Misplaced Pages

Talk:Economic inequality

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 21 September 2014 (→Recent edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:41, 21 September 2014 by Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) (→Recent edits)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economic inequality article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconOWS (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject OWS, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.OWSWikipedia:WikiProject OWSTemplate:WikiProject OWSOWS
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEconomics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WPLibertarianism

To-do list for Economic inequality: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2016-04-18


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Income inequality and wealth inequality should be separate articles

I was asked to post this by a student of mine with whom I have had a detailed discussion of this article:

There is a vast difference between income inequality, which is fairly harmful, and wealth inequality which most people have a more visceral opposition to but which is much less dangerous to society at large. Both of those redirect here. They not only have vastly different implications, but they are treated separately in reliable sources. Therefore this article should be split into those two redirects and replaced with a disambiguation page.

R9E2 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me read-in some implications of the statement. (Basically, food for thought.) In R9E2's comment, I read that between the two, income inequality is harmful, but most people do not have opposition to it; whereas, wealth inequality is not so harmful, but people are opposed to it. (And tacitly, those people who are either opposed to these inequalities or who think they are harmful in any degree are people who are on the short/shorter end of the equality stick.) I bring these implications (overt and tacit) as a caution. What sort of WP:POVs might be advanced with two articles? And what WP:RS supports an analysis that the two are distinct? --S. Rich (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I was going to say that nobody in his right mind was opposed to either, but that's not quite correct. Still, they are different concepts, and, if reliable sources can be found to distinguish them, and there isn't much overlap in the commentaries on them, then they should be separate articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To explain my comment, consider the French and Russian revolutions. Both were brought about entirely by hardships caused by income inequality, but the rallying and rhetoric behind them were limited exclusively to diatribes about the unfairness of the wealth inequality in those societies. The complaint was that Marie Antoinette and the Tsars were too rich while the people starved, not that there was a lack of aggregate demand caused by top-heavy incomes. The wealth at the top in both cases would only have lasted the masses a few years had it been completely distributed without resulting in greater aggregate demand. The same is true of most other less consequential revolutions and popular uprisings.

I propose to leave the present article in place while filling out the redirects with separate full-length articles so that anyone interested may compare and comment on all three and the sources requested to distinguish the terms before this article is replaced. I expect to have sufficient time for that on the coming weekends over the next month or two. R9E2 (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think separating the two is a good idea, but both sides should be presented. For example, the idea that income inequality is harmful has to be offset by the idea that income equality is also harmful, and the harm from both stems not so much from the equality or inequality per se, but rather from the legal enforcement of the equality/inequality. In other words, income equality/inequality in the presence of equal opportunity is much less harmful than enforced income equality/inequality. It would be nice to include a rational analysis along with the chants from the cheerleaders of both teams. PAR (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
We already have an article on "wealth inequality". It is titled Wealth concentration and it is linked/hatnoted in the article. How could a "wealth inequality" article be composed to distinguish it from wealth concentration? Moreover, this article needs fixing. Consider, the "Measurement of inequality in the modern world" section focuses on income differences. (Measurements of wealth differences are not discussed.) Later on the article says "Entrenched strata of power – whether economic, political, status, ascribed, or meritocratic – can lead ...." and "Over time, wealth condensation can significantly contribute to the persistence of inequality within society." Both statements are highly POV (and unsourced). Please consider these factors in light of my initial comment about splitting -- this stuff has all kinds of pitfalls. Also, please consider the POV in observations about wealth and income disparity. E.g., the implication that the economic disparities (and other problems) which lead to the French and Russian revolutions are at all similar to the world today. (To be clear, I do not think R9E2 is advocating this.) My concern is that other editors will latch onto these concepts to promote anti-wealth and/or anti-high-income positions. PAR is right. We need balance. Again, this article is the one that needs the work.--S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the bottom line is there should be two articles and if Wealth concentration fits the bill, then good. I think the cheerleader editors (i.e. those with unshakeable value judgements on the subject) should have their say, its valuable information on the values and persuasion techniques of both sides, but a value-free analysis, if possible, should be included as well. That's the hard part. PAR (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that Wealth concentration and Income inequality are the correct titles. Since the first already exists, that makes the split somewhat easier, but I am beginning to see what a monumental task this split may be, and I've been putting it off. I don't suppose any of you more experienced editors would like to take a shot at it? R9E2 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should be split. EllenCT (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There used to be a split tag which explains the source of frequent confusion, but it was removed several months ago. I put it back. EllenCT (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, after watching Income inequality in the United States for some time, I can certainly agree with the idea of splitting. The arguments (!) and the quality of the income inequality is just so much higher than what we have here. A factor better IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Game theoretic models of cooperation

