Talk:Income inequality in the United States/Archive 1

Gini index picture
The picture is outdated. I don't know how to change it, but I have a more recent image showing the Gini index to 2007 from the same source. http://en-us.nielsen.com/etc/medialib/nielsen_dotcom/en_us/images/pictures/consumer_insight/issue_13.Par.81771.Image.451.398.1.gif Camlon1 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be good to have the new data, however that graph is copyrighted and we can't use it. We can make our own graph, but we need the source numbers. Can you find them? Ariel. (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, here they have all of the data from 1967 to 2008. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/IE-1.pdf Camlon1 (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro
The intro needs to be fixed, it contains many grammatical ambiguities, especially near the end. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll proof read it. Sometimes, I get too caught up in the outline. Thanks for the heads up and putting some effort into copyediting this article! As I've said, I'll proof read it tomorrow morining once more. Regards,  Signature brendel  06:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That was quick! Examples:


 * In addition to expertise, productiveness, work experience, inheritance, gender, race had a strong influence on personal income[20][21] while household income was largely effected by the number of income earners.[12]
 * It is not clear *what* of the many things mentioned "had a strong influence on personal income."
 * While income rose among for all demographics and gender as well as race gaps were closing,[22][1] inequality has increased with those at the very top of the economic strata have been receiving an increasing share.[17]
 * Did you mean "While income rose among all demographic groups, and gender and race gaps were closing, inequality has increased as a result of those at the very top of the economic strata increasing their share."

☆ CieloEstrellado 07:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll fix the first when I get back to editing in a couple of hours. As for the second, yes, that's what I meant! Thanks,  Signature brendel  23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

History
It seems the article mainly focuses on the last couple of decades, but the United States has existed for over two centuries. Is there any plan to extend the focus backwards in time to address this deficiency? Biruitorul 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is - though there is little data. The Census Bureau didn't start keeping data until a couple of decades ago. Before 1900 (1950 actually) - it's total guess work. I'll will try and find some early estimates but most of the article is going to deal with the last couple of decades for which we have a lot of data and on which most economists concentrate. In other words, there just isn't much data -reliable data- before the 1950s- so there isn't much we can say - I'll, however, try and find whatever relaible data I can find. Regards,  Signature brendel  05:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

GA passed
I have reviewed this article under the GA criteria and I can say it has passed per the "referencing" "accuracy" and text quality. If you feel I have made a mistake in my decisions please contact me. Francisco Tevez 10:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Italic text

article name is biased
i believe the name of the article to be biased because it assumes that income is not distributed evenly. the name of the article should be "Income equlaity" and then it should discuss whether or not it is equal. i believe that everyone gets as much money as they deserve, so in my mind it is equal. those who believe that it's not equal use the argument that not all people make the same amount of money. i believe this argument is rediclious because in no society is there total equality on that basis. Please consider and discuss, thank you: (209.7.171.66 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Income inequality is, however, the term used by economists. If you beleive that the term shouldn't be used, you will need to convince this nation's economists of that first. Once you convince the social scientific community that they should no longer use the term "Income Inequality" I will gladly change the title. BTW: Most economists would agree that people deserve differing amounnts of money, but almost none would agree that "everyone gets as much money as they deserve" in the current market. But that is irrelevant here, the term used by economists is inequality, so that will be the term used on Wikipedia as well. Regards,  Signature brendel  04:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Brendel. When economists use the term "income inequality", they are not making a prescriptive moral or ethical judgment that some members of society receive too little while others receive too much. "Income inequality" is a descriptive term that encapsulates the idea that everyone does not earn the same income. Morals and ethics follow. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is biased and is very strongly slanted towards redistribution of wealth. From personal experience, many economists do NOT support redistribution of wealth because it strongly negates the very fundamentals of a market based economy and the society with redistribution of wealth end up very strongly resembling communist or fuedalist societies. In those societies there are no need for economists, just accountants and auditors to ensure distributions of rations. This article should be very much considered to be cut and paste to the article on marxism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.91.113 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "US Census Bureau. (2006). Personal income distribution for Black males, age 25+ according to educational attainment." :

dispute tag on Race and gender disparities
There was a tag on the "Race and gender disparities" section. I removed it just because there's no explanation her on the talk page about what's disputed. C RETOG 8(t/c) 06:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparent discrepancy
There is a apparent discrepancy between the Census Bureau and CIA figures. Both show about the same 15:1 ratio between top and bottom, but for very different top and bottom percentages of the population. Should this be explained in the article?

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2007 Share of aggregate income received by households: Lowest 20%  3.4 Highest 20% 49.7 Ratio:      14.62

Source: CIA Fact Book 2007 Household income or consumption by percentage share: Lowest 10%:  2.0 Highest 10%: 30.0 Ratio:       15.0 172.162.7.205 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Role of Labor Unions
The article currently contains this unsourced and illogical statement: "In the early half of the 20th century, both the border closure movement and high school movement taking place in the United States shifted out the supply of skilled work." What is this all about? Surely the labor union movement had more impact on keeping unskilled wages on pace with skilled wages and yet there is no mention at all about the role of unions. Skates61 (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

More Recent Data Needed
This article is in dire need of more recent data. Wealth distribution has shifted substantially since 2003, even since 2008. Use the best source and consider it provisional until the census bureau data is in, if need be. But 8 year old data is not helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skates61 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Statistical Variations" Analysis Error
In the "Statistical Variations" section, it states that different methods must have been used if the CIA Factbook and Census Bureau compare different percentiles and yield the same ratios. This would only be true if the percentages of total income were the same, and they are not. This is obviously a lapse in analysis, but I am unsure as to how to correct it; I don't know if it should just be deleted, or if there is information there that should be preserved elsewhere in the article. Suggestions?Luminite2 (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Added paragraph on county data
I added a paragraph on the research which found the growth of income inequality to be caused almost entirely by growing wealth in a few counties of Silicon Valley and New York. I think it'd be great to get more fine-grained data like this, e.g. on which professions contributed most to the income growth.--Babank (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Real Causes" section appears to violate Neutral Point of View
The very title of the subsection insinuates a factual status not evident in the text and directly contradicts the first statement made in the "Causes" section as a whole. In addition, many of the attributions made in the subsection, such as the claim that the wealth gap "is attributed to the large increase of single parent households", are unsourced and appear influenced by political viewpoints. I have taken the liberty of removing such statements and intend to review their origin in light of the original text at a later date.

K. S. Varanid (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The entire article is written as if the author has an objective viewpoint, however, when you look into some the data that is cited, you will see that it is inherently biased. (e.g. the 2004 poll of 1,000 economists from the AEA fails to mention that the respondent base is substantially skewed in its political leanings).

