Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:47, 19 January 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Reliable source

Jojalozzo : As I can read in the message you sent, you removed my contribution for this only reason : " http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr/p/the-us-debt-dashboard-key-indicators-of.html is an anonymous blog and is not considered a reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles. " I have to precise : 1) http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr is not an anonymous blog : see the Contact section displayed on each page, top right hand side 2) This blog is considered as a reliable source for Misplaced Pages article, because it is already linked since many years by others Misplaced Pages pages. For instance : http://en.wikipedia.org/Reserve_currency ; This is just the opposite than a blacklisted site by wikipedia. 3) Have you found a more exhaustive and up to date page elsewhere about these indicators, than http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr/p/the-us-debt-dashboard-key-indicators-of.html ? 4) The page http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr/p/the-us-debt-dashboard-key-indicators-of.html is mentioning every source of the data displayed, and/or is hot linking directly to the original and reliable source (FRED® Economic Data from Federal Reserve for instance).

For these reasons, I ask you revert your changes. --Brp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.174.103.32 (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If we can get the same info from the actual sources, let's do that. Perhaps this web site would be a good place to get the links we can use but I see no reason to promote that blog on Misplaced Pages when it is duplicating existing web content. Where there is synthesis, I do not believe that the author (Bruno Paul) would be considered a reliable source. Blogs are not considered reliable sources and if there are other articles where we are using this blog as a source, I think we should remove the links there as well. Jojalozzo 15:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, am I correct in understanding that you are associated in some way with this web site such that you may have a conflict of interest in this matter? Jojalozzo 15:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted a notice on the reliable sources noticeboard about these sources. That's the best place to get the opinions of those who are most familiar with evaluating sources. Jojalozzo 16:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

1) Jojalozzo, you wrote: "I do not believe that the author (Bruno Paul) would be considered a reliable source." If you read correctly http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BLOGS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 , you should have written: "Blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Please: as an editor do not be confused between the words 'reliable' and 'acceptable', between a blog and its author. And "largely not" does not mean "never".

I would insist on the following points : a) some pages of Conscience Sociale are original studies in the field, not published elsewhere. They provide full data and references. Verifiability is fully provided. These blog pages may be considered as primary sources. b) some others pages are a strict synthesis of many others sources (primary or secondary), each time with references (hotlink or URL). We could remake the work already done and add hundreds of references (currently agregated on the blog pages for each chart) directly into Misplaced Pages, but we will then lack the synthetic view required by Misplaced Pages encyclopedia. These blog pages may be considered as secondary sources.

2) According to the link you provide, "COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Yes I am associated with this blog; but where in the contributions do you see that I am advancing my own interest more than the aims of Misplaced Pages ? This only would caracterize a COI.

3) OK for your notice. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.56.241.24 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your points a) and b), neither original research nor synthesis is allowed here. Unless you are a recognized expert in economics, your blog is not available as a secondary source. Jojalozzo 19:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I realize I have not expressed my admiration for your blog pages. I very much appreciate all the work that's been put in there and I think it's a valuable resource for understanding national and international economics. Unfortunately, my opinion does not count and as Misplaced Pages editors our job is to improve the project while following policy which as far as I can tell precludes use or reference to your blog (unless I have missed your mention of published books or peer-reviewed articles on the subject). However, let's see what the folks at the reliable sources noticeboard say. Jojalozzo 22:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Relative size of finance industry, efficiency of wealth taxes, corporate profits vs. GDP, jobless recovery

This is kind of a hodge-podge, but I think these news items should be added to this article for the following reasons:

http://esoltas.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-rise-of-finance.html - the finance industry has grown from about a tenth of the economy in 1947 to about half of it now.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/06/america_s_wealth_tax_it_s_called_property_taxes_and_they_re_not_very_smart.html - the U.S. has wealth taxation but it is not egalitarian. In contrast the wealth tax article implies that there isn't any in the U.S., but that's not true. It's just regressive.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/corporate-profits-are-eating-the-economy/273687/ - corporate profits are so large, and corporations are just banking them, so it's sapping up demand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html - jobless recovery. EllenCT (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

See also http://esoltas.blogspot.com/2013/02/5-more-graphs-on-finance.html which is a follow-on to the first of those four. EllenCT (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added all of those except for the Slate piece, which is written from the left. It can be balanced with from the right. (At least it seemed that way skimming it.) EllenCT (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Lowest income percentiles" enjoy more space than middle class in Europe - removed

I deleted "Even in the lowest income percentiles people enjoy more space – average 400 square feet per person – than middle classes in Europe do" because technically, the 3-4 lowest percentiles are homeless, and probably either live in a shelter, a relative's couch or spare room, or on the street. I can't find the specifics in the cited sources (two of the three aren't on the web) but whatever they say, "the lowest income percentiles" needs to be more specific to prevent the sentence from being seriously misleading. EllenCT (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

US net family net worth

The US median family net worth is very different from what most people think. Here is some information for the article:

http://middleclasspoliticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2012/07/us-trails-at-least-15-oecd-countries-in.html

