Talk:List of countries by income equality/Archive 1

Historical comparison?
It could be interesting to have data on where ancient societies would fall in the list (eg. Victorian Britain, feudal Europe, ancient Rome, etc.). StefanoC 12:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be impossible to make

Ranked
Can this table have countries ranked by Gini coefficient rather than alphabetically? Leon 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, since the article is called "list of countries by income equality the list of countries in the article should be organized from most equal to less equal.

--Tsboncompte 17:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the different numbers?
Does anyone know why the UN and CIA get different numbers sometimes, even when the surveys take place in the same year? Esn 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete Rwanda statistic
I found a more recent Rwanda gini coefficient over here (income inequality has risen quite a lot, it seems). However, I haven't been able to find the richest/poorest 10/20% statistics in the paper (though it does seem to say that the poorest 20% only get 4% of the wealth). What to do? Esn 20:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on Richest to Poorest Column Heading
In this column of the table -Richest 10% to poorest 10%, and 20% - This needs clarification: Is the ratio expressing numbers of individuals in the top and bottom %, or the average per capita income differential between the two?

For example, Denmark's value is 8.1 in the 10% column. Does this mean that there are 8.1 times more people in the bottom 10% then the top 10%, or that an average individual in the top 10% makes 8.1 times more then the average individual in the bottom 10%?

I was going to ask the same question. How exactly is this measured? It's a bit confusing. Jcp20 20:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously the later. How can you have more people in the top 10% than the bottom 10%? They're equal at 10% of the population by definition. &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 11:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever. The article explains the Gini index, but does not explain the "UN Richest 10% to poorest 10%" and the "UN Richest 20% to poorest 20%" headings. The "per capita income differential" explanation does not make sense to me. Terms understood only by specialists should not be used in Wikipedia without adequate explanation in layman's terms. We will appreciate clarifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yishaika (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Iceland and Lux are missing
Data for Iceland and Luxembourg is missing from the table. Please add these two countries. Regards,  Signature brendel  22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Same thing as above, Iceland and Luxembourg are not covered by the given studies. However, you are welcome to add data from another source. --Spitzl 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Gini index field
this seems to be a mashup of both sources, the cia and the undp (which comes from the world bank). the rest of the data in the table is from the undp, which I discover only after having laboriously updated the gini fields to reflect the latest cia data. somebody needs to add a second gini field for undp gini stats, as it shouldn't be oranges and apples lumped together. i will do it myself pretty soon if nobody beats me to it. Gzuckier 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Japan
According to the CIA world fact book, as of 2000 Japan has a Gini index of 37.9 (NOT 24.9!); I know it does not state Richest 10% to poorest 10%, but this really needs to be changed; those feilds should just be left blank. The data on this table for Japan is from 1993--A lot has changed since then and Japan is far from the 3rd most income equality; it is somewhere around 59th.
 * ChristopherMannMcKay 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. 24.9 seemed a little off to me. 142.163.66.144 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wealth and equality
Is there any way to compare income equality with GDP or per capita income? I'd like to see if there is any correlation.

Does leveling income also reduce the general wealth?

Do free market economies make the rich get richer and the poor get richer (as capitalists like to claim), or do the rich get richer while the poor get poorer as Marxists claim? --Uncle Ed 21:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you plot the data on the Gini coefficient vs. the GDP (PPP) per capita, you see a slightly negative correlation. Countries with pro-capita GDP under about 15000 $ have Gini coefficient that vary from 26 (Bosnia) to 71 (Nambia). Countries with pro-capita GDP over 15000 $ have all Gini coefficient from 25 (Denmark) to 42 (Singapore).
 * A possible "capitalist" interpretation is that, as a country becomes richer, there's a "tricle down" effect that reduces the inequality. A possible "Marxist" explanation is that countries that are (for historical reasons) inequal grow less that their potential (perhaps because the poor have little access to education and health care).
 * Perhaps you should see the evolution with time. On the Gini coefficient page, there's a graphic of the evolution of the coefficient with time for some industrialized countries after WWII. Most remained roughtly at the same level (Japan, Germany, Australia, India, Belgium, Sweden, Mexico), some had the inequality grow (USA, China, Brazil, UK), a few other have become more equal (France, Italy, Norway) StefanoC 12:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

using terms like rich and poor can be confusing. the vast majority of the population could be above the poverty line, yet still have a lot less wealth than the richest segment of the population. Rds865 (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

explanation of numbers
there needs to be a short explanation of the numbers and where they come from. Rds865 (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan not colored right in Picture
In the image titled "Gini coefficient, income distribution by country." Japan is colored yellow, which would mean it has the lowest Gini coefficient of all nations (<0.25). However, Japan's Gini value is 0.38 which would make it light green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.234.52 (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing "country"
Wikipedia editors are normally happy to include the European Union on lists of countries, but not this one. Whyever not? Mk270 11:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is in the list. There is just no data from the UN study. The dots meant "no data available". To make it more clear, I now changed them to "n/a". --Spitzl 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

EU data? For the European Union, the R/P 10% number (6.8) is lower than the R/P 20% number (8.9). This cannot be possible. Does anyone know how these values were computed. I suggest that they are removed from the table as they are not part of the UN report. 128.237.245.237 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The EU data is the average Gini coefficient across all EU member states; that is not the same as the Gini coefficient for the EU. I have removed the entry from the table.