Re this deletion, why is the summary claimed to be inaccurate? EllenCT (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Because, at least, the abstract says nothing at all about "economic inequality". If you can provide a quote from the article itself.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The iterated prisoners' dilemma models an economy with two participants, and is the same model of reduction used to prove that monopolies are worse than trade, among several other very important facts. I read the article but am not sure where the text is now. I think you want one of the commentaries on it from the DSGE modelers. EllenCT (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium? – S. Rich (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the DSGE models include the macroeconomic models proven to be most accurate over the past couple decades. That is why the IMF reversed its position on inequality. That the game theoretic models didn't agree with the best large forecasting models until recently was very disturbing, but now we're only left with cleaning up the aftermath and then everything will be great, or at least potentially not terrible. EllenCT (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Agree with Rubin that the material is not helpful. (The DSGE info was interesting, but did not clarify.) Will be reverting the latest edit because consensus to include the material has not been achieved. – S. Rich (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "not helpful"? Anything specific? EllenCT (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That paper has no relationship with this article, furthermore, game theory relies on individual choice where as people in this situation have no individual choice as to whether they should pay more in taxes. Clearly an attempt to synthezise material. Arzel (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The individual choice in both cases is how much to produce, whether bitwise in the reduced simulation or along the continuum of everyday choices everyone in economy of millions faces. The incidence is defined by the game outcome matrix and the suits index combined with the total amount of taxation. Stewart and Plotkin cite the books Theory of Games and Economic Behavior and and this highly cited and regarded John Nash article to show the correspondence. EllenCT (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Could you please point out where, in each of the two mentioned publications, the support for the statements in the "Policy responses..." section are found? PAR (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Those texts establishing the relation between economics and game theory are cited in Stewart and Plotkin's previous paper from 2012 in the 2nd paragraph. Could you give me some level of indication of your familiarity with game theoretic reductions of economic models? The DSGE modelers' commentaries are heavy on the jargon.
I am more comfortable with pure game theory as represented by Stewart and Plotkin, not very familiar with DSGE stuff. But that's beside the point, your response doesn't answer the question. Are you retracting the statement that the two mentioned references support the statements in the "Policy responses..." section?
Absolutely not! The additional three which Stewart and Plotkin cited in their 2012 paper address the accusations of synthesis entirely, and should be included along with the deleted passage. EllenCT (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, then I ask again, could you please point out where, in each of the two above mentioned publications (Von Neumann and Nash), the support for the statements in the "Policy responses..." section are found? PAR (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The deleted passage is supported because the peer reviewed literature reviews say that the most accurate models are now in agreement at both the full DSGE and reduced game theory levels. I will provide passages to that effect. EllenCT (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so you are saying never mind the Von Neumann and Nash articles as support for the policy section? PAR (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
No, and they should be sufficient to show how forecasters use game theoretic models to verify the validity of their equilibrium models. Have you read either of them? EllenCT (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I've read the Nash article, which is a general description of equilibrium in an n-player game, with absolutely no mention of a government nor the effects of progressive taxation and/or spending. The reference you originally provided was Stewart & Plotkin, which I have read and whose methods I partially understand, and whose conclusions I understand. Again, no mention of any agency with special powers to, for example, enforce contracts, collect or spend taxes, regulate monopolies. Indeed, their results show that no contract-enforcing agency is required to guarantee that cooperative behavior will naturally emerge in a long-term donation variant of the prisoner's dilemma game with many players. For the Von Neumann 640-page book, I have only read the "economic conclusions" section beginning at page 555. While not understanding it in detail, the discussion is clearly not about a prisoner's dilemma game, but rather a free market game in which cooperation (in the Stewart and Plotkin sense) is always assumed. Again, absolutely no mention of a central agency with the power to tax and spend, or to regulate monopolies.