-JJ0074 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj0074 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why identify conseravatives?
This article lost me at the beginning of the second paragraph, when it cites "other, mostly conservative social scientists...". Why didn't the author see the need to identify the political leanings of the other social scientists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.202.235 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A minority of social scientists
According to the polls cited in the second paragraph, a majority, not minority, of social scientists believe that income inequality currently poses a problem for American society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nursebhayes (talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph cites= http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/11/07/alan_greenspan_egalitarian.php and http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/Speeches/1998/19980828.htm


 * Neither of them mention the statement about social scientists. The listing needs to be moved and fixed. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the sentence probably should just be removed. We don't know if it's a minority or majority, it's a quote by Alan Greenspan, apparently, but saying "Alan Greenspan thinks" seems wrong in the lead. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

✅

Graph of ratio to median income should not be a log scale it should be linear.
It washes out the extremity of the change and misleads viewers into think thing that the disparity is much less than it is. People don't naturally think in logarithmic scales. I don't think formatting considerations are sufficient to excuse a misleading graph. I also think this graph is vital and potentially the most informative. I will redo it if someone can direct me to the data tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalchik (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, now found the data in the graph. I am working on it. Sorry for being stupid. Michalchik (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Quintile versus Nth %
I'm finding it rather hard to delineate two different kinds of data that the article passes back and fourth between with little indication.

Firstly, there is a common way of referring to the first, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and top quintile, meaning the ground from N% to (N+20)%. One thing that I think is not sufficiently mentioned is that we are typically talking about averages representing these groups.

This gets confusing when we look at other graphs that represent the Nth percentile. That is, the median is the 50% percentile, and there are others like the 20th, 70%, whatever. But these are not averages. They are very different from averages, and merely representative of a hypothetical individual that lies on a borderline between certain percentages of the population. This is kind of hard to pick out. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What about footnotes?
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/ftnotes.html

The census bureau data collecting methodology has changed approx. every second year. Why do we even *consider* to use that data? Did anyone ever check the effects on the data?

I think we should mark the content of this article highly unreliable unless there is some proper work on the validity of the data referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.164.58 (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Some charts now out of date
Several of the charts used in this article date back to 2005 or earlier. Given the crash and recession, these charts need to be updated using 2010 U.S. Census data or the equivalent. Hythlae (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

some problems
1) WP:OR in the article.

Here's a paragraph explaining why inequality is no big deal:

According to Sowell, about half of all those in the lowest quintile will move into a higher income bracket, but Krugman fails to compare Census data with Internal Revenue Service data, thus committing the ecological fallacy that Sowell himself has so often condemned: most income data, including the US Census, track abstract categories such as income brackets and households while IRS data track specific individuals

Sowell does not mention Krugman in the article. Will have to delete this. --BoogaLouie (talk)

More OR:

''At a structural level, a basic cause of household income inequality is differences in "hours worked per household (per year)", which may be decomposed as
 * number of workers × weeks worked per year × hours worked per week.

As the chart at right demonstrates, this is a significant factor in lower income households (all of these factors rising significantly from the 1st to the 4th quintiles), a relatively minor factor in upper-income households (4th and 5th quintile), and having little effect on the highest earning 5% of Americans.

''Other factors that influence income inequality include rates of income per hour, income from capital gains, and unearned income. The level of educational attainment has a strong influence on some of these factors.

''At a statistical level, income inequality has grown due to gains of higher-income (above median) households relative to the median, rather than losses of lower income households relative to the median, which has been occurring roughly linearly (on a log scale) since the 1960s, as indicated in chart at top. Income inequality has grown particularly due to increased concentration of income in top earners (top 1%, .1%, 0.01%) since the mid-1980s.

''All societies feature some income inequality as the positions people hold in these societies vary in responsibility, importance and complexity. In order to provide sufficient incentive for a wide variety of occupations to be filled with motivated incumbents societies need to provide a variety of rewards. Income is among the perhaps most prominent forms of compensation. Since abundant supply decreases market value, the possession of scarce skills considerably increases income. Among the American lower class, the most common source of income was not occupation, but government welfare.

''As expected, households in the upper quintiles are generally home to more, better educated and employed working income earners, than those in lower quintiles. Among those in the upper quintile, 62% of householders were college graduates, 80% worked full-time and 76% of households had two or more income earners, compared to the national percentages of 27%, 58% and 42%, respectively. Upper-most sphere US Census Bureau data indicated that occupational achievement and the possession of scarce skills correlates with higher income.

Really bad. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

2) econ 101 off topic

A large, not-very-readable discourse on progressivity of taxation

''The rate at which income is taxed coupled with the progressivity of the tax system. A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases. In a progressive tax system, the level of the top tax rate will have a direct impact on the level of inequality within a society, either increasing it or decreasing it. Additionally, a steeper progressivity results in an even more equal distribution of income across the board. The difference between the Gini index for an income distribution before taxation and the Gini index after taxation is an indicator for the effects of such taxation. Overall income tax rates in the United States are below the OECD average. ''

This is an article on income inequality in the US, not how progressive tax is defined. I attempted to rewrite the section but Somedifferentstuff reverted it. Sorry Somedifferentstuff, I'm changing it back. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

some changes
Have changed the Causes section. Some of the causes aren't really part of the discussion of the post-1979 increase in inequality, so I divided the causes section into Recent_increase and Inequality in general. Obviously inequality in general belongs in an article about inequality rather than in one about inequality in America, but this change is less drastic than deleting those turgid subsections. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As part of my attempt at a massive overhaul of the article I'm making the Recent_increase subsection an overview subsection of the Causes section --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Have changed it back again. Much of the text in the article doesn't make sense unless divided into cause of inequality in general and cause of recent increase. .... The problem is that some of the text doesn't seem to make much sense either way. --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource, book review
Winner-Take-All Politics (book) book review: Why the Rich Are Getting Richer; American Politics and the Second Gilded Age by Robert C. Lieberman (Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs at Columbia University) in Foreign Affairs January/February 2011; excerpt ... See Wealth inequality in the United States, Great Depression in the United States, Gilded Age, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ... 99.181.138.52 (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Resource
Potential resource, from Talk:We are the 99% ...