Brazil's value has been altered - it is wrong
Brazil's GINI values have been recently changed, and they show the country as being one of the most equal in the world. This is clearly a fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.132.8 (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed.129.241.138.157 (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 79.44.99.96 made a series of changes including completely false data for Brazil and Argentina, and perhaps some other countries which I haven't checked yet. Considering the fact that he did not update the sources or add any new ones to coincide with his "update", I'm just going to assume that all of his changes were illegitimate/unsourced and revert them all. Sbw01f (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Russian figures doubtful
The first column figure should be 28 (!) according to http:// ruscience.newmail.ru/economics/poortith.htm (In russian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brambilla (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan's gini index is outdated
That gini index data is a 1993 year. According to 2009 OECD Factbook data, Japan's recent gini index is "0.32". According to CIA World Fact Book, Japan's recent gini index is "38.1". According to IMF data, Japan's recent gini index is "31.4". Like above mentioned, Japan in this map should be colored as "Green". Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorting?
Sorting seems to be textual (lexicographic) rather than numerical, both in firefox and in IE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.153.5 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am getting that as well (on Safari). It totally makes the ranking not work. —Tokek (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This can by solved by removing the NAs from the tableanders (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorting problem: alphabet sorting
The table should be sorted by values of numbers, instead of the string ranks if them. Is there any way in WIKIPEDIA's framework to sort a table by values? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.223.247 (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sorting them as strings rather than numbers. I believe it is because of the N/As. They should be replaced with empty cells, or some other workaround needs to be used to force numeric sorting. LiquidFire (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

sortable
"This is a sortable list of countries or dependencies" It is NOT sortable. Sorting does not work. 84.147.249.4 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Works fine for me, every column. (I have no idea how this is implemented, so I can't comment on why it might not work for anybody else). Gzuckier 17:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Works fine in firefox, does not work in Safari
 * It's odd - works sometimes. Sometimes I get 105 sorted in between 10.9 and 11.0 like it's using alphabetical order
 * but if I click the sort a couple of more times it does it right.
 * I am using Firefox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.202.146 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it should not work in fact -- the javascript just takes the first non-whitespace value it finds and checks if it is a number -- so in this case that may be "N/A", and thus it would sort by alphabetical order, but after it sorts alphabetically in ascending order, clicking the sort again, the first value it finds would be a number, thus it re-sorts numerically. Limweizhong (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I use firefox, it "works" with many problems. --C9900 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC) The code is sorting textually, not numerically. 98.212.175.68 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Shall we add missing countries? Such as Cuba
I was curious about the position of Cuba and I searched for it but it is not in the list. Shall we add a note mentioning the missing countries? And a citation of the reason for them missing? --phauly 14:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I came back to this page looking at the pages I contributed to, and I found out now that now Cuba is in a line: most cells are N/A but the Gini index. Good! 217.77.80.29 (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

add GDP per capita
We should add a column to this chart of GDP per capita, to show how income inequality relates to wealth.--Louiedog (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The World Map
It seems like the World map of the Gini coefficient doesn't agree with the table in the article. --Starylon 18:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What year does the world map show? --Spitzl 13:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The map doesn't seem to have a source, and differs sharply from the provided data for, at least, Bolivia. 71.206.247.227 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I am not very good at editing sources or anything like that but according this this image: http://www.opte.cl/es/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/world_map_gini_coefficient_opte.png the cited source is 'UN 2006 Development Programme Report' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.146.158 (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

woops that last comment was by me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelersfan7roe (talk • contribs) 08:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The caption on the map does not follow the table. It says that this index is >= 0 and <=1, yet there is not a single value in the table meeting these criteria. Also, the label on the map says "GINI" as if it's an acronym or initialism, when it's neither; it's the surname of the person who invented this statistic, ergo, should it not be capitalized and not in all caps? -- Joe (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The disagreement with the Gini index page seems to be largely because a lot of the figures here are averages (e.g.between 1992 and 2007 for the UN Gini) whereas the Gini page shows trends - which is a lot more useful and informative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.22.21 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

sort is broken
Sort list by UN R/P 20% and you get a sort based on the most significant digit, not the whole number! Rtdrury (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Difference in Gini
Could someone please explain very large difference between the gini numbers between this article and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth ? Apart from the factor 100, the numbers are widely different. DanielDemaret (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Silly me. One gini is based on income, and the other on wealth. DanielDemaret (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I got a bit confused when Sweden turned up in the two lists, but widely different results. By income, as the most equal. By wealth, as one of the most un-equal. DanielDemaret (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Before or after taxes and transfers
It should be clarified if this list refers to income before taxes and other transfers or income after taxes and transfers. 85.180.153.37 (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia
Im Slovakian and i have to add that in 1996 my coutry was just in beggining of transition to modern market economy, so compare equality with year 2006 is worthless ...so much change, look at Economy of Slovakia
 * I you have new, cited numbers, make sure to put them in. Wouter Lievens 09:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are proud to live in a country with growing inequality...1812ahill (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to get the UN R/P 20% metric over time?
I'm noticing that this ratio is used as a general proxy for inequality. This article is very good at expressing the income inequality for the different nations in the world, but I want to know if I can obtain some of these same metrics as a function of time, graph them, and add them to the article. I seem to be having a great deal of difficulty doing this with the standing references. They don't seem to have any interest in giving these numbers over time. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Numerical sorting now works.
Numerical sorting of a column works as long as no text is the first thing in a cell in the column. I removed N/A from the table. If it is found in any cell in a column it breaks numerical sorting of that column.

I removed all the leading zeroes in cells. They are not necessary for numerical sorting. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For more info see Help:Sorting and the section called something like "Numerical sorting problems". --Timeshifter (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for a more compact grid
I'd like to propose a new grid format for the income inequality list. I've uploaded a screenshot here. By combining the UN/CIA "R/P 10%" columns and the World Bank/CIA/GPI "Gini index" columns, and by writing the years directly besides the values, we can make this grid much more readable. Of course, one could not sort by year anymore, but I don't think this is such an issue. Whichever source (UN, CIA, WB, GPI) has the latest value, that source's data should be displayed. I don't see a need for displaying different sources, since they probably all calculate those indices using the same data. I'll leave some time for people to comment on my proposal, and if no one minds, I'll go ahead and implement it. Fueled (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you link to a user page of yours with this so we can play with it also. I can then copy it and play with it further in my user sandboxes too. I am up to 26 user sandboxes. For example; User:Timeshifter/Sandbox26.


