. What is your source that deteriorating competitiveness has anything to do with it? Why would productivity due to automation continue to increase in the US if competitiveness was deteriorating? EllenCT (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose including the graph. On a broad summary article like this we should generally avoid POV arguments in visual form from partisan think tanks, particularly when they're entirely speculative. A visual gives elevated prominence and typically implied authority that such a talking point doesn't merit. As for a text sentence, I'd oppose that on the grounds that the article already has too much info, fact and opinion, on inequality, creating a major UNDUE coverage skew.VictorD7 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Healthcare bankruptcy segment.
I removed the healthcare bankruptcy segment because the source doesn't mention the word "bankruptcy" in any variation, the numbers cited in the segment refer to ratios of medical spending to a certain subset of assets (not bankruptcy, which is a legal designation), and the source covered the last five years of life for those over 70, not "all senior citizens" as the segment claimed. My deletion was reverted by EllenCT, who insisted that "the source most certainly does mention bankruptcy, and applies to all senior citizens". After a double check of the source (full text) confirmed my initial findings, I reverted.VictorD7 (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the statistic quoted was from which explicitly measured bankruptcies due to medical expenses. I thought it was recently updated, too. Here: "we conservatively estimated medical bankruptcy rates to be 57.1% (versus the authors’ 62.1%) of US bankruptcies." (March 26, 2014) where "the authors'" was this 2009 study of 2007 (pre-recession) bankruptcies. EllenCT (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course since Woolhandler/Himmler are well known activists, any specific, one sided claims of fact we source to them should be attributed in the text to PNHP, but one problem I see right away that should arguably preclude us from including their two studies at all is that they appear to be counting any bankruptcy where a medical cause is merely listed as one of the contributing factors as a "medical bankruptcy". Worse, they include illness, injury, death, birth, drug or alcohol addiction, and even gambling as "medical causes", rather than just medical spending per se. Clearly all those things can contribute to bankruptcy even if medical treatment was provided for free, particularly through lost income or increased non medical expenses. Their 2009 study tweaked the criteria a bit from their 2001 version, tightening in some ways but expanding it in others, but it still included any mention of illness or injury as a "medical bankruptcy", without proving that medical spending contributed, much less was the primary cause of, the bankruptcy. The bottom line is that the studies are such reaches that any inclusion would have to be chock full of caveats and detailed explanations that would consume a large quanitity of space and render its value to readers dubious.VictorD7 (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article about the American myth.
Interesting article about the American myth.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/news/economy/america-economic-mobility/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Median wealth for single women by race segment needs verification.
In the 2010 SCF source (article and charts) supplied by EllenCT I haven't been able to find the data cited by the minority advocacy group Insight, or even any mention of "black" apart from one sentence saying "African American" families' median net wealth was $15,500. I also checked the 2007 version Insight actually cites to no avail. It would be helpful if EllenCT or someone else could provide more specific directions. If the data isn't in the SCF source then we definitely need to attribute it to Insight in the text, especially since it's an advocacy group. Or, better, we could replace the segment entirely with a Census income breakdown by race, since "wealth" estimates are notoriously difficult and vary wildly by source and methodology. Income figures are more easily defined, more easily measured, and more frequently published. Income results are also less obscured by debt accumulation due to irresponsible spending or housing market fluctuations, and are generally considered more stable and meaningful in economic analyses. I also question the appropriateness of only covering women, much less only single women. VictorD7 (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You have download the data tables to get the numbers. They are coded several levels deep, and the coding is difficult to interpret, and you have to get the nonfinancial asset breakdown to the vehicle category to do what they did. It takes some work with but it can be verified. I do understand the astonishment and sympathize with what sure seems like extraordinary claims because of the huge disparities, so I am willing to help if you need assistance with the coding. The 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances should be published any day now. EllenCT (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No astonishment, and if I was inclined to spend time downloading a bunch of massive files and trudging through primary data I'm sure I'd understand it fine. My concern is that since the SCF doesn't directly make these claims, independent calculation apparently being required, we should attribute them to the source that actually performed the calculations. Regardless, at the very least we should link to the correct SCF survey. The Insight source cited 2007, not 2010. VictorD7 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2013 SCF is out. I haven't looked at the spreadsheets yet, except to see that they seem to be much more accessible than the previous data formats. We should probably try to get the equivalent stats from there for the trend since 2007, if they still break out non-financial assets into vehicles. EllenCT (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Updated GDP PPP figures from the World Bank and the IMF
Someone needs to update the article with the USA as the world's 2nd largest economy in PPP terms