Couple of the many internal links ...
 * Among the Wealthiest One Percent, Many Variations by Shaila Dewan and Robert Gebeloff published NYT January 14, 2012 (frontpage of 15th).
 * http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html?ref=business What Percent Are You?
 * http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2012/0115-one-percent-occupations/index.html?ref=business The Top 1 Percent: What Jobs Do They Have? January 15, 2012 by Jeremy White, Robert Gebeloff, Ford Fessenden and Shan Carter; Source: IPUMS

Excerpt (compared with Income inequality Wealth inequality in the United States much higher), ... 99.181.142.231 (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scf_2007.htm

Noah series The United States of Inequality
I want to note that I have cited this series of Slate articles (the_united_states_of_inequality by Tim Noah) a great deal in the article because it matches the subject of this section (Post-1980_rise_in_inequality) so well. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

redoing lead
Am going to redo lead per Manual of Style/Lead section

Specifically going to follow this: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.[2] However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." from here --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead has this sentence: "Data from the US Department of Commerce, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality among households has been increasing significantly ...." GOing to trim it as growth in inequality is a generally accepted fact. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Figures in Washington Post/Top Income Database
Very informative figures in the Washington Post/Top Income Database and the World Top Income Database for the US.


 * Income Level |	 number of people	| aver. income | overall change 1970-2008
 * Top 0.1% 	 |	152,000 	  | $5.6 million 	   | +385% |
 * Top 0.1-0.5%   |     610,000 	  | $878,139 |	+141%
 * Top 0.5-1% 	 |	762,000 	  | $443,102 |	+90%
 * Top 1-5% 	 |	6.0 million | $211,476 |	+59%
 * Top 5-10% 	 |	7.6 million |	$127,184 |	+38%
 * Bottom 90% 	 |	137.2 million |	$31,244 |	-1%

Washington Post, Not spreading the wealth. -77.180.171.41 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

False information
The article falsely claims that inequality "is highest and has grown the fastest in the United States." It should be "one of the highest". Just by looking at the OECD statistics that were cited after the sentence:
 * Before taxes and transfers:
 * For total population: Italy, Chile, Portugal, United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, Mexico have higher Gini value.
 * For working-age population: Chile, Mexico, Italy, Israel, Turkey, Portugal, UK have higher Gini value.
 * For retirement-age population: 21 countries have higher Gini value.
 * After taxes and transfers:
 * For total population: Chile, Mexico, Turkey have higher Gini value.
 * For working-age population: Chile, Mexico, Turkey have higher Gini value.
 * For retirement-age population: Mexico, Chile, South Korea, Turkey, Israel have higher Gini value.

Between 1985 and 2008 the OECD-24 countries with the fastest-rising Gini coefficients were Sweden, New Zealand, Finland, Israel, Germany, and Luxembourg. --Barco9 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not false. The full sentence reads While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest and has grown the fastest in the United States. The clear implication is the statement refers to developed countries, not all countries. As for income before taxes and transfers inequality, retirement-age population, working-age population .... The article is about income inequality, not income before taxes and transfers inequality, not retirement-age population, not working-age population, not etc. Chile, Mexico and Turkey are in the OECD but are not developed/high income economies. Your edits are going to a RfC --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * According to your source the statement has grown the fastest in the United States is not true. I intend to go over the disputed edits and make corrections. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hispanic Americans
Why the introduction says "Inequality between male and female workers in the US has decreased considerably over the last several decades[1], inequality between black and white Americans has stagnated during that time". Why these two are chosen when the largest difference is between Asian/White Americans and Hispanic Americans? --Barco9 (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there has been a lot of interest in narrowing that gap, the legacy of slavery. You may have heard of the civil rights movement,  Martin Luther King and stuff like that.  --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Promotion of the high income
New section added by User:Barco9, called Careers of high income professionals, comes a little too close to promotion, IMHO.

''Over the past decades, income inequality has been rising significantly in two-thirds of OECD countries. Like in other OECD countries, the statistical rise in the United States occurred because of rising incomes in the top percentiles of the distribution rather than lowering incomes in the bottom distribution. '' [So everyone's better off? Haven't incomes at the bottom stagnated? The source given says: "The rise in inequality is generally due to the rich improving their incomes relative both to low- and middle-income people."]

''In the top 10%, female incomes rose twice as fast as male incomes between 1981 and 2005.  [But are still considerably behind male incomes] Furthermore, the United States has a high level of assortative mating, which means that highly educated males marry highly educated females rather than lowly educated ones. '' [Whether this is a contributor to inequality is debated and dealt with in another section here]

''People in the top 1% are three times more likely to work more than 50 hours a week, they are more likely to be self-employed, and they earn a fifth of their income as capital income.  [this is an article on inequality and not on high income people] The people in the 1% change every year because of temporarily surge in salary or once off income from selling assets. The turnover rate in the top 1% is more than 25% every year. '' [Again, a controversial issue dealt with elsewhere]

The 30 most common professions in the top 1% are: --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct, the rising inequality in the United States and other rich countries has been caused by the rising incomes in the top 1% / 0.1%. Therefore the article should profile this group whose is income is so much higher and rising. Their careers, income forms, age, etc. - and how the profile has changed over time. Why they have done so well compared to everyone else is a different question and the causes section contains a good number of proposed explanations. You are right that most people in the top percentile are still male. --Barco9 (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

More problems
Edit by Barco: ''The turnover rate in the top 1% is more than 25% every year. '' Two problems with this factoid. First off, it sounds like a reassuring healthy social mobility. Well, after some searching I found the source and what it says: ''The rising incomes of executives and finance professionals account for much of the rising share of top income recipients. Moreover, people who achieve such a high income status tend to stay there: only 25% drop out of the richest 1% in the US, compared to some 40% in Australia and Norway, for instance.'' Not so sunny. Second, why no link? Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. OECD is a web site with god knows how many documents. The page where I found the above bullet point DOES have a link. It is [http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/23/49170253.pdf Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. COUNTRY NOTE: UNITED STATES]. Why wasn't it provided? --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

compromise edits
Made edit of article keeping some of Barco'd edits and changing some. Hopefully making the article more balanced now.

Barco, you may not be aware of a wikipedia rule WP:OR against what is called "original research. In case you don't it works like this: if you have .... oh, say some ingenious argument why inequality in the US is not as bad as the liberal/left say it is, using information you have found on how Europeans use more offshore tax shelters than US ... but you do not have some reliable source WP:RS explaining that this skews stats on income distribution by country, you have only your deduction, that this is what wikipedia calls WP:OR. You cannot put in this information and tell readers this information makes inequality in the US not as bad as official numbers say it is. This is why I trimmed down your section with stuff on ''For example, an Italian government investigation into owners of the country's expensive cars, yachts, private planes and helicopters found out that they systemically have zero or low incomes in the official Italian data. The same is true for owners of three or more homes in Italy ...''  Sorry. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One other note: Do not think of this as some kind of loophole to prevent good ideas from making their way into wikipedia. Editors here are not experts. We put the work of experts (WP:RS) (or at least citations to them) into wikipedia articles. If weekly standard or national review or fox news haven't done any big expose on unreported income and how it makes a mockery of official income distribution stats .... well we can only assume there is a reason they haven't. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