 * We can create more year columns. There is room if breaks  are used in header cells. Look at the chart after I adjust the headers. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't know about user draft pages. I copied what I did until now into User:Fueled/Sandbox1. And about your design, I agree that we gain enough space with , but I'm not sure if all that information is necessary (for example the World Bank and CIA Gini are more or less the same, so is the UN and CIA R/P 10%). We could keep the three different values (R/P 10%, R/P 20%, and Gini), each with its own year column, but only give the latest value available, and not separate the sources. What do you think? Fueled (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think columns should be removed if they use different sources. Figuring out the sources is important. It seems that the UN Human Development Report 2009 gets its data from the World Bank. See the notes for Table M. Table M starts at page 195. The notes for it are on page 198. See:
 * http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdf


 * There is a Human Development Report 2011:
 * http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2011/download/en/


 * Gini numbers are in Table 3 on page 135. Notes are on page 138. Gini numbers (column 12) come from the World Bank:
 * http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf


 * The 2011 report table 3 has a column labeled "Quintile income ratio". The notes have this: "Quintile income ratio: Ratio of the average income of the richest 20 percent of the population to the average income of the poorest 20 percent of the population." It is column 11 and the source is the World Bank. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

New sources
Greetings. After saving this comment, I'll add a 'Further reading' section, in which I'll place one source I've just come across. I'm about to get very busy, so I'll try to follow through at a later date - but it matters not: others can capitalise on the idea by adding and utilising resources.

One of the biggest problems for improving, growing, updating articles is that it can be very very difficult to contain one's time and do the article - and other editors - justice. However, in my experience to date (elsewhere as well as here in Wikipedia) by far the quickest and easiest way to set the scene is to create a further reading section, and plonk some material there for both readers and editors to access. As, or if, material becomes utilised for referencing, it's just a matter of removing the redundant listing. Regards Wotnow (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do the same thing. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Gini coefficients before and after taxes
I removed this sentence from the intro: "All Gini coefficients are before taxes."

It is not correct for the latest OECD lists farther down the page. One OECD list is before taxes and transfers. The other is after taxes and transfers.

Also, I am not sure if it is correct for the main list at the top. That main list consists of multiple Gini lists from multiple sources. We need to find out which ones are calculated before taxes, and which ones are calculated after taxes. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Other income (dispute)
This is relevant on-topic info, and should not be removed:


 * The accuracy of the data varies depending on how well it is collected, and reported. A lot of financial transactions also take place off the books in the so-called "shadow economy"; also called the cash economy, off-the-books economy, black markets, System D., etc.. The estimated size of the "shadow", unrecorded, unregulated and untaxed, economies (in percent of official GDP) is an average of 43.2% in Africa, 43.4% in South and Central America, 40.1% in East and Central European countries, Russia and former Soviet Union countries, 30.8% in Asia (excluding Russia and Japan), and 16.3% in OECD countries (which varies from 28.2% in Greece to a low of about 8.4% in the United States, 9.4% in Switzerland, and 10.8% in Japan). -- Reference: The Size of the Shadow Economies of 145 Countries all over the World: First Results over the Period 1999 to 2003. (DEAD LINK) December 2004. By Friedrich Schneider (University of Linz and IZA Bonn). Institute for the Study of Labor.

User:Somedifferentstuff keeps removing it. 2 people disagree. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've now tagged the information about the "shadow economy" that lends undue weight to this article. This information does not explain how income equality, the topic of this article, is affected by this information. It simply talks about unreported income in general, which is different than income equality within a given country, and is not the subject of this article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Somedifferentstuff and support its removal. How is the size of the black economy related to the level of income inequality? The implication here is probably that countries with a large shadow economy score higher on income inequality than it would be warranted — but that's OR, and probably not even true since all statistics from GDP to unemployment have to take into account the limitations of the official figures.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Later note. See reference: Underground economy and income inequality: two connected aspects in the oncoming context of Italian federalism. By Iacopo Odoardi and Carmen Pagliari. Vol. 15 No. 1, 2011. Global & Local Economic Review. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * [interjected] First, directly quote the article itself showing how income equality is affected by the "black market". Then you'll need to get consensus on how much weight that material should be given. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are allowed to use common sense in Wikipedia articles. Look it up in the guidelines. See also:
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22income+inequality%22+shadow+economy


 * I clarified the intro to point out the obvious. I will find a reference for this obvious basic math point. Probably in the Google Scholar search results I linked to. Feel free to beat me to it. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you need to provide evidence that all of the sources (unless you stipulate otherwise) used in this article don't accurately measure income inequality. Then you would need to show how the RP10, RP20, and Gini are impaired by these findings. The last step would be to determine how significant the findings are in order to determine how much space should be taken up in the article by these findings. This last part would fall under WP:WEIGHT. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I put another reference in the intro. Instead of complaining you could have found the reference yourself. Also, please cease and desist with amateur wiki-lawyering. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I already saw the reference you used. It doesn't warrant having a section largely devoted to the shadow economy. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I came to this article while doing research on Denmark, which supposedly has a low Gini and saw the dispute in the article summary. Here are my thoughts as an outside observer: First, Timeshifter needs to check his or her attitude at the door. Being a jerk isn't going to help you have a positive impact on WIkipedia, and that's why we're all here, right? Furthermore you can't just declare that "X is relevant and on-topic" and that therefore you have a right to force the article to include X. That is now how wikipedia works. See below for suggestions

Next, I think the point of this article is to copy published income inequality metrics and make some light remarks about methodology. There is a fundamental problem with addressing the role of the black market in income inequality, namely that criminals do not file tax returns, so it is difficult to see how the sources for this article would address the concerns raised about the impact of the shadow economy on income inequality. In particular, we don't know if the black market increases or decreases the Gini coefficient. We can make guesses, but that isn't the role of WIkipedia. We should leave that to those who publish works on the subject. Unless some published work directly addresses the impact of the black market / shadow economy on Gini coefficients, we can ONLY conclude that the role of the black market imparts some unknown error in measuring income inequality. This warrants no more than a footnote.