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems appropriate for Wealth in the United States. EllenCT (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Addition

The table under Economy by Sector contains numbers which do not add up. The 'percent of total employment' numbers come out to 88% even taking the >1% number as 1%, and the 'Employment Thousands Feb. 2013' total is barely higher than the first value in the column. I do not know the correct numbers, so I did not edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.151.208.58 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There are additional minor sectors (e.g. recreation) not included in the table. Please see the source cited (or Economy of the United States by sector for 2002 data....) I've removed the misleading and incorrect totals line from the end of the table. EllenCT (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages economics project

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

Format for every country:

1. Regions by GDP

2. Top 10 cities by population

3. GDP by industry

4. Top 10 corporations by revenue

5. Employment by sector

6. Consumers

7. Fiscal budget

8. Central bank balance sheet

9. Top 10 financial institutions by assets

10. International trade

Format for every region:

1. Top 10 cities by population

2. GDP by industry

3. Top 10 corporations by revenue

4. Employment by sector

5. Consumers

6. Fiscal budget

7. Top 10 financial Institutions by assets

Format for every city:

1. GDP by industry

2. Top 10 corporations by revenue

3. Employment by sector

4. Consumers

5. Fiscal budget

6. Top 10 financial institutions by assets

Recent polling data finds overlooked middle class shrinkage

I wanted to include the first three sections of and ("While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press.") this weekend, but if someone else can't get to them first (please!) then they will have to wait. EllenCT (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Gini bias

Why is the Gini listed for USA pre tax, while the Gini listed on Misplaced Pages for Norway for example after tax transfers? Someone was ideologically biased or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.3.13 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably that isn't intentional... probably. Maybe Wikidata will make everything consistent some day. EllenCT (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Graph removal

@Bkwillwm: There are different locations where these graphs are being discussed & disputed. It didn't make sense to have a debate on each article. Sorry I wasn't able to include all the links in the summary. File:US_high-income_effective_tax_rates.png is discussed here Talk:Taxation_in_the_United_States#Employment_Graphs. Such a highly criticized, redacted, non-peer reviewed and partisan graph (created by an Obama campaign donor in the hight of election) is not a proper neutral graph for such a high level article. Since graphs are easy to manipulate, it made sense to remove such a graph until consensus is achieved for actually adding it or a new graph found. It seems many of these highly partisan graphs were inserted all over the place and no one really questioned their inclusion. Sorry if my edit caused disruption - I was just trying to work through the listed articles. Morphh 14:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The "Obama campaign donor" remains a vindicated CRS staffer. Is there any actual evidence against the accuracy of the graph in question? EllenCT (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You're well aware of the evidence. It's not a neutral graph and inappropriate for this article. Morphh 15:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am; as I told you elsewhere, I followed the story for months and Hungerford was never anything but vindicated. Do you have any evidence at all that he wasn't, or that any doubts remain as to the accuracy of any of the material that he was lynched for? EllenCT (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Implications of inequality / Reversion of undiscussed, massive POV addition

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

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

@VictorD7: I agree that each specific portion should be discussed here. All of the text was composed from other articles, some of which where it has been controversial and some of which were it has stood for years uncontested. All of the statements are supported. Do you really object to describing the growing inequality in the US as "worrying", which is echoed by last year's economics Nobel Prize winner? The objections against the Kenworthy graph are trivial, and User:TheVirginiaHistorian is correct to place it side-by-side with the divergence between productivity and median incomes. Would you object to that juxtaposition if a different inequality graph was used? Do you have any other objections to the substance of the text? EllenCT (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

So far we have objections to the word "worrying", the Kenworthy graph, the Johnston and Oakland measurements, and a claim that this absurd right-wing editorial should be included even though it conflicts with the peer reviewed conclusions. Anything else? EllenCT (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The editorial should be worked in, as a representation of that viewpoint. However, it should be presented as what it apparently is - a minority viewpoint among economists. The words "peer-reviewed" aren't a magic talisman and the Brookings Institution has a significant POV.

Victor, tossing around claims like "low-level leftist think tank" is utterly irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. The Economic Policy Institute is no more or less valid a source as Cato and Heritage - biased, right-wing think tanks. We present the research in an NPOV manner, weighted in accordance with its weight in the scientific and public arena. Disagreeing with EPI's conclusions is not reason or justification for removing their conclusions.

I have rewritten several of the sections, omitted others and excised the disputed graph. If there is a significant point of view that inequality isn't growing or isn't a significant problem, those POVs should be included in the section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

EPI is a low level leftist think tank, but I can tolerate it as a source if its info is verifiable or corroborated in some way, as the items I add from partisan sources (I use both conservative and liberal sources) are. Do you know of a corroborating source, or even have a rational justification for the giant graph being in a section that doesn't mention the word "productivity"? And no, this isn't an invitation to toss in a sentence on the topic as a flimsy ex post facto justification.