More misleading edits
Text below was added by Barco9 here The 30 most common professions for people who live in households in the top 1 percent are: 


 * 1) Managers
 * 2) Physicians
 * 3) Administrators
 * 4) Lawyers
 * 5) Teachers
 * 6) Supervisors and proprietors
 * 7) Sales
 * 8) Accountants and auditors
 * 9) Financial specialists
 * 10) Management analysts
 * 11) Secretaries
 * 12) Retail sales clerks
 * 13) Miscellaneous occupations
 * 14) Financial services occupations
 * 15) Registered nurses
 * 16) Real estate sales
 * 17) Artists
 * 18) Dentists
 * 19) Engineers
 * 20) Miscellaneous administrative support services
 * 21) Bookkeeping and financial records processing
 * 22) Computer scientists
 * 23) Office supervisors
 * 24) Purchasing, inspecting, and management support
 * 25) Writers
 * 26) Computer software developers
 * 27) Personal services
 * 28) Insurance sales
 * 29) Cashiers
 * 30) Police, fire and protective services

Cashiers? Secretaries? Registered nurses? See, the top one percent are just regular folks! Right?

Going to the link The Top 1 Percent - What Jobs Do They Have?. New York Times January 14, 2012 <BR>I found nothing about "The 30 most common professions for people who live in households in the top 1 percent", but I did find that 0.4% of retail clerks were in the top 1%, and 0.9% of elementary and secondary teachers were in households in the top 1%. 1.1% of registered nurses, 0.4% of cashiers ... and so on. This misleading waste of space has got to go. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Barco, I think you owe us an explanation. If less than 1% of the people in an occupation are in the top 1% (the case for retail clerks, teachers, cashiers), that means it is more likely for someone chosen at random to be in the top 1% than one of the occupations you listed as one of "The 30 most common professions for people who live in households in the top 1 percent." --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the United States having the most progressive tax system(OECD) and inequality
"Over at the Yglesias blog, a commentor named Peter Whiteford very usefully explains the table as follows:"


 * "I am the person who wrote the chapter in the OECD report that is the basis of these figures. It is part of a report on the distribution of income to households, so it doesn’t include taxes that are not directly paid by households, since these are not included in income surveys....[T]he table also calculates the distribution of taxes for the household as whole after adjusting for the number of people in the household, so it will differ from data calculated on income tax returns which are not adjusted for household size.


 * As others have pointed out this measure includes all direct taxes on individuals so it includes income taxes and employee social security contributions, but not employer payroll taxes. It also doesn’t include sales taxes, but these are much heavier in most other OECD countries, and not as progressive as direct taxes, so if you added indirect taxes in through some sort of modelling it is almost certain that the USA would still have the most progressive overall tax system. However, as the OECD report points out, progressivity is not the same as redistribution. Progressivity measures how the distribution of the tax burden is shared, while redistribution measures how much the tax system reduces inequality. Redistribution is influenced both by the progressivity of taxes and the level of taxes collected.


 * In fact, the US system of direct taxes actually reduces inequality more than any other country as well. But overall, the USA reduces inequality a lot less than most other countries, because the other thing that you need to take into account is what taxes get spent on. Now the US system of social security and cash benefits reduces inequality by less than any other OECD country except Korea. The US social security system is marginally less progressive then the OECD average, but the level of spending is very low – only Mexico and Korea spend less in the OECD. So while the US tax system is progressive and reduces inequality, the US welfare state is much less effective at reducing inequality. And because the US has a very unequal distribution of income from capital and a much wider wage distribution than many other OECD countries, it ends up as a relatively unequal country after taxes and benefits.


 * If you look at Nordic countries, they all have much less progressive tax systems than the USA, but they collect a lot more in taxes (including in VAT). They then spend this much higher tax revenue on social security and services, and it is this side of the equation that is most important in reducing inequality. So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively."

Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Graph of ratio to median income should not be a log scale it should be linear.
It washes out the extremity of the change and misleads viewers into think thing that the disparity is much less than it is. People don't naturally think in logarithmic scales. I don't think formatting considerations are sufficient to excuse a misleading graph. I also think this graph is vital and potentially the most informative. I will redo it if someone can direct me to the data tables.


 * I disagree totally: The failure to use a log scale inappropriately draws the eye to the most recent, extreme changes while effectively concealing the essential continuity of the processes.  Many processes in economics naturally involve compound interest and similar concepts.  This makes them linear on the log scale, and failure to use a log scale makes it nearly impossible to see the essential simplicity of the phenomena.
 * Many people do not understand log scales, and that's a problem. However, in my view, it's unwise to avoid log scales on those grounds.  Instead, I believe that writers should take a moment to make sure the log scale is clearly and succinctly explained in the narrative.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the probability distributions of data on income and on many other economic phenomena that must of necessity be positive are better fit by a lognormal distribution than a normal distribution. In such cases, it is usually easier to see patterns and understand the phenomena when using log scales in plots.  Of course, as the other writer noted, the reader / viewer must understand that the data are plotted on a log scale.  Since too few people understand logarithms, log scales must be appropriately explained to a general audience.
 * I'm not sure why this is, but it's widely recognized among statisticians. (One possible explanation involves the Central limit theorem, CLT.  The CLT says that the distribution of a sum of many independent random variables will tend to be close to the Normal distribution, with some exceptions we can ignore here.  However, if you have a number that is the product of many positive random variables, then the logarithm of that number is the sum of the logarithms of the individual positive random variables.  We now apply the CLT to that sum and then take the antilog to conclude that the distribution of a product of independent, positive random variables will generally be close to lognormal.  This makes sense to me for income if the more you earn, the more you are capable of earning.  This in turn suggests that income may be more accurately described as a product of positive random variables than a sum.  Please excuse me if this seems unintelligible, but it makes sense to me as a statistician.) DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed commentary material
The following material was removed because it was written as commentary and lacking in encyclopedic tone as can be clearly seen with the usage of "NOT" in capitalized letters. Also, the material lacks proper sourcing that clearly states the pages from which the material is being taken. As currently presented, the material appears to be commentary in the form of original research. The deleted material:


 * The data on which almost all income inequality studies rely is derived from federal income tax returns. That means that whatever income is not reported on tax returns is NOT included in the data. It should not be surprising that the definition of income has changed over time. Prior to the 1980s, executive stock options were not reported as income, interest from municipal bonds (while still tax exempt now) was not reported as income, and many corporations filed their taxes differently. In the case of corporations, most were C-Corporations filing separate corporate tax returns and the income did not show up on personal income tax returns. This changed after personal income tax reductions under Ronald Reagan and many switched to S-Corporations under which business income began to show up on individual tax returns. Between 1986 and 2001 the proportion of corporations filing as S-Corporations went from approximately 25% to 50%. Thus, during and after the 1980s a massive amount of income that existed all along began to show up on the tax returns of top earners. As a result of this, it should not be surprising that most studies done by Pikkety/Saez and others show huge leaps in the share of income collected by the top 1% between 1986-88, when tax law made these changes. Furthermore, tax deferred retirement plans in which taxes are not paid until money is withdrawn showed income (or not at all for investment income in Roth accounts) disappearing from annual tax returns as these accounts were created around the time the same tax law changes occurred. Most of these accounts have contribution limits and therefore are not utilized by the wealthy, but middle class households. As of 2001 the CBO estimated 10.2 trillion dollars sitting in tax deferred retirement plans, nine trillion of which had not been taxed. As a result, arbitrary changes in tax law eliminate middle class income that is saved from the statistics while adding income for the top earners. Because of all these and more changes in the definition of income over time, some such as Alan Reynolds have suggested that the income statistics based on tax returns are heavily biased towards showing changing inequality that in reality has not actually occurred. When compared with other measures of inequality such as wages, wealth, and consumption, the latter of which is the best indicator of standards of living, the "rising" trend in inequality is not mirrored at all, with consumption inequality actually lower in 2001 than 1986. All of this information along with Reynolds' full explanation can be found in his book. Guest2625 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Corp tax rates and other images
This wiki article is on income inequality in the United States. The effective tax rate, bank deposits by corporations, etc. is interesting good faith graphs, but off topic. These graphs may be interesting in Corporate tax in the United States or some other article. Please note, image/graph supported by data on blogs is an image based on what wikipedia considers as unreliable source, see WP:RS. A better source is needed, if you want to include the image here or any other article. Please consider using or citing verifiable Federal Reserve or Treasury Department tables.

If you want to insist that these graphs belong on this talk page, please explain why and which wiki guidelines support inclusion/relevance. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, I just dumped the set because I was working on other articles and wanted to remind myself to do some of them here. I would only add back US corporate profits after tax, 1995-2012 in the arrangement shown in order to emphasize income inequality (about which tax rates and bank deposits have very little to do.) The larger of the three connects the other two along the subject of the article, and it makes sense that it's bigger as it summarizes a much longer time period.


 * Thanks for the pointer to the corporate tax article! &mdash; Cup co  22:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Instead of putting back the corp profit back, please consider adding a relevant household income graphs or something by various income brackets or by states or municipalities across the US or etc - because that is the predominant focus of this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought corporate profits might offset total population employment ratio because profitable corporations make up the majority of the 2,500 greatest income earners, if I remember correctly, so on the left we have every person, and on the right, the sum of the richest non-persons, and below, the relation that mediates their income relative to each other. Does that make sense? &mdash; Cup co  23:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I now better appreciate your approach. As it turns out, the article does not discuss corporations as individuals or income earners. Possibly because while many corporations do earn a lot of income, many more corporations lose money too and report zero or negative income. This complicates the picture.
 * Inequality discussed in this article excludes corporate income, and is almost entirely across household income groups and human beings. Adding an image on corporation, without discussing corporations as income earners and comparing income inequality when corporations and individuals are considered together, will be confusing. No?
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I see what you are saying, but I think some of the government income distribution statistics do include corporations. Please give me a day or so to read through and check up on the definitions used in the sources. I didn't intend to just leave those graphs in the TOC whitespace, I was planning to incorporate them into a section, and once I have a better grasp of which statistics include which income earners, I will do that. There is probably a way to include all of the same essential information and gist in just two graphs. I can overlay the two FRED graphs on the FRED website -- and let me check there for alternatives to after-tax corporate profits, too. &mdash; Cup co  23:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe the Center for American Progress chart source is a thinktank publication rather than a blog, with multiple professional journalist authors, editorial oversight, and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They also cite BLS.gov and the Tax Policy Center yearly job creation and tax rate numbers are easily verifiable and I'm pretty sure it's not an off-limits synthesis to bin them per WP:CALC. &mdash; Cup co  00:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cupco, I'm going to delete the images. They are making the article look like a mess and a dumping ground. Once you have time incorporate them into the section you can get them from history of the article -- where they will be easy to find and safe. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Peacock" phrasing
While I do agree with ApostleVonColorado that images are getting out of hand in this article, I don't agree with another of his edits. I don't think words like "somewhat" are what wikipedia admins had in mind when they banned "Peacock" phrasing]. I'm not going to contest the issue though. -- BoogaLouie (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Lede
I'm going to trim the lede. All the stats are making readers' eyes glaze. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Gini
There is no need for such a long section on the Gini index. Anyone curious can look in the Gini article. The image is unexplained and useless as is. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Gini index



 * ''The Gini coefficient summarizes income inequality in a single number and is one of the most commonly used measures of income inequality. It uses a scale from 0 to 1 -- where 0 represents perfect equality (everyone having exactly the same income), and 1 represents perfect inequality (one person having all income). Index scores are commonly multiplied by 100 to make them easier to understand. Gini index ratings can be used to compare inequality within (by race, gender, employment) and between them. Different sources will often give different gini values for the same country or population measured.
 * ''The Gini coefficient summarizes income inequality in a single number and is one of the most commonly used measures of income inequality. It uses a scale from 0 to 1 -- where 0 represents perfect equality (everyone having exactly the same income), and 1 represents perfect inequality (one person having all income). Index scores are commonly multiplied by 100 to make them easier to understand. Gini index ratings can be used to compare inequality within (by race, gender, employment) and between them. Different sources will often give different gini values for the same country or population measured.
 * ''The Gini coefficient summarizes income inequality in a single number and is one of the most commonly used measures of income inequality. It uses a scale from 0 to 1 -- where 0 represents perfect equality (everyone having exactly the same income), and 1 represents perfect inequality (one person having all income). Index scores are commonly multiplied by 100 to make them easier to understand. Gini index ratings can be used to compare inequality within (by race, gender, employment) and between them. Different sources will often give different gini values for the same country or population measured.


 * ''Income Gini indices are calculated on market income as well as disposable income basis. The Gini index on market income - sometimes referred to as pre-tax Gini index - is calculated on income before taxes and transfers, and it estimates income inequality without considering the effect of taxes and social spending already in place in a country. The Gini index on disposable income - sometimes referred to as after-tax Gini index - is calculated on income after taxes and transfers, and it measures inequality in income after considering the effect of taxes and social spending already in place in a country.