TL;DR Now to the constructive part of this rant: I suspect that it is HIGHLY likely that there is a hospitable home for the information you're trying to include in this article, but it isn't here. Off of the top of my head, these are the places where you will find a more favorable reception:Gross_domestic_product List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) Black_Market. Good luck. 173.239.78.54 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Another editor disagrees with you. See this diff. Edit summary was "This is relevant. See how many countries have 'cooked their books' such as Greece, with Goldman's help, to get into the EU. Argentina does as well. Probably the US does too." Calling people names is against Wikipedia guidelines (WP:Civility), especially when you are using an anonymous IP as your signature. See also: Underground economy and income inequality: two connected aspects in the oncoming context of Italian federalism. By Iacopo Odoardi and Carmen Pagliari. Vol. 15 No. 1, 2011. Global & Local Economic Review. And see: The Size of the Shadow Economies of 145 Countries all over the World: First Results over the Period 1999 to 2003. December 2004. By Friedrich Schneider (University of Linz and IZA Bonn). Institute for the Study of Labor. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I returned and further shortened the relevant off-the-books economic info. The info is now down to around 4 lines on my monitor:


 * Income from black market, informal sector, "shadow economy", and other off-the-books economic activity is not included. It is the subject of current economic research. For 2002/2003 the estimated size of the off-the-books economies (in percent of official GDP) is an average of 43.2% in Africa, 43.4% in South and Central America, 40.1% in East and Central European countries, Russia and former Soviet Union countries, 30.8% in Asia (excluding Russia and Japan), and 16.3% in OECD countries (which varies from 28.2% in Greece to a low of about 8.4% in the United States, 9.4% in Switzerland, and 10.8% in Japan).

Please do not remove relevant, referenced info. 2 editors want it, and 2 editors do not. Another editor wanted references to prove relevance. That has been provided. See higher up. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You wrote, "Please do not remove relevant, referenced info". That's not how it works. You need to get consensus to re-add that section, which you currently don't have. See above. And the article currently contains a blurb about the "black market". Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your original problem with the info was undue weight. It now takes up fewer sentences, and is not undue weight. I shortened it further:


 * Income from black market, informal sector, "shadow economy", and other off-the-books economic activity is not included. For 2002/2003 its estimated size in percent of official GDP) is an average of 43.2% in Africa, 43.4% in South and Central America, 40.1% in East and Central European countries, Russia and former Soviet Union countries, 30.8% in Asia (excluding Russia and Japan), and 16.3% in OECD countries (which varies from 28.2% in Greece to a low of about 8.4% in the United States, 9.4% in Switzerland, and 10.8% in Japan).


 * Removing this info is against wikipedia guidelines. Please do not be such a newbie. You need to get consensus and refer to wikipedia guidelines to remove referenced, relevant info. Also, in your last edits you removed wikilinks and other info without explanation. See this diff. Please do not do mass reversions and deletions. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to get consensus, which you currently don't have, to re-add some of that stuff. And the article currently contains a blurb about the "black market" at the end of the first paragraph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I undid your vandalism. I am talking about your continued removal of wikilinks. See latest diff. Plus your edit summary is not true. There was never consensus either way. You can be blocked for the vandalism of unexplained removal of wikilinks. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-added wikilinks, etc. Took out your vandalism. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for allowing the wikilinks to stay in. You removed them several times without explanation, and there was no logical reason to remove them. That was what I was referring to as vandalism. The 4 lines of text concerning the black market, informal sector, income is not vandalism. That is a difference of opinion.


 * Someone else disagrees with you. See this diff. The edit summary was "Undid revision 466529015 by Somedifferentstuff (talk) Rvt - what vandalism are you referring to? Disagreeing with an edit does not make it vandalism."


 * You, Somedifferentstuff, accused them of being a sock puppet. See this diff. That is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Civility. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, 4 editors have commented on the talk page and 3 didn't think it belonged in the article. Reverted to previous and added tag. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3 editors want the info in the article. 2 do not want it. One wanted a reference to prove its relevance. You added a POV tag. You have to discuss why this info is against WP:NPOV. Otherwise the tag is supposed to be removed. Read the POV page. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this article is POV. I do agree that the fact that there is a large black economy is irrelevant (UNDUE, I guess) in this article unless it we have sources discussing how this affects income equality, which is the topic of this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The informal sector economy does effect income equality. References:
 * Underground economy and income inequality: two connected aspects in the oncoming context of Italian federalism. By Iacopo Odoardi and Carmen Pagliari. Vol. 15 No. 1, 2011. Global & Local Economic Review.
 * The Size of the Shadow Economies of 145 Countries all over the World: First Results over the Period 1999 to 2003. December 2004. By Friedrich Schneider (University of Linz and IZA Bonn). Institute for the Study of Labor.
 * Income Inequality and the Informal Economy in Transition Economies. J.Barkley Rosser Jr.2, Marina V. Rosser, Ehsan Ahmed. Journal of Comparative Economics. Volume 28, Issue 1, March 2000, Pages 156-171.
 * See also: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22income+inequality%22+shadow+economy --Timeshifter (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No Timeshifter, posting links doesn't cut it. You need to directly quote the articles themselves showing how income equality is affected by the "black market". What does the size of shadow economies in 145 countries have to do with income equality? Then you posted one with the title, "Income Inequality and the Informal Economy in Transition Economies" - but a substantial number of the countries listed in the article aren't transition economies. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "For transition economies, income inequality is positively correlated with the share of output produced in the informal economy. Increases in income inequality also tend to be correlated with increases in the share of output produced in the unofficial economy. These hypotheses are supported significantly by empirical data for 16 transition economies between 1987 to 1989 and 1993 to 1994. Various causal mechanisms may operate in both directions, an increasingly large informal economy causing more inequality due to falling tax revenues and weakened social safety nets, and increasing inequality causing more informal activity as social solidarity and trust decline." --Timeshifter (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Links discussing how the black market affects income inequality are all good and well on articles about income inequality, but this is a *list* of countries. So then we need sources listing income inequality including black markets, really. Everything else is irrelevant here. It doesn't need to be complete, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the current info:


 * Income from black market, informal sector, "shadow economy", and other off-the-books economic activity is not included, and can effect income equality calculations. For 2002/2003 its estimated size in percent of official GDP is an average of 43.2% in Africa, 43.4% in South and Central America, 40.1% in East and Central European countries, Russia and former Soviet Union countries, and 30.8% in Asia (excluding Russia and Japan). It is 16.3% in OECD countries (which varies from 28.2% in Greece to a low of about 8.4% in the United States, 9.4% in Switzerland, and 10.8% in Japan).


 * We have to use the income equality calculations that we have, but without large amounts of data, the informal sector numbers. It is common in lists and tables to inform the readers of the margins of error, the missing data, etc.. I can show you many examples. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is what the article said before Timeshifter's last revert.
 * Income from Black Market economic activity is not included and is the subject of current economic research.


 * Let's get the opinion of other editors to see if they think this is a fair compromise. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That sentence does not show the relevance of the informal sector economy to income inequality. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"We have to use the income equality calculations that we have" - We don't need calculations we need data, per countries. Not complete, but at least having a significant number to be meaningful. Otherwise it has nothing to do in this article as this is a list of countries by income equality. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We have the data/calculations. They are in the list. You ignored this: "It is common in lists and tables to inform the readers of the margins of error, the missing data, etc.. I can show you many examples." --Timeshifter (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Data/calculations"? Those are different things. What list?
 * I'll try to clarify: Do you have a reliable source that presents a list of countries and their income equality, with taking the shadow economy in account? If you don't, then this article is either the wrong place for your information, or you are doing WP:OR. The data you now have presented is NOT such a list, and hence, it does not belong here. I have reverted it. If you have the data so that it can be presented in a list form, that can be added to this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * List articles of data by country should list all factors used, or not used, in making the calculations used to come up with the data by country. This is basic math, common to list articles. Listing those factors and the size of those factors is not WP:OR since there are sources for the size of those factors, and their relevance to calculating income equality. If you don't understand this, then I suggest you edit articles that don't have a lot of math involved.


 * I removed the large-cap "undue weight dispute" from the title of this talk section. It was not the original title of this talk section, and the focus of this talk section has changed several times. "Other income" has always been the topic of this talk section though. "Undue weight" is not what you are claiming. You are claiming among other things that "other income" is not relevant to this article, and is WP:OR. That is incorrect (see previous paragraph). --Timeshifter (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not basic math, you still need sources not calculations. And it is still not relevant for this article. This is still a *list* of countries by income equality. The additions you make are not a list and not relevant for the list and should not be here, but should rather be on the articles about income equality, if they are not already. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are not addressing my points. Please stop reverting without discussing those issues. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am addressing your points, repeatedly. What is it that you find unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As you said: "You are edit warring. Please don't do that, it is against Wikipedia policy, and may get you blocked." --Timeshifter (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As you did not explain what you find unclear, I can only surmise that we are being completely clear, and that you now will stop your edit warring. That's good. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my previous comments. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see everybody elses previous comments. What do you think you will achieve by playing games? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're the one playing games. Answer my questions. Address my points in my previous comments. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I already have. Your refusal to engage in constructive discussion is noted. If you want to continue, you have to go through the standard dispute resolution process. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(Unindent) I have repeated my questions and points. You did not answer or address them. I am not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension, and/or your games, and/or your refusal to engage in constructive discussion. Feel free to initiate the standard dispute resolution process. Here is the current version of the info you removed:


 * Income from black market, informal sector, "shadow economy", and other off-the-books economic activity is not included, and can effect income equality calculations. For 2002/2003 the estimated size of the shadow economy in percent of official GDP is an average of 43.2% in Africa, 43.4% in South and Central America, 40.1% in East and Central European countries, Russia and former Soviet Union countries, and 30.8% in Asia (excluding Russia and Japan). It is 16.3% in OECD countries (which varies from 28.2% in Greece to a low of about 8.4% in the United States, 9.4% in Switzerland, and 10.8% in Japan).