But again, this is all beside the point. As the editor who made the revision, the question is not whether I understand it, but rather if you understand it. From your repeated inability or refusal to quote where, in any of the above three articles, support for your revision is found, I'm beginning to wonder if you have read or understand any of the three articles. If you have read and understand them, for the fourth time, please point out where, in any of them, support for your revision is stated. If you can or will not, then I will have to agree with the reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAR (talk • contribs)

@PAR: why do you say that the economic conclusions of the Von Numann book always assume cooperation as opposed to competition? My appraisal of your understanding of the background material seems to be substantially less than your appraisal of mine, given your summary analysis. EllenCT (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, you didn't answer the question - I support the reversion. PAR (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how progressive taxation can be conflated with cooperation among autonomous individuals. I also don't understand why severe income inequality is considered a cause rather than a symptom of injustice. Eliminating the symptom does not eliminate the disease. PAR (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see , , , and , for starters. The ideas that more progressive taxation is more cooperative and that economic inequality leads to injustice and vice versa are mainstream in economics, and if you don't see how those sources show the former, please let me know. The latter is covered more in The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by epidemiologists trained in describing cause and effect. EllenCT (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Rather than giving me 20 hours of homework, could you give a rough description of how the iterated prisoners dilemma analysis supports the idea of, say, progressive taxation? I don't understand how cooperation in a game between autonomous individuals relates in any way to progressive taxation of those individuals. PAR (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Imagine an isolated desert island coconut economy with two participants, Alice and Bob. If Alice hoards all the coconuts, she has all the nominal wealth but its real value is diminished because Bob starves and exits the labor pool, but if they trade with each other they both prosper, maybe enough to construct a fishing spear for protein or something. The iterated prisoners dilemma has been recognized since the 1940s as an idealized economy with two participants. It's probably best to read the original sources on this because I'm in a hurry at present. EllenCT (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Please, I would rather have a reasoned response later than a less-reasoned one earlier. The above response gives me no clue as to how conclusions drawn from the iterated prisoners dilemma support the suggested policy responses such as progressive taxation. I believe I understand the iterated prisoners dilemma well enough to make some sense of any explanation you give. Rather than point me to references, could you just explain it in your own words? PAR (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Ellen, the Prisonners' Dilemma was formulated around 1950, and the study of iterated series of PD was much later. SPECIFICO talk 03:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! That sure explains why I haven't been able to find the best sources these editors have been asking for. I was thinking of whatever the 2-person formulation in Theory of Games and Economic Behavior was called back then. EllenCT (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation synthetic or analytic?

I can't address every point that has been made above, but, echoing some of the things that Arthur and Arzel sort of said above, game theory is a method. You can have a game theoretic model which shows one thing, or, with different assumptions and structure, another game theoretic model which gives different results. To put it in other words, the method - game theory - that is used to establish a particular result is sort of secondary. Anyway, looking at why the refs were removed it appears to be because the papers don't really support the claim being made in the text (although there may be other sources which do). Honestly, the whole relationship between inequality and growth, or even in a purely Keynesian context, between inequality and aggregate demand is uncleear and somewhat controversial (the latter less than the former). There are different channels through which inequality can affect demand and/or savings and investment and sorting it out can be messy (not least because in the short run and long run demand vs saving can have opposite effects). Hence I support the removal of this claim as presented.

Also note that "cooperation" and "inequality" are different things. Greater cooperation can in fact lead to more inequality. The relevant question when talking about cooperation is always "cooperation by whom and against whom?". Cartels are great examples of cooperation. Which rip off consumers and potentially increase inequality. Be careful about drawing WP:SYNTH conclusions here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Right; therefore the most predictive game theory models are now in agreement with the most predictive DSGE models. What is the best way to phrase that? Just because A and B imply an obvious conclusion C, it's not synthesis unless the conclusion is stated outright. EllenCT (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually implying C is unacceptable. Per WP:SYNTH "...do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C ..." – S. Rich (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
If C is not stated, then how can A and B be "joined"? Does your interpretation allow censorship of established, verifiable facts simply because someone doesn't like what they imply? EllenCT (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggested changes and comment

Change 1

One idea above is to split the article in two with this (perhaps) as the superior article. Wealth inequality and income inequality. Overlaps perhaps contained in this article.