Reply
How is the image unexplained? It says that income inequality is more highly correlated with declines in growth than any other factor. I'll put it back in with a better caption. Why are you putting everything in superscripts here? &mdash; Cup co  18:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * wikipedia is for laypeople, not economists. Are you seriously suggesting that :
 * Percentage changes in GDP growth spell length as each factor moves from 50th to 60th percentile and all other factors are held constant. Income distribution is measured by the Gini coefficient. Political institutions are measured by the Polity IV Project scale.
 * ... means "income inequality is more highly correlated with declines in growth than any other factor", to the average person??? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I put in superscripts to distinguish it from comments about it. (Changed it to italics)-BoogaLouie (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I improved the caption in the version I replaced. It's better to be precise than dumb things down to the point of inaccuracy. But the point of the chart is that income equality is more influential than any other factor on promoting GDP growth. That's a hugely important fact that most economists don't grasp until they read the IMF work on it.
 * In general, you can use indents to quote things. Superscripting lines of text makes them render very strangely on some browsers. &mdash; Cup co  23:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Material not related to article
Cupco recently added this second paragraph, starting "Statistics, on the contrary ...":

''Conservatives and libertarians such as economist Thomas Sowell, and Congressman Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.)[241] argue that more important than the level of equality of results is America's equality of opportunity, especially relative to other developed countries such as western Europe.

''Statistics, on the contrary, show that job growth in the U.S. has been strongest when top bracket tax rates have been above 39%. When the effective tax rate on corporations falls, the expected return on investment from hiring new employees to fall below net return from paying tax on profits, leading businesses to choose to bank their profits instead of investing them in additional hiring.[242] Since all profitable businesses in a jurisdiction face a similar decision based on similar changes in the effective tax rate, the combined macroeconomic effect can be quite large, and feed back via consumer spending into the aggregate demand, lowering the expected return on investment in labor even further.[243] Under those conditions, profits and bank deposits will sharply increase simultaneously with a similarly sharp drop in employment, as was the case in 2007-2012 in the U.S.[244]

This is crazy. The article is talking about mobility and then jumps to the connection between job growth and tax brackets???? Aside from being unintelligible, it belongs in an article on taxation, not inequality. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What in particular do you think is mistaken? This has been the subject of a CBO report in the news recently ("higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth"). Are you saying that there needs to be a source showing the relation between tax incidence and income equality? I would think that we can state that income tax affects income per WP:CALC. &mdash; Cup co  01:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * IT DOES NOT BELONG IN THE ARTICLE. It's hard to tell if it's "mistaken" as it's not intelligible, but it has nothing to do with economic mobility. It may be tangentially related to income inequality, but if we put everything that was as closely related as that in the article, it would be a book not a wikipedia article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the "US corporate profits after tax, 1995-2012 ... US commercial bank deposits, 1995-2012" "Income equality is the leading cause of economic growth. " etc. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand it, then why do you think it does not belong in the article? It is clearly talking about income inequality in the US. Where do you think income comes from? Jobs! How do you think the government most directly equalizes income? Progressive income tax! Unless you can explain why you think it doesn't belong with reasons other than that you don't understand it, then I will be replacing it and asking for a Third Opinion if you persist. &mdash; Cup co  22:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * and I'm sure iron ore production also "talks about income inequality in the US", but we don't have room for everything that does. Put it in an article on tax policy and employment ... or something. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Income equality is the leading cause of economic growth ... " graph belongs in the Economic inequality article. It's about inequality in general, not about inequality in the US. It's already there, so no need to move it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So currently, the "Significance of inequality" section contains the claim that "the increase ... doesn't matter[215] because America's economic growth and/or equality of opportunity are what's important" but you removed the statistics showing that economic growth and job opportunities depend on income equality to begin with. Do you see why I think that violates WP:NPOV? Is there a way we can shorten the portions you disagree with that will still counter that subjective claim with the objective facts? &mdash; Cup co  23:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been a couple days, so I replaced it and removed the dispute tag. If you still think it doesn't address the POV concern, or if it's too long, I'm happy to work with you to improve it or make it shorter here. &mdash; Cup co  20:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I like your changes today. A new section is better. &mdash; Cup co  18:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a number of problems
 * you put your stuff in a subsection on mobility and not on economic growth. It was a mess. There wasn't a subsection on economic growth so I made one.
 * "The statistics" do not show "that economic growth and job opportunities depend on income equality to begin with", they are about progressive taxation "the effective tax rate on corporations" and employment. inequality isn't mentioned. growth isn't mentioned. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally there are too many charts! We have four charts devoted to corporate taxation and employment. A tangential issue. I will have to delete some. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any way that the government can equalize incomes other than by progressive taxation? &mdash; Cup co  20:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hell yes!! This is a very basic question!!! Please read more on the subject! Such as Timothy Noah's Great Divergence. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I read Tim Noah every month in The New Republic. Would you care to give an example of how the government can equalize incomes other than by progressive taxation? I appreciate your compromises below, and I'm not trying to argue against your most recent edits. I'm just curious to learn what methods you are talking about. &mdash; Cup co  01:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the "the effective tax rate on corporations" and employment charts and text but replaced it with information from scholars talking about inequality and economic growth. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)<BR> The IMF study is of DEVELOPING countries. Not developed countries like the US. It is NOT relevant. It got deleted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC) I kept the "Average annual growth in U.S. employment, by top income tax bracket rate, 1940-2011", chart even though it doesn't belong there, as a compromise. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Employment growth by top tax rate image
I've started a centralised discussion here regarding File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg, which is used in this article. Gabbe (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Move
This article is entirely about how income inequality in the US has changed over time. That's worth covering. Let's keep it. But let's move this article to a page titled something like "trends in US income inequality", and have an article at this page that gives a breakdown like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Distribution_of_Wealth,_2007.jpg only for income, along with a brief discussion of historical trends and a link to this article at its new home, and a comparison between US and world income inequality, and a brief discussion of the factors that determine the degree of income inequality. --50.133.131.206 (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sowell
I removed Sowell's analysis and the lengthy quotation from it, because he uses the ordinary income increase associated with aging as evidence for social mobility. This is widely regarded as deceptive. More highly regarded demographers correct for income increases due to age by measuring the inequality of separate age groups. EllenCT (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

New York Times story on mobility by locale
why is this edit not relevant? It's adding a recent NYT investigation on income mobility by region to the section on social mobility. Where were you when people were adding Sowell's nonsense about most people having social mobility because they accumulate wealth when they age? I know you have some kind of an Ahab/whale thing going on with an IP editor, but your edit summary makes no sense. EllenCT (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the article; it doesn't seem to relate exactly to "income inequality", but to "income mobility", a similar, but distinct, topic. And the editor behind the IP is blocked, so there is no reason for me to look at his edits in detail, before reverting.  I probably wasn't watching the article when people were adding Sowell's nonsense.  I have 10,941 articles on my watchlist, so I have to choose which articles I actively watch.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mobility is discussed over two dozen times in this article. I want to learn more about this editor in particular. Do you know how to contact them? EllenCT (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to contact the blocked editor. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some of the aliases.  (Perhaps we should block greater Grand Rapids, Michigan IPs.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Liberal bias
This article if filled with opinions of liberal economists and politicians and there is lack of conservative view and economic reasearch on the subject. Why hasn't a study from Richard Burkhauser ( http://www.nber.org/papers/w17164) been mentioned which shows that it's wrong to use pretax income data instead of after tax income data. Than you get totally different results. Mankiw has a good summary : http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2013/12/on-measuring-changes-in-income.html