The 3 references are listed in this version of the article. 3 editors want the info in the article. 3 do not want the info in the article. One wanted a reference to prove its relevance. The first 2 references in the current version of the info address relevance, and the connections between income equality and the informal economy. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. What in this do you feel needs answering or addressing?
 * 2. Do you understand that this article is a list article? An article whose purpose it is to contain a list? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

World map goes to a DIFFERENT map when you click on "full resolution"
I wanted to compare this map (INCOME inequality) with the corresponding one showing WEALTH inequality. The two maps are not identical when you look at their respective article pages, but if you click on "full resolution" for the income map, what you then see is the wealth map! Can someone please correct this! It's a major problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.12.130 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No it's income. GINI more specifically. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

social welfare payments
The numbers need a bit more explanation for dummies, e.g. does income include social welfare payments? When comparing the top 10% to the bottom 10% surely it is important to consider welfare payments, perhaps even separately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.76.8 (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This list is not how it should be...
Would someone care to explain to me what good linking to this page from the infobox of a country's page does if this list is not organized properly? When someone is reading about, say, the United States and clicks the ranking next to the coefficient in the infobox... wouldn't it make sense to bring them to a page that has those listed in the proper order? There are way too many sort fields in this table and it would make far more sense to just have separate tables for the CIA, UN and other score sets so people don't have to guess which one the infoboxes are linking to... --NBMATT (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Bosnia - Herzegovina colored wrong
On the map it is colored red, whereas according to the numbers on the list it should be dark green (36%) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agios77 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

north korea, Libya, Cuba
how convenient that north korea, Libya, and Cuba's data got censored by the cia. the fact of the matter is that those countries had the most income equality, but the west does not want the world to know the truth. instead they use data to make their co-conspirators look good. Libya, under Gadafi was 100 times more equal than danmark could ever dream of being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricBess (talk • contribs) 03:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

missing references to calculation
Nowhere in this article does it seems to say what the underlying data are and how things get calculated.

The data being ploted can range anywhere from mildly false to grossly distorted.

Without any actual algorithms, this is essentially unfalsifiable propaganda. weekeepeer (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia
the wrong map of russia

where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.208.77 (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Row-number columns
I added row-number columns to the tables. I use these sandbox pages to work on it:
 * User:Timeshifter/Sandbox49
 * User:Timeshifter/Sandbox50

See Help:Sorting and the sections currently titled "Auto-ranking or adding a row numbering column (1,2,3) next to a table" and "In a narrow space: sorting buttons in a separate row". --Timeshifter (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

United States colored wrongly on World Bank Gini Index map
This Article's list states that the United States has a World Bank Gini rank of 48, but this Article's map colors the United States light pink (40 to 45). The United States should be dark pink like Mexico (45 to 50). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.135.121 (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's absolutely right, and misleading! Ledboots (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The "World" Gini coefficient is misleading
The CIA's Gini coefficient for the world is misleading. It is likely an international average, rather than a measure counting the world's people as individuals. According to this World Bank policy research working paper, the Gini coefficient for the world is about 70 when measuring global inequality at the individual level. Meanwhile, this Economist article cites research by François Bourguignon and Christian Morrisson that finds the "global Gini" to be about 65 (0.65). These are both far different than the CIA's claim of 39. The World Bank paper explains why you get drastically different Gini coefficients when you measure at the individual level rather than simply averaging the world's countries. --JHP (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Errors in the table for gini coefficients
the table of gini's erroneously states Singapore's World Bank gini estimate as 28.1 in 2008. Singapore is a poster-child for high inequality, yet this site mistakenly suggests it is oneof the most equal rich coutnries in the world. World Bank databank reports no information at all for a gini for Singapore. But even the Singapore government admits that inequality is very high. E.g.,  http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/03/govt-has-stabilised-income-inequality-says-lawrence-wong/

96.32.36.125 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

GPI data??
I am concerned about the inclusion of the GPI data on this page. For example, they claim that North Korea has a Gini of 31. How could anybody possibly come up with a number for North Korea? Are there stats somewhere on income of North Koreans? And are they believable? For example, do they include Kim Jong Un's private jet? Or the inhabitants of their numerous prison camps? Without such information, how can one have a believable number?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on these concerns, I've gone ahead and removed the GPI "data". To expand on my concerns a bit -- I am unable to find any discussion of Gini methodology on the GPI website. Additionally, it is strange that GPI has "data" for several countries that other sources don't. Are we to believe that GPI somehow has information on all of these countries, while no one else does? Furthermore, GPI gives Gini info without any year attached, which is a concern in and of itself. Gini changes over time, so a credible source would answer the question "Gini as of when?".MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Rank Column : Why different table ?
It should be merged with the other table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.9.219 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded. 82.198.218.209 (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Lesotho
How does Lesotho go from 39.8X in UN R/P 10% to 44.2X in the 20% column? Incorporating 2 deciles that are closer together should not increase the ratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32B2:D420:64A3:98BF:E899:36CF (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at the source PDFs, and did not find the data presented in the table. It would be good if the sources listed page #s or table headings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32B2:D420:64A3:98BF:E899:36CF (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries by income equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402093506/http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=46189 to http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=46189

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Table is Confusing
The data table is confusing. It has too many numbers with no clear legend or column explanations. Please rethink the presentation. Thank You. -Anonymous. --2605:E000:864C:E900:2564:B9DC:2B1:9F6C (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC) I agree with you! very confusing!. --Bolzanobozen (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of countries by income equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209211941/http://www.gler.it/gler_XV_1/Odoardi.pdf to http://www.gler.it/gler_XV_1/Odoardi.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209210651/http://www.gler.it/gler_XV_1/GLER_%20XV_1.pdf to http://www.gler.it/gler_XV_1/GLER_%20XV_1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601214002/http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/ to http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

UN figures are not from the UN at all
The UNDP does not calculate the Gini coefficient for its report, they just use data from the World Bank. This can be verified by checking the "statistical annex" section of the 2010 report (page 155): under the "source" section for income inequality it says "World Bank (2010)". So the smart thing to do would be to use the original, up to date GINI index from the WB website instead of the UN copy of yesteryear.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You or someone else can feel free to update the list. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did just that: I changed the "UN GINI" column into a "World Bank GINI index" column, added a "year" column right next to it, and fetched the latest data from the World Bank website. Fueled (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! --Timeshifter (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear, I noticed that the values of GINI, supposedly obtained from UNDP, were not the GINI, but another "Human Inequality" index, as countries as Afghanistan (http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/AFG) do not have GINI data. What can we do? I am new and not sure --Roger Keller Celeste (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Is poverty decreasing?
We could use some more eyes on this: Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions. Also, there is the question of whether the proposed misconception should be added to an article on poverty. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Map
The map has a fundemental flaw. What year does the data represent. Is it based on the table where the data spans from 1992 to 2017? If that's the case, it should be taken down. It is flawed.