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

The section already covered inequality from a fairly factual standpoint, but the other new addition is a one sided list of vague editorial opinions on the topic. The section was somewhat slanted in focus to begin with but is now extremely soapboxed and POV. The first paragraph suddenly launches into the top 1%'s recent income shares, and every other paragraph in the intro (except for the brief one I restored on the ultra wealthy) continues the "inequality" drumbeat. Hungerford's claims require scrutiny (and probably at least in text citation) since he's an Obama donor whose past work has come under intense criticism. Frankly the intro should be shorter and less focused on inequality, but if it stays like this I and possibly others will obviously be adding extensive material for balance and comprehensive coverage of the political dispute, and the section will likely bloat up into a huge point/counterpoint zone. That's not what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be, but that's what happens when some have a misplaced determination to hijack the encyclopedia for use as a platform for political propagandizing. VictorD7 (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he's "an Obama donor" is of no consequence. You need to stop asserting that every source whose conclusions you disagree with is somehow unacceptably biased.

Actually, yes, in matters of dispute, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a "point/counterpoint" zone. That's the NPOV policy's essence. We report the notable points of view in proportion to their prominence in the public sphere. There is a highly-prominent point of view that income and wealth inequality is a major problem in American society. You cannot reject that point of view merely because you disagree with it. Nor may you remove that point of view because you think it's wrong. We are obligated to report that point of view, and we are obligated to report any significant opposing points of view.

Asserting that an editor with a left-wing point of view is "propagandizing" while yourself adhering to a strictly-right-wing point of view is an excellent example of the pot calling the kettle black. No one is surprised when a Heritage Foundation study contradicts a Progressive Policy Institute study, or vice versa. You cannot claim that right-wing sources are automatically correct and use them to override the conclusions of left-wing sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That he's an Obama donor is worth pointing out when his opinion is simply being cited in Misplaced Pages's voice. No, that the US left is currently on an "inequality" theme kick does not mean it should consume the entire Income section, and Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a partisan battleground. Particular sections certainly aren't supposed to blow up to undue size because of a lack of big picture editing. It's as if you people never read encyclopedias growing up. Since there are clearly plenty of other views (one of which I linked here) about income (and not just the inequality dispute), why is the (already long) section so one sided? Why is it the responsibility of people who don't share your politics to come along and balance your mess? You could have edited in a neutral fashion to begin with, but failed to. I never said anything about right-wing sources being "automatically correct", and I'm not the one bent on stuffing articles with one sided talking points. Your last few sentences degenerate into irrationality. Adding counterpoints isn't my first choice, though you've made it necessary for the sake of neutrality.VictorD7 (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, your POV is blatantly obvious, so your claims that I'm not "editing in a neutral fashion" are hilarious because you aren't either. Pot, kettle, black.

Misplaced Pages articles are not limited by the length of articles in paper encyclopedias. They should not be excessively long, but they are not one-paragraph descriptions, either.

You're right, Misplaced Pages should not be a partisan battleground. So stop trying to delete, water down or neutralize descriptions of the left-wing point of view. Both left and right must be represented fairly. That is the essence of NPOV policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and you didn't answer my questions about how you defend the convoluted single minority woman in Oakland wealth comparison, or the productivity graph when the section text doesn't mention productivity. VictorD7 (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

1. White House: Here's Why You Have To Care About Inequality Timothy Noah | tnr.com| January 13, 2012
2. Krugman, Paul (October 20, 2002). "For Richer". The New York Times.
3. Winner-Take-All Politics (book) by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson p. 75
4. "CBO Report Shows Rich Got Richer, As Did Most Americans: View". businessweek.com. October 31, 2011.
5. Oligarchy, American Style By PAUL KRUGMAN. 3 November 2011
6. "The Broken Contract", By George Packer, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2011
7. Christoffersen, John (October 14, 2013). "Rising inequality 'most important problem,' says Nobel-winning economist". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 19 October 2013.
8. Mishel, Lawrence (April 26, 2012). The wedges between productivity and median compensation growth. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
9. Hungerford, Thomas L. (December 29, 2011). Changes in the Distribution of Income Among Tax Filers Between 1996 and 2006: The Role of Labor Income, Capital Income, and Tax Policy (Report 7-5700/R42131). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 1 January 2014.
10. Johnston, David Cay (February 25, 2013). "Income Inequality: 1 Inch to 5 Miles". TaxAnalysts.com. Retrieved 1 January 2014.
11. Lifting as We Climb: Women of Color, Wealth, and America’s Future (PDF). Oakland, California: Insight Center for Community Economic Development. Spring 2010. Retrieved 1 January 2014.
12. Alesina, Alberto (1994). "Distributive Politics and Economic Growth" (PDF). Quarterly Journal of Economics. 109 (2): 465–90. doi:10.2307/2118470. Retrieved 17 October 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
13. Castells-Quintana, David (2012). "Unemployment and long-run economic growth: The role of income inequality and urbanisation" (PDF). Investigaciones Regionales. 12 (24): 153–173. Retrieved 17 October 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• C-Class Economics articles
• Top-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English