It seems to me that wealth is often "unrealized," which makes a difference. Income is (or should be for discussion purposes) realized, that is, money or a close equivalent, and certainly not a change in unrealized wealth.

Change 2

The article would be more convincing if the "Effects of inequality" were moved earlier in the article, ahead of "Factors impacting economic inequality" which are more vague and maybe more controversial.

Social unrest (US-centric)

Social unrest can either lead to domestic breakdown. Somalia, for example. Or World Wars I & II. Note that the argument changes. I want to relieve poverty in Somalia out of a sense of justice. I want to relieve poverty in North Korea because I might get a bomb on my head! A bit more of an incentive! I want to relieve poverty in Liberty City because they might riot and "cause problems." More incentive than Somalia, less than North Korea.

While editors seem to have no problem with discussing "social justice" or whatever, as a virtue, omitted seems to be "greed", as a vice, driving both wealth/income builders and people watching television in the inner city whose needs are provided for but "want more." It's not just Wall Street that is greedy and causing immediate problems.

Discussing inequality (US-centric)

While we have at one extreme "millions of millionaires" discussed and how they could (alone) relieve poverty (media hype IMO), at the other extreme, and Gini index at the other which usually seems more obscure than helpful. A statement of a) income and b)wealth by levels of say each 20% of the population would seem to be more understandable. Having said that, Ginis have to be used as well. They can't be avoided. They just aren't particularly noticeable. Kind of like a list of little finger lengths in centimeters. Great for somebody, just not your average reader.

The "millions of millionaires" types of comment ought to be removed as pov, WP:OR, undue or not useful. Yes, if we all shot our neighbor and took his money, those of us who survived would be better off, at least on paper. But hardly a practical, workable economic solution. Secondly, the money would not be worth the same afterwards. Prices would tend to rise.

We seem to have true economics mixed in with political wishful thinking.

Unrealized wealth

Taking stock from billionaire Bill Gates and giving it to 43 (still billionaires!) prospective Bill Gateses would do what good? Unrealized wealth can cause housing bubbles, stock market overinvestment, etc. but doesn't seem to affect everyday life.

This was different than when Marx was writing his book. Money was "hard." If I put in "under my mattress" and I had a lot of money, I could do real damage, particularly if followed by a lot of other people. Indeed, this happened in 1929 and was the reason for kicking the gold standard in part in the 1930s (US again), and finally, for good in 1972 or so. If the economy flags today, the Federal Reserve can (supposedly) pump in a bit more money, or take it out, as need be. Accumulated wealth is mostly unrealized and is either invested (and creates jobs) or is in capital investment like a house, which, in fluctuating, neither creates nor removes jobs. Wealth itself, important in Marx' day, seems nearly irrelevant today, because it is "soft" (malleable).

Income (realized) may be important, but a separate article could do this better justice IMO. Student7 (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, please note (US_centric again), that the article World Bank high-income economy defines the threshold for a high income economy at an average of US$12,615 in 2012. Note that this may be below the poverty rate in some cities in the United States, but certainly not in most states. Does this factoid affect this article? Student7 (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Although interesting, I'm concerned that it could make the article less clear to readers - unless we give it better context? bobrayner (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Expanding the "Effects of inequality" section as per my comments at would be a much better improvement than moving it, but I support both. I agree that lack of realization of wealth also needs to be addressed as per my comments at . EllenCT (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Factoid from UN

A factoid from the UN was added with what I assume is a reliable source, "The United Nations Development Programme in 2014 asserted that greater investments in social security, jobs and laws that protect vulnerable populations are necessary to prevent widening income inequality, fluctuating food prices, disasters and conflict from reducing human development."

This might be great in some higher level article, but strays well from the mark that is supposed to be focusing on an "economic inequality" article. "fluctuating food prices" - well, I hate to see them fluctuate, but people tend to buy whatever is cheapest. If I was buying "soybeans" and prices went up, I would then buy "butterbeans" or whatever, if they were cheaper. This is one of the problems everyone has with "cost of living" index - it tracks a more or less fixed basket despite the fact that people no longer consume the items in the basket, but buy more wisely.