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623758-chinas-back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.249.171 (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The World Fact Book says:

USA: 16.72 trillion China: 13.39 trillion

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

page needs updating
This page needs updating. Latest information shows that the US economy has now seen the longest stretch of job creation since at least World War II. Section needs to look at this, and then compare and contrast reasons for slow pickup in wages and voter discontent with the economy.


 * I agree it should be updated, but it needs more nuance. While the nominal unemployment rate has improved, job openings have recovered but hirings are still half a million per year, or 10%, below 2006 levels, the real issue is low aggregate demand from median net worth lower than it was in 1989 and 10% less than Greeks' and a third of France's. EllenCT (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Finance industry is shrinking the economy $0.60 per dollar

 * "In 2012, economists at the International Monetary Fund analyzed data across years and countries and concluded that in some countries, including America, the financial sector had grown so large that it was slowing economic growth. Using a different methodology, the most prominent researcher on the size and economic value of Wall Street, a New York University economist named Thomas Philippon, estimates that the United States is sinking nearly $300 billion too much annually into finance. In perhaps the starkest illustration, economists from Harvard University and the University of Chicago wrote in a recent paper that every dollar a worker earns in a research field spills over to make the economy $5 better off. Every dollar a similar worker earns in finance comes with a drain, making the economy 60 cents worse off.... America’s financial system has grown much larger than it should have, based on how well the industry performs.... the industry still makes up just under 8 percent of the economy, two percentage points above what Philippon calls the optimal size of the sector, given its performance. It’s still adding workers." --

Given that there is corroboration from three high-quality studies, it seems like something ought to be said about that. EllenCT (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Added. EllenCT (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall tax incidence
Are there any objections to including the overall incidence of taxation shown at ? That includes federal, state, and local per. EllenCT (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Over half of public school students qualify for free lunches
A majority of U.S. public school students come from families which make so little money they are entitled to free lunch, for the first time in over 50 years. EllenCT (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Further and further off topic.Phmoreno (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it doesn't reflect on the economy as a whole? EllenCT (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Dramatic increase in labor market participation by poor while everyone else's declines
Please see Figure 1 on PDF Page 8 (marked as p. 2) here. The top 10% of income earners have declined from about 83% working in the late 1990s to 80%. Everyone in the top 75% has had similar declines, although those in the 50-75th percentile have fallen from 75% to 68% labor force participation. Meanwhile, those in the 10th to 25th percentiles have remained roughly constant at about 43%.

But while those in the lower 10% worked at about 35% employed from 1996 through 2005, since then they have shot up to about 45% participation. How can this be adequately summarized? EllenCT (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Consumer spending by wealthiest 5% increased from 23% in 1992 to 30% in 2012
The spending rebound following the recession “appears to be largely driven by the consumption at the top,” Mr. Cynamon said. He and Mr. Fazzari found the wealthiest 5% of U.S. households accounted for around 30% of consumer spending in 2012, up from 23% in 1992. EllenCT (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2015
Please, change 1st (PPP) with 2nd (PPP) because according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) for 2014 China is the biggest economy by PPP in the world.

Krull The Eternal (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather wait until a majority (2/3) put China higher. Right now a majority put the US higher. Stickee (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And I just noticed, the 2014 are still estimates per the IMF website. Stickee (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia economics project
The goal of this project is create a network of Wikipedia articles focused on economic statistics in a standardized, easy to understand format. All 196 countries will have their own article along with every region and city in the world.