Also there is this other study - The Mismeasure of Inequality which results should at least be mentioned here. WSJ has a summary: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303773704579269990020773098

I would prefer more balanced article. Editing is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.77.48 (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it is better to measure income inequality post-tax and transfer payments, and note that the OECD does so for all countries except the U.S. However, doing so would make the article suggest that income inequality in the U.S. is worse than measuring it before tax, not better. Your thoughts? EllenCT (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * [[File:CBO Data Shares of Market Income and Net Federal Taxes, By Income Group, 2010.jpg|thumb|right]]I'd be interested in your showing how income inequality is worse post tax which has to include government transfer such as the earned income tax credit, Medicaid, social security, Pell grants etc. Care to take a crack at that in the talk pages? I'm always open to leaning something new.  Mattnad (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To further the discussion, the chart to the right is from the Congressional Budget Office's most recent report (Dec. 2013) which looks at the tax year 2010. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but it would suggest that the two lowest quintiles get a significant positive income infusion based on net taxes.  Explain to me how this CBO data is misleading?  Do lower income households not benefit? Are higher income households not paying taxes?Mattnad (talk)

Can anyone tell me why this topic matters in the first place? Is there anything to indicate that the 'bottom 10%' is doing less well now than it was in the 1970's? Concerning percentage of national income not captured by Social Security taxes because income inequality has pushed a larger portion over and above the taxable cap, why isn't the comparison made against having a larger cap rather than having less growth at the top? The assumption seems to be that is the income wasn't earned at the top, it would necessarily be earned farther down and be subject to collection for distribution through Social Security. I can think of no reason why that would be true. The whole topic seems to be ill-founded and irrelevant. Perhaps some clarifications as to the pertinence of the income inequality metric would help this article. Otherwise it seems to just bait people into being jealous of what others have, even if they themselves have more now than they used to. PoqVaUSA (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Statistical Reliability and Philosophy
Much of this article is dominated by data supplied by Thomas Pikkety and Emanuel Saez. I wrote a short paragraph of Alan Reynold's critique of their statistical techniques that I am satisfied to see has survived for the most part. If one actually reads these papers, specifically Pikkety/Saez, he/she will see that the papers are loaded with footnotes about data, taxes, and what is and is not included as "income." The data is derived from federal tax returns, and to put a chart at the beginning that shows data from the 1910s and 1920s as reliable measures of inequality is ridiculous. A tiny fraction of Americans even paid income taxes during those days, and the numbers simply can't be compared with more recent data from the post 1980s period. The chart needs to be removed or there needs to be a more extensive explanation of how these studies determine the numbers they use for gini calculations and distributions somewhere in this article. Every time I try to add a detailed explanation it is removed, which in my opinion presses the limits of academic dishonesty. I am not removing all the numbers here that I find to be extremely flawed and misleading, especially with charts that magnify the mistakes, I simply want the data clarification somewhere in this article. Furthermore, there is a comment under the "most recent data" tab that says the top 1%'s average tax rate declined by 37% from 1992-2007. This is questionable and contradicted directly by the CBO's numbers: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/effective_rates_0.pdf I also wrote a long explanation of the classical liberal argument for completely removing the government's role in having any influence on relative income shares in the market. This was shortened to a mere two sentences on Friedrich Hayek. I have written the explanation many times and it is continually removed. There is plenty of information on here about why government should be concerned with inequality, so I don't see why the opposing argument of why it shouldn't be concerned should be taken down time and again. Please stop removing these explanations, the sources are cited and although someone may not agree with them they should stand in comparison to differing philosophical ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.108.13 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you please use a Wikimedia name? It can be a nom de plume;  in Wikimedia projects, I'm DavidMCEddy, which is not my real name.  I'm writing this over 3 months after your comment above.  If you had a Wikimedia name, I'd have much greater confidence that these comments would reach you.
 * You say you've written things and seen them removed several times. I haven't followed this article carefully, so I can't comment on that, except to suggest that I could help you get some resolution for that problem -- if only by creating a separate article that included a discussion of the issues you've described and had them removed allegedly without comment.  Again, it's easier to revert anonymous changes.  If you make changes using a Wikimedia name that are repeatedly reverted without adequate explanation, we can appeal to a veteran editor like User:Banaticus, who "occasionally [handles] abuse reports", etc.
 * One option could be to create a separate article to discuss all the issues you want about Piketty and Saez, etc., then include a link in this article to the other. I just learned yesterday that a plot I had produced and had in this article for some time was deleted.  I'm not sure when it was deleted, and I may never learn why.  I'm not happy about that.  However, I now have over 1,000 edits in Wikimedia projects, and those kinds of reversions are rare in my experience.  If I write something strange without citing a good source, I can expect to get it reverted.  However, I've learned not to do that -- and to discuss edits that might be controversial on talk pages like this.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, I saw that my name was mentioned. So, it looks like the person who started this section had some material removed?  Anyone know what material they wanted to see posted? Banaticus (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe they are complaining about this edit with which I agree, and would recommend Friedrich Hayek for a clearer understanding of Hayek, whose words are often twisted by the "all taxation is theft" proponents of modern astroturfed libertarianism. Hayek was not just a successful proponent of an assured minimum income above poverty levels, but also of an airtight social safety net, either of which would result in greater de facto income equality than anyone in the English-speaking world is already living under today. EllenCT (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