Disasters? huh? Conflict" What? What are they talking about?

I tried to rm this because of its overreaching scope but was myself reverted because ""economic inequality" includes both income and wealth inequality." Not sure how that justifies the inclusion of an overstatement with odd words in it. Student7 (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary said, "too much scope for this article which focuses on economic inequality ONLY. Statement does not differentiate", so I thought you were complaining that it wasn't about wealth inequality. Most sources of protein nutrition are fungible not only across kinds (when corn prices increase because of drought in maize farmlands, the price of beans from elsewhere go up along with them, and meats go up multiple times as much) but across continents because excess grains have been shipped in greater quantity than they're stored in silos for over half a century now. UNDP gets plenty of criticism from US Republicans in the legislatures, but everywhere else they're considered an objective, reliable source. Misplaced Pages should side with the rest of the world over gerrymandering minorities carrying the astroturf water for economic elites in a single country. EllenCT (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Since starting this thread we have a new addition that says that equality between nations has diminished presumably despite lack of investment in whatever...
I'm not criticizing UNDP, though this particular sentence sounds "funny" (peculiar). I assumed the source was WP:RS. Rather see it from UN than US for global article.
Having said that, it appeared to me that the writer was trying to hard to say something and wound up with cant, instead of sense. "Feelings" don't mean anything here. Sense does.
My church (with my support) focuses on "improving" a poverty-stricken area in a poverty-stricken nation. We are close to day-to-day decisions. It is tough trying to improve "somebody else," even though we have resources and they don't. And they are positive, willing and cooperative!
While you have a point on tradeoff for cost-of-living, it is still a point used by both US parties when adjusting COLA. Apples have risen in price. I have no doubt that groceries are selling less of them and more of locally grown fruit (for example). But yes, when oil prices rises, fertilizer prices rise, wheat prices rise, beef prices rise, etc.
So I still disagree (don't see the point of) that part of the sentence that reads, "...fluctuating food prices, disasters and conflict from reducing human development."
"Fluctuating" food prices does not say "rising" food prices, which would make some sense (if they always rose).
And "disaster and conflict from reducing human development" doesn't seem to say anything that makes sense. It's like random words off a joke list inserted into what is supposed to be a sensible report.
It would be better to stick to what the article (quote) says than argue some point that was not in the article, IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that may even need a tag, as it really doesn't make sense. It's obviously on-topic. Extracting "information" from the quote is problematic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Gee Whiz statements under "Measurement of inequality" getting out of hand and unhelpful

The continued addition of outlandish media-type statements under "Measurement of inequality" needs to be addressed by the proponents of wealth redistribution. There seems to be no limit to crazy non-professional absurdities that are listed under this section. Section needs to be limited to professional financial-type statements which the IMF or Federal Reserve would make, not the National Inquirer!

It's all true I suppose, but so what? The 3 tallest people in the world have more height than the combined height of everyone is "Lilliput." But so what? In the era of soft money and a Federal/International Reserve, the wheels are kept greased by these agencies printing more money as needed and raising interest rates when the system becomes flooded. Carlos Slim, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates wealth does not PREVENT anyone from making money. Their money is mostly invested creating jobs. It is not under their respective mattresses!  :) Money is simply another commodity like lead or wood. Agreed this wasn't true in Karl Marx's day. But it is true today. Continuing to come up with "Gee Whiz" statistics does not help the proponents of wealth redistribution. Coming up with statistics showing that this causes problems would be helpful.