Format for every country:

1.	Regions by GDP

2.	Top 10 cities by population

3.	GDP by industry

4.	Top 10 corporations by revenue

5.	Employment by sector

6.	Consumers

7.	Fiscal budget

8.	Central bank balance sheet

9.	Top 10 financial institutions by assets

10.	International trade

Format for every region:

1.	Top 10 cities by population

2.	GDP by industry

3.	Top 10 corporations by revenue

4.	Employment by sector

5.	Consumers

6.	Fiscal budget

7.	Top 10 financial Institutions by assets

Format for every city:

1.	GDP by industry

2.	Top 10 corporations by revenue

3.	Employment by sector

4.	Consumers

5.	Fiscal budget

6.	Top 10 financial institutions by assets

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015
Please change Unemployment 5.5% ( February 2015) to Unemployment 5.4% ( April 2015). Source: United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

178.17.117.169 (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 19:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done It was not difficult at all to find a reliable source to confirm this change. In fact, it was the exact same reference we used for the February 2015&mdash;the BLS simply updated the same table with this month's stats. Altamel (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2015
178.17.117.169 (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

US Healthcare section
There are appears to be a couple paragraphs here which seem to have been written by someone trying to stress positive aspects of US healthcare performance. This section needs to be critically examined and reworked for NPOV.

As an example of this, looking at the paragraph starting "A comprehensive 2007 study by European doctors found the five-year". This paragraph pretty blatantly misrepresents the primary Lancet source, and uses the Daily Telegraph, a politcly biased source, for interpretation of the study.

This section needs a complete overhaul. I'm tagging it now, and will try to get back to it later. NickCT (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Economy of the United States. 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:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.econlib.org/library/Buchanan/buchCv8Contents.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120412213201/http://www.sba.gov:80/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf to http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150709203753/http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=255&Itemid=103 to http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=255&Itemid=103
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121111024839/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=&sid=aV04.D.whRXc&refer=us to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=&sid=aV04.D.whRXc&refer=us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Many External Links do not meet WP:EL and should be removed. Cheers. 69.125.116.243 (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

propaganda
This article is a terrible propaganda, for the writers - look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union and become more humble perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.73.15.67 (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I count 358 sources for this article versus 30 for the EU article. And this one is better written. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Social problems of the United States still redirects to this page, though. I'm not sure why it redirects here. Jarble (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like a bot got confused, possibly by a move or section rename somewhere along the line. The redirect should probably be reset to where you had put it, the U.S. section of the Social issue article (which I really don't understand why it was never broken out to a separate article, BTW). A similarly named redirect ("issues" instead of "problems") already points there. 2600:1006:B162:C00C:DDF:6999:A965:B6F6 (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"poverty or low income"
This is a good edit, for at least three reasons. First, these numbers are from 2011 so they're way outdated. We should have more up to date data in there. Second, 2011 is the bottom of the recession, more or less, so it's not surprising that these numbers are high. You pick a different year you get different results. Third, the source is essentially an op-ed piece that engages in some statistical shadiness. As pointed out here the reason why supposedly half the population is "in poverty or low income" is because being "in poverty or low income" is defined as roughly being ... below the median income. Since *by definition* half the population is below the median, you get that half the population is "in poverty or low income". Which means that it's not actually a useful statistics - it just tells you that everyone who has below median income has... below median income.

There are scholarly sources on this out there. Including more up to date ones. Let's use those rather than this nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Unemployment section, possible additional/current information.
There multiple components that have contributed to the state in which our economy is in now. Such as our economies failed attempts at recovery from our most recent recession, as well as the instability of our labor market. Now if we look at the unemployment/underemployment statistics, underemployment reached its peak in September 2010 of 9.25 million people, then recent research marked it down as 6.65 million as of May 2015. Unemployment reached its peak of 15.35 million in October 2009 and as of May 2015 has been brought down to 8.67 million. Now these numbers do show marked improvement, however, since the last recession neither maximum points have been brought down to half that point. This is the current challenge to our labor market, and shows that we have yet a long road to reach economic recovery. Now not to say that our economy has not been improving, our economy just does not seem to be improving fast enough. According to a recent report released by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics “Over the last year, states saw moderate gains in employment and declines in the unemployment rate which, coupled with a growing labor force, indicate genuine labor market improvements—improvements that must continue in order to achieve full employment.” Now according to this article, the cited report indicated only 42 states and the District of Columbia did show marked improvement in their job market by adding job availability. Not only was there marked improvement in job availability but the number of those unemployed also fell and showed improvement however, the number of states that did was only 29. Of course out of these numbers some states did not improve as well if at all and some even declined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.173.160 (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)