1/4/2014  jbrown111@my.apsu.edu
 * I like the chart that shows the income gap from 1970 to present, But I would like to see the value of the dollar charted with that. If someone has the capability I would like to see that accomplished, as that data will prove useful into determining what the average materiality of the nation was at those years to get a good idea of the true trend this nations prosperity is heading towards.::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.136.11 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States.[9][10][11] " doesn't seem to be supported by its citations, or is so poorly worded as to not be true. Even in the citation it says that Turkey, Chile, Mexico are higher. Perhaps they meant "highest out of English speaking developed countries" but certainly the wording does not read like that at all. I will leave fixing that to more knowledgable people, as I'm not even sure what they meant but that jumped out at me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baevar (talk • contribs) 04:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps whoever wrote it considered Mexico, Chile, and Turkey as third world countries, not worthy of consideration? I'm not sure why we'd even consider "English speaking" countries as a classification.  Is Canada, which is officially French and English, French or English? Then what about other countries that have multiple official languages?  Do we ignore Belgium and Switzerland?  What about countries in the former soviet block that have more than one official language? It's just nonsense. Mattnad (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

misleading graph
was created by a now banned editor who Redrawn with round numbers from this chart from the article. the original chart is far more accurate and shows growth was double when taxes were 28% compared to 38%. also, the chart only factors in the last 60 years, imagine what kind of chart could be drawn using the entire history of US job growth including the years before the income tax. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's some original research right there.  Volunteer Marek   06:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's completely consistent with all the peer reviewed secondary sources when drawn according to the low resolution curve. EllenCT (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced policy responses section
Various public policy responses are given. Some may disagree with the various proposed policies. Such disagreement should be provided in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to these deletions? If you or User:Mattnad have any objections as to why that material is inappropriate, you have had ample time to state them. EllenCT (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No. I am referring to the section that I tagged as unbalanced. The section has nothing to do with the edits you proposed (and which have been discussed). – S. Rich (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See the section above EllenCT.Mattnad (talk)


 * can you suggest summaries of reliable source(s) which represent the points of view you think are absent from the section you tagged? EllenCT (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not really a matter of my making specific suggestions. The tag says "Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page." So I hope various editors will come by and work to provide balance. (And I've opened this discussion.) But I think there are two (or more) sides to the various proposals. Certainly in Switzerland the other day there is a difference of opinion about minimum wages. The Swiss voters rejected a proposal to raise the minimum wage. But I do thank you for your encouragement.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Governance
what gives you the right to try to insinuate that opinions about a broader summary article apply to more specific detail articles? And why not reply at Talk:Oligarchy? EllenCT (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC) re what do you mean by "oligarchy talk"? Are you referring to the summary of the studies? Are you implying that there are other studies at the same level of reliability with contrary findings? EllenCT (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC) do you intend to discuss alternatives for the measurement of oligarchy, or do you intend to simply continue to revert without discussion? EllenCT (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You know quite well that there is an active discussion going on at Talk:United States. Just because you decided to cut and paste the same material into several articles does not mean we have to have several, separate discussions.Mattnad (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That discussion has resolved that the material is more appropriate for WP:SUMMARY style articles. This is one of many. My questions to you stand, and are appropriate here. EllenCT (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a related discussion about exceptional primary research. By my read of the discussion here in Talk:United States, it looks like we should wait until there's more agreement among scholars before you go inserting a lot material related to the Princeton paper.Mattnad (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The peer reviewed literature as represented by its reviews has been agreement with the inserted statements for decade. If you had any evidence to the contrary, you had ample time to present it. EllenCT (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mattnad is correct about getting the Talk:United States discussion resolved. As it covers much of the same ground, and as it has more eyes on it than this subject, I think it will be helpful to see what consensus develops before we engage in more editing here. – S. Rich (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What led you to believe that any of the discussion at Talk:US did not support inclusion of the material in this and other WP:SUMMARY style articles? EllenCT (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is some consensus on the United States article, then that consensus can help resolve the questions here. But dual+ threads (oligarchy & US & this article) are proving to be confusing and not conducive to building consensus. Saying that there is no reply to a question here (about a different article) is not justification for editing without establishing consensus here. Perhaps this thread should be restarted with a more concise and focused question. – S. Rich (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC) PS: all articles in WP are written in SUMMARYSTYLE. 04:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Focused question
What are the specific objections to inclusion of the material in ? Is there any reason that the peer reviewed charts do not corroborate the deleted text and congressional testimony? EllenCT (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Will reply in due course (like tomorrow). BTW, "impertinent" was used as the opposite of pertinent. – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Impertinent is not the opposite of pertinent. EllenCT (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

is there any reason that the discussion of this material at Talk:United States did not resolve with the recommendation to include it in WP:SUMMARY style sub-articles such as this one? EllenCT (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That was one thread. There are others that deal with weight issues more broadly, as well as the use of the charts that you've recently inserted in many articles.  I'll admit that it's hard to keep up with all of your edits across many articles with the same material, but as you've probably noted, there are more than a few editors who question the whether or not it should be here, there, everywhere.Mattnad (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Coming back to my promise to respond, I've reviewed the discussions at Talk:United States and Talk:United States. The overall consensus is against using the material. And, IMO, seeking to tie the charts, the studies, and the Congressional testimony (i.e., Yellen statement) together, either here or in other articles, is improper synthesis. As for the external link "Census Bureau Islands of High Income", it serves to show there are different areas with different incomes, but does not help with the "inequality" topic of this article. E.g., we know from the various sources in the text that there are regions where income is higher/lower than other regions; the sources in the text support that information quite well without the islands. (Also, the EL section has an excess of links (see: WP:LINKFARM.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * in what sense of the word "join" are you alleging improper synthesis? Which two or more statements are you alleging are being joined, and which implication are you alleging they are being joined into? EllenCT (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "join" is in the policy. I quoted the policy because you were incorrect when you said "it's not synthesis unless the conclusion is stated outright" in response to Volunteer Marek. You brought up A and B. What are the two statements that you want to use? (Perhaps the best place to discuss that question in on the article talkpage that you linked to.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you using the word "join" in the sense of adjacency, or some other sense? EllenCT (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am asking about this article, this section, above, where you wrote "IMO, seeking to tie the charts, the studies, and the Congressional testimony (i.e., Yellen statement) together, either here or in other articles, is improper synthesis." If you are invoking the policy, you are using its words. is there any reason anyone has to believe that you are not using the word "join" in the sense of adjacency? EllenCT (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

U.S. highest income inequality ever
The quotation saying that the U.S. has the most income inequality in the history of the world is absurd. That's true if you measure by raw dollar difference between rich and poor, but economists measure this thing by proportional difference. See the Gini Index; the U.S. has a lot of inequality compared to most other Western countries, but much less than most developing countries. Steeletrap (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it true but absurd when many people are working to make it larger in both absolute and relative terms, or just true but imprecise? EllenCT (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is inequality. But it doesn't seem right to factor in what is really a poor person in NYC who makes $50k annually, but does not live very well at all. On that same income in the South (outside major cities) a person would live quite well indeed on 50k.
 * The other problem I have is that people who are receiving a) Section 8 housing allowance, b) government-owned housing (which may be encompassed by a), c) food stamps, d) help with heating (in the north), e) subsidized health care/Medicaid, and other "help", does not seem to have that factored in. So a person poor in actual income, is not all that badly off after some subsidies are counted. But they aren't counted here. For some, this help is substantial. Maybe 10-20k annually. Student7 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)