If Slim, Gates and Buffet were to be audited, we would find (mostly) pieces of paper that represent ownership in other (essentially) pieces of paper, etc. Their "wealth" is not in their bank accounts! Student7 (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that the proponents of wealth redistribution are taking over many of the economics articles on Misplaced Pages, some example measurements of inequality are relevant. As an example, the claim that the 400 wealthiest individuals have as much wealth as the poorest 50% would be an interesting statement, if it were not only a claim. However, "statistics" showing that it causes problems seem not to be available; only through various unverifiable theories do such statistics appear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
"proponents of wealth redistribution are taking over many of the economics articles on Misplaced Pages"
In terms of mainstream and fringe, what percentage of economists would you say are not proponents of wealth redistribution? Wealth redistribution is the only thing between retirees and starvation (and between minimum wage workers and starvation of their families in many areas.) EllenCT (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Student7, your post borders on soapbox, and most of the economics implied in it is false, but I find your remarks thoughtful and your conclusion is more or less correct as to how this article can be improved. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Then, EllenCT, you do agree that this is pov? You seem to be saying, "What other position can Misplaced Pages take?" I don't think that Misplaced Pages should have a position. We can report that politicians don't want retirees or minimum wage earners to starve to death, so they support redistribution of wealth. That is fine. But suggesting there is only one position concerns me.
Also, it should bother everyone that most of these arguments are US-centric. Most countries worldwide don't have an enforced minimum wage law (for example). Reducing the scope of the article to worldwide definition and effects, etc. might shorten the article considerably. This article is really "economic inequality in the United States" or (at best) "Economic Inequality in Developed Countries." Student7 (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Yes, that section's horrible. It's full of original research, non-sequitors, random factoids strung together, and lots of editorializing. And as a whole it suffers from very rich-country bias, with whoever wrote it confusing "OECD" for "most nations" for example.

Also, a section entitled "Measurement" should be about how economic inequality is actually measured. The metrics used, how the data is collected, comparisons of various estimates, difference in inequality measures resulting from household consumption surveys vs. income reports etc. This is just... junk. Volunteer Marek  03:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Almanac article in Misplaced Pages

I asked for clarification of a paragraph. This was deleted.

In effect, the paragraph said (several times over) that "Gulliver was taller than all the Lilliputians put together." This is not a significant statement in itself. If I turn this into an encyclopedic article, I might write, "This is important because Gulliver could step on one or more Lilliputians totally by mistake, killing them instantly. As a result, it is necessary for the inhabitants to tie Gulliver up when he is asleep in order to keep him from walking around, resulting in damage to people or property."

Without this sort of justification, the paragraph is merely a recitation of facts, like an almanac. See WP:NOT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTADVOCATE, etc.

In the article "The Bigness of New York City", I can either say, New York City is big. Really Big. Really really Big..." Or I can say, "New York City is the biggest city in the country. It is visited by a number of people for this reason. Philanthropists donate money for art museums because they know they will be visited by many tourists. etc." In other words, there is an actual reason for the article; not to chronicle the "bigness" which is the title, but to explain the other benefits/detriments that accrue as the result of being big. That is what defines an almanac article, mere statement of fact, from an encyclopedia, which gives supporting material. Student7 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your line of argument, but this comment embedded in the article feels more like editorialising. How can we improve the content? bobrayner (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Have you read the Economic inequality#Effects of inequality section? Is there anything in it that you think is unclear or insufficiently supported by reliable sources? EllenCT (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the grasp of the article is just too great. It is neatly organized into Measurement, Causes and Effects. Sounds great, but they aren't equivalent in any way. Everything including the kitchen sink is in each part.
The pope becomes an "expert" on social justice. This would be fine, but the article title presumes a financial aspect.
Another piece suggests that we condone monopolies. Actually nearly everyone hates monopolies except the corporation/person controlling them. In a rural area, the undertakers have consolidated and become a monopoly. Do the bereaved bury the person out of the county? In all rural areas and many of the smaller metropolii, hospitals are a monopoly. The media carefully tiptoes around the topic. They may need the hospital themselves someday. One of the reasons American healthcare is so expensive, but no one dares say anything! (US-Centric)
Another piece suggests that we recognize equally the contribution of all people to an effort or service. Jimminy! Nice, But what does that have to do with anything?
Yes, I came to the talk page to initially complain about reporting Measurements, but now think that the topic just tries to be too much to too many people for too many reasons. Maybe the article should be split up into Economic inequality (social justice), Economic inequality {financial), Economic inequality (political), etc. This page would become a dab! Student7 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Going through this diff of recent edits, a few jumped out at me:

  • "even life expectancy" was deleted even though it is clearly well-sourced to a secondary report of a peer reviewed study. There is much more abundant information on years of productive life lost under various conditions brought about by inequality (not just for the poor, because e.g. the rich have shorter lifespans when virulent and antibiotic-resistant diseases spread);
  • "Levels of inequality in the world" recapitulates the title, but this is minor;
  • "Referring to median incomes for the upper 10% contrasted with medians for the lowest 10%" -- does that phrase add any useful information? I'm not opposed to it, but it seems like excess verbiage;
  • I have serious questions about the rationale for deleting this paragraphs:
In 2001, 46% of people in sub-Saharan Africa were living in extreme poverty. Nearly half of all Indian children are undernourished, however, even among the wealthiest fifth one third of children are malnourished. An Oxfam report stated that the change in net worth of the top 100 wealthiest individuals from 2011 to 2012 was four times more than enough to eliminate global malnutrition in 2013. Oxfam Executive Director Jeremy Hobbs said that "We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true."
  • On the other hand, I think I understand the rationale stated for this deletion, and I believe it is mistaken:
Over the two decades prior to the onset of the global financial crisis, real disposable household incomes increased an average of 1.7% a year in its 34 member countries. However, the gap between rich and poor widened in most nations – the OECD journalist resource (2011-05) entitled "Growing Income Inequality in OECD Countries" states that with the exceptions of only France, Japan and Spain, wages of the 10% best-paid workers have risen relative to those of the 10% least-paid workers and the differential between the top and bottom 10% varies greatly from country to country: “While this ratio is much lower in the Nordic countries and in many continental European countries, it rises to around 14 to 1 in Israel, Turkey and the United States, to a high of 27 to 1 in Chile and Mexico.”
  • This paragraph also seems like a poor choice to delete:
There is statistical evidence that shows strong links between single-parent families and lower income. In spite of the statistical evidence about the economic advantages enjoyed by married couples and also by their children, evidence that is at odds with ideological positions of many influential voices, Maranto and Crouch point out that "in the current discussions about increased inequality, few researchers... directly address what seems to be the strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States: the rise of single-parent families during the past half century."
  • I thought it was sad that the only things in this string of "mitigating factors" which survived were "market forces" and "propensity to spend":
    These provisions may lower inequality, but have sometimes resulted in increased economic inequality (as in the Soviet Union, where the distribution of these government benefits was controlled by a privileged class). Political scientists have argued that public policy controlled by organizations of the wealthy have steadily eroded economic equality in the US since the 1970s.
    Market forces outside of government intervention that can reduce economic inequality include:
    • propensity to spend: with rising wealth & income, a person must spend more. In an extreme example, if one person owned everything, they would immediately need to hire people to maintain their properties, thus reducing the wealth concentration.
    • Unionization: although not a market force, per se, labor organizations may reduce inequality by negotiating standard pay rates (though probably increasing unemployment). As union power has declined, and performance-related pay has become more widespread, economic inequality has mirrored productive inequality.