 * More than flawed, it doesn't even represent the data the article portrays - it is outdated even in relation to the data presented. Taking it off. 213.245.146.78 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * One simple example: the data indicated in the page says that according to the World Bank, Brazil is in 46%. The map purportedly shows World Bank data, but in it Brazil was shown with the 50-54% color. Map needed going.213.245.146.78 (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Broken reference link
Reference 4, the link https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2047.html appears to be broken. I'd appreciate it if someone could find the new address and fix that link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.8.44 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

better source
Isn't there a better source of information that this? The UN report cites figures for individual countries that go back to 1996 or even earlier (the Rwanda figure is from 1983 for Chrissake!)
 * Sure; see http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/Database/en_GB/wiid/
 * Stas K (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Credit Suisse Report
Since the Credit Suisse report is more consolidated and up-to-date than the UN and CIA factbook, I believe it should get top billing. I will move it above the UN & CIA table. Nwoebcke (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The header of Credit Suisse is about wealth, not income. The Credit Suisse table should be moved to the list of countries by | wealth distribution. Huopa 08:46, 2015-08-11 (UTC)


 * Thanks Huopa! Yes I just realized my mistake. There's already a page of 'List of countries by distribution of wealth' but since that is a singular 'list' and not 'lists', I'm not sure where to put this new list. There is also a 'Distribution of wealth' page. I guess I'll put it there under '21st century'. Nwoebcke (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

UNU-WIDER World Income Inequality Database - WIID
It's the same database User:Ctacmo linked. (But the link changed). At the moment it looks like a really complete database for every number every reported about income equality. But sorting data and inserting it in the article will take quite a while I guess. https://www.wider.unu.edu/project/wiid-%E2%80%93-world-income-inequality-database and https://www.wider.unu.edu/database/wiid --Elpres (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Afghanistan
Neither the World Bank, nor the CIA Factbook list any data of Afghanistan. And this is not the first time, when I encountered such a case on this page. Centrum99 (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Double checked, no Afghanistan data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.241.248 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * this database has 3 entries for Afghanistan (for 2008, 2012 and 2017): https://www.wider.unu.edu/database/wiid --Elpres (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

United States
I'm going to remove the latest erroneous info about the CIA Fact Book showing a Gini value of 0.38 for 2013. I went to the link and found nothing beyond 2007. This is completely wrong. Nwoebcke (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Where's The Afghanistan data?
I would like to know about Afghanistan's data because I'm from Afghanistan. Mohammad Mir shahnoory (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article at least include a link to the WIID?
There was a section, near the top of the table-of-contents, suggesting the inclusion of information from the WIID. Of course that should be done. It was pointed out in that section that achieving that WIID inclusion would require a lot of time and work. Yes, but, until that's accomplished, then why not just include, in the article, a link to the WIID?

And, at such time as WIID information is included in the article's table, I'd suggest the inclusion of the income-share of the poorest 1% (because, for any two countries, the country with a higher value of that will also have greater cumulative income-share up to every percentile (when two countries' Lorenz curves don't cross), or a greater income share up to every percentile below the crossing-point (if the two countries' Lorenz curves cross). Because sometimes two countries have the same income share for the poorest 1%, then the income share of the poorest 5% should be included too. In fact, it would be informative to show the income-share for the poorest 1%, 5%,10%, & 20%. In fact, if there's room (and there would be if each country had two lines in the chart instead of just one), why not show decile-spaced data-points from the entire Lorenz curve. i.e., the income share of the bottom... 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%, & 99%. ...but I suggest that, instead of income-share, it would be more meaningful to substitute the cumulative income up to each percentile as its percentage of what it would be under complete equality. ... i.e. that cumulative income up to a given percentile, divided by that percentile. For those who want a single number representing an aggregation-summary, I suggest ge(-1). What could be more natural and intuitive than to define each income's inequality-contribution as the factor by which that income is less than the equal-share (the mean income). ge(-1) averages those inequality-contributions over the entire population, and then subtracts 1 (in order to report the overall departure from equality...because that average would equal 1, under equality.)...and then divides by 2, to satisfy the g.e. formula.

Theil-L's general term, Ln(Y) has, as its derivative, 1/Y. ...meaning that, when a particular income changes by an amount dY, the index-sum-contribution for that income changes by dY/Y. ...an amount equal to the percentage by which that income is changed. Problem: Reducing a poor person's income by a given percentage causes a lot more hardship than reducing a rich person's income by that same percentage. Therefore, though Theil-L is of interest in an abstract, impartial and indifferent way, it isn't really a good measure of harm related to inequality. But the derivative of ge(-1)'s 1/Y general term is 1/Y^2. That reflects the fact that the importance of reducing an income by a certain percentage is greater for a small incomes. ...at least roughly in proportion to the smallness of that income. So I suggest ge(-1) as the societally-meaningful 1-number summation-aggregation inequality-index. Evaluation over the entire population (as is customary for such indexes) has meaning and use, but I suggest that we also borrow a principle from the Hoover index: The Hoover looks at the total amount shortfall from equal-share, over all the incomes that are short of equal-share. Likewise, then,to measure total poorness, wouldn't it be more meaningful to just evaluate ge(-1) over the below-mean incomes? So, in summary, I suggest: income-share (or income-share divided by percentile) up to the following percentiles:

1) bottom 1% & bottom 5%. ...or 1%, 5%, 10% & 20%...Or up to 90%. and 2)ge(-1) evaluated only up to the mean income. and 3) ge(-1) evaluated over entire population. ...and of course anything that anyone else wants to add, such as Theil-L or Palma. But I'd like to point out that, when two countries' Lorenz curves cross near the median, the Gini, the Palma will very often say that the more unequal country is the one whose Lorenz curve is higher (compared to that of the other country) over the entire bottom-half of the population (!!!???). And even Theil-L will sometimes do that. I don't know of a country-pair for which ge(-1) will do that, even when ge(-1) is evaluated over the entire populatio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article at least include a link to the WIID?
There was a section, near the top of the table-of-contents, suggesting the inclusion of information from the WIID. Of course that should be done. It was pointed out in that section that achieving that WIID inclusion would require a lot of time and work. Yes, but, until that's accomplished, then why not just include, in the article, a link to the WIID?

And, at such time as WIID information is included in the article's table, I'd suggest the inclusion of the income-share of the poorest 1% (because, for any two countries, the country with a higher value of that will also have greater cumulative income-share up to every percentile (when two countries' Lorenz curves don't cross), or a greater income share up to every percentile below the crossing-point (if the two countries' Lorenz curves cross). Because sometimes two countries have the same income share for the poorest 1%, then the income share of the poorest 5% should be included too. In fact, it would be informative to show the income-share for the poorest 1%, 5%,10%, & 20%. In fact, if there's room (and there would be if each country had two lines in the chart instead of just one), why not show decile-spaced data-points from the entire Lorenz curve. i.e., the income share of the bottom... 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%, & 99%. ...but I suggest that, instead of income-share, it would be more meaningful to substitute the cumulative income up to each percentile as its percentage of what it would be under complete equality. ... i.e. that cumulative income up to a given percentile, divided by that percentile. For those who want a single number representing an aggregation-summary, I suggest ge(-1). What could be more natural and intuitive than to define each income's inequality-contribution as the factor by which that income is less than the equal-share (the mean income). ge(-1) averages those inequality-contributions over the entire population, and then subtracts 1 (in order to report the overall departure from equality...because that average would equal 1, under equality.)...and then divides by 2, to satisfy the g.e. formula.

Theil-L's general term, Ln(Y) has, as its derivative, 1/Y. ...meaning that, when a particular income changes by an amount dY, the index-sum-contribution for that income changes by dY/Y. ...an amount equal to the percentage by which that income is changed. Problem: Reducing a poor person's income by a given percentage causes a lot more hardship than reducing a rich person's income by that same percentage. Therefore, though Theil-L is of interest in an abstract, impartial and indifferent way, it isn't really a good measure of harm related to inequality. But the derivative of ge(-1)'s 1/Y general term is -1/Y^2. That reflects the fact that the importance of reducing an income by a certain percentage is greater for a small incomes. ...at least roughly in proportion to the smallness of that income. So I suggest ge(-1) as the societally-meaningful 1-number summation-aggregation inequality-index. Evaluation over the entire population (as is customary for such indexes) has meaning and use, but I suggest that we also borrow a principle from the Hoover index: The Hoover looks at the total amount shortfall from equal-share, over all the incomes that are short of equal-share. Likewise, then,to measure total poorness, wouldn't it be more meaningful to just evaluate ge(-1) over the below-mean incomes? So, in summary, I suggest: income-share (or income-share divided by percentile) up to the following percentiles:

1) bottom 1% & bottom 5%. ...or 1%, 5%, 10% & 20%...Or up to 90%. and 2)ge(-1) evaluated only up to the mean income. and 3) ge(-1) evaluated over entire population. ...and of course anything that anyone else wants to add, such as Theil-L or Palma. But I'd like to point out that, when two countries' Lorenz curves cross near the median, the Gini, the Palma will very often )in 6 of the 7 country-pairs that I checked) say that the more unequal country is the one whose Lorenz curve is higher (compared to that of the other country) over the entire bottom-half of the population (!!!???). And even Theil-L will sometimes (in 3 of the 7 country-pairs that I checked) do that. I don't know of a country-pair for which ge(-1) will do that, even when ge(-1) is evaluated over the entire population. But at least, in the meantime, let's give the article a link to WIID. Michael Ossipoff96.39.179.76 (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Didn't mean to post two copies of my post.
Sorry, I didn't mean to post two copies of my post. I'd like to delete the first one, but i don't know how. The 2nd copy of the post is the complete one, the one that I'd like to keep. Michael Ossipoff96.39.179.76 (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Alphabetical order
Having the list in alphabetical order isn't so useful can't it be low order? Johnotm (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Users can order the list by high-at-top, low-at-top, for any column...or leave it alphabetival if preferred.
 * Michael Ossipoff
 * 97.82.116.234 (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. In my other reply to your comment, I assumed that you were referring to this Wikipedia article, the one of which this is the talk-page.
 * But maybe you were referring to the World Income Inequality Database (WIID) tables, of the U.N. University (UNU). Those tables are so extensive, with so many inequality-indexes, for so many countries, over so many years, that it would likely be an infeasible complication to add interactive program-code for the user to re-sort the country/year combinations by the magnitude of an index-value.
 * Additionally, the document is downloadable, and that would be infeasible or complicated if it were to include the program-code for interactive user-re-sorting.
 * The WIID tables tell so much information, that we can’t really expect them to additionally have interactive sorting by user.
 * 97.82.116.234 (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The WIID tables tell so much information, that we can’t really expect them to additionally have interactive sorting by user.
 * 97.82.116.234 (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 97.82.116.234 (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 97.82.116.234 (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)