I intend to restore most if not all of that material absent persuasive arguments to the contrary. EllenCT (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe I gave adequate explanations for my removals in my edit summaries. For the most part, a lot of this text confuses poverty with inequality. They are not the same thing. This is most obviously true for parts which talk about absolute poverty and extreme poverty. You can have lots of inequality without poverty. And you can have lots of extreme poverty without much equality. It's basically off topic.
Other inappropriate text involves original research, sloppy and ungrammatical writing, cherry picked or unrepresentative sourcing, editorializing, misunderstanding of sources or more stuff that's off topic.
How about, instead of restoring this very ... poor ... text, you propose new text which you think addresses the same points (minus the off topic stuff) but based on actual sources and well written (for the record, I didn't bother checking how this former text got into the article in the first place). Then we can work on that. I think that would be a way for at least a potential improvement. Restoring this stuff just takes us back. Volunteer Marek  04:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The lifespan source is clearly about inequality instead of poverty, and should be buttressed with WP:MEDRS sources e.g. and . I agree with removing the extreme poverty statistics from Africa. Why is "even among the wealthiest fifth, one third of children are malnourished" not about relative inequality? "The gap between rich and poor widened in most nations" is certainly about inequality, and the OECD statistics are from the OECD, not the entire world. The single-parent section refers to, "the strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States: the rise of single-parent families" (emphasis added.) And I'm not sure what the objection is to minimum wages, subsidies, or unions. Do you have any objection to the restoration of that specific subset? EllenCT (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Edited to replace first URL in paragraph, "lifespan source," which used to be which I don't know where that came from. EllenCT (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer that we stick to high quality scholarly sources, and that lifespan article is a pretty good example of why. Basically what it is saying is that income inequality can translate into life expectancy inequality. That's fine, we could say something about these two being linked (and given that life expectancy is a a function of income this isn't surprising). However, this is different than saying that *inequality* in itself causes lower life expectancy (though the concave nature of the relationship might give a result like that, though that's a question of properly defining your metrics). At the end of the day this is still about low income - poverty - not the distribution of income. If you got two societies, with the same average income, but one with higher inequality than the other, you would still get similar average life expectancy.
Can you provide that source for the correlation between "single parent families" and inequality? Was it sourced? Honestly, that sounds like total bunkum, seeing as how the growth in inequality has been fairly uniform - two parent working class and middle class families have also lost in relative terms.
With the other three, the Union stuff should be mentioned, though I fail to understand why it should be in a section titled "Market Forces". Also it needs solid sourcing. The decline of unions most likely did contribute to rising inequality in the US - again, this developed country, US-centric bias - but it's like in third place among possible explanations. The minimum wage should not come back. I believe I removed it because it was unsourced original research. In the US the minimum wage affects less than 5% of the labor force, so just by arithmetic alone it cannot account for any significant chunk of the observed change in inequality. It's just a hot button political issue, that's all.
"Subsidies" is too general. Which subsidies are we talking about? And I think this was also in the "Market forces" section for some reason. Is this just about the difference between pre-tax/pre-transfer income inequality and after-tax/after-transfer income inequality? If so, we need to write it better and get, again, solid sources.
"The gap between rich and poor widened in most nations" is certainly about inequality, and the OECD statistics are from the OECD, not the entire world Well, that's the point. OECD is NOT "most nations". Currently it's 34 countries out of something like 200+ countries world wide. And as I mentioned before, part of the missing story not covered here is that while inequality has risen in the past 20+ years in most developed countries it has actually *fallen* in many developing countries, including some historical bastions of inequality in Latin America and Sub Saharan Africa. Volunteer Marek  19:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. "Birth rates 'must be curbed to win war on global poverty'". The Independent. January 31, 2007.
  2. "Half of India's children malnourished, says NGO report". Calcutta News. October 15, 2009.
  3. "Putting the smallest first: Why India makes a poor fist of feeding the young, and how it could do better". The Economist. September 23, 2010. Retrieved November 28, 2010. Even the children of wealthier families suffer surprisingly high rates of malnutrition. Government data show that a third of children from the wealthiest fifth of India's population are malnourished.(subscription required)
  4. Slater, John (January 19, 2013). "Annual income of richest 100 people enough to end global poverty four times over". Oxfam. Retrieved December 15, 2013.
  5. Khazan, Olga (January 20, 2013). "Can we fight poverty by ending extreme wealth?". Washington Post. Retrieved December 16, 2013.
  6. "Oxfam seeks 'new deal' on inequality from world leaders". BBC News. January 18, 2013. Retrieved December 16, 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  7. "Growing Income Inequality in OECD Countries". Journalist's Resource.org. May 2011.
  8. Martin, Molly A. (2006) “Family Structure and Income Inequality in Families with Children: 1976 to 2000.” Demography 43: 421-445
  9. W. Bradford Wilcox. Family Studies
  10. Robert Maranto and Michael Crouch. Ignoring an Inequality Culprit: Single-Parent Families Intellectuals fretting about income disparity are oddly silent regarding the decline of the two-parent family. April 20, 2014, Wall Street Journal
  11. Duncan, Denvil; Sabirianova Peter, K.S. (June 2008). "Tax Progressivity and Income Inequality". Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Research Paper Series. papers.ssrn.com: 30. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1260860. Retrieved May 24, 2010. as taxes become more efficient, via lower progressivity, income inequality tends to increase
  12. Winner-Take-All Politics by Jacob S. Hacker, Paul Pierson
  13. García-Peñalosa (2006)
  14. Gross, D. (June 10, 2007). "Income Inequality, Writ Larger". The New York Times. Retrieved May 23, 2010. the rise of performance-based pay has accounted for 25 percent of the growth in wage inequality among male workers from 1976 to 1993.
Categories: