3 ms·

> The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% False. Some claim that the top 1% have as much as the bottom 90% but even that claim is disputed. http://www.va

by harryh 11y ago

> The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% False. Some claim that the top 1% have as much as the bottom 90% but even that claim is disputed. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105 http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-20110...

jayvanguard 11y ago
The article you reference doesn't actually provide any evidence that the claim is false.
dahart 11y ago
This might be the misquoted source for the claim you're refuting: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/opinion/nicholas-kristof-idiots-guide-to-inequality-piketty-capital.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/opinion/nicholas-kristof-i... That article is discussing wealth (net worth) versus the article you cited which discusses income. No surprise that the lines between rich and poor differ when you measure it different ways. I found that via: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Uni... One question: aside from arguing the specific numbers, it is irrefutably true that a small minority hold the majority of the money, and it is widely reported that the gap is currently growing, not shrinking. Is this a good thing? Do the specific numbers change the outcome or what our course of action should be? Even that Vanity Fair article concludes the situation is bad.
- harryh 11y ago
  A line from the article I linked: "In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent." > Do the specific numbers change the outcome or what our course of action should be? Of course the data matters! Especially when (as crdoconnor did) you report data that is incorrect by an order of magnitude! Jesus.
  - dahart 11y ago
    I don't disagree with your numbers, or with the notion that accuracy is important. But just for fun, what, exactly, is the difference in course of action you would take given his numbers versus Vanity Fairs'? To make my point more clearly, you (and vanity fair, and Wikipedia) say the top 1% is two orders of magnitude larger than its relative size (40x). Some claim, and Vanity Fair doesn't exactly refute that the top 1% are two orders of magnitude larger than its relative size (90x). Crdoconnor appears to have misquoted by one order of magnitude, saying that the unfairness ratio is three orders of magnitude (900x). So, ignoring crdconnors accidental misquote, and playing devils advocate for a moment, what substantive policy decisions should differ across the line between two orders of magnitude inequality versus three?
    - harryh 11y ago
      The breadth of the tax base necessary to support the pension plans in question (or, for that matter, broad swaths of other social policies on the liberal agenda) is much wider than is implied by misreporting of the degree of inequality. Put more simply: Just taxing the rich more isn't enough to pay for everything.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    "In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent." That doesn't seem to contradict anything said up-thread. If the top 0.1% control 20% of the wealth, the next 0.9% control another 20% of the wealth, and the bottom 90% control 20% of the wealth, then the claim you objected to is true. That would mean the remaining 9%, between the top 1% and the bottom 90%, control the wealth that remains - 40%. I don't think these amounts violate any of the ordering constraints, given the relative size of the groups; in reality there will be variation within the individual groups, but if we assume there isn't the math checks out fine: 20/0.1 > 20/0.9 > 40/9 > 20/90 I'm not saying the original claim was correct - I don't know. Just that what you quoted doesn't refute it.
    - harryh 11y ago
      And that's really the most interesting thing to talk about here. Not what's right and wrong but the degree to which I've properly quoted evidence to support my pov. Really?

by harryh 11y ago

jayvanguard 11y ago

The article you reference doesn't actually provide any evidence that the claim is false.

dahart 11y ago

This might be the misquoted source for the claim you're refuting: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/opinion/nicholas-kristof-idiots-guide-to-inequality-piketty-capital.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/opinion/nicholas-kristof-i... That article is discussing wealth (net worth) versus the article you cited which discusses income. No surprise that the lines between rich and poor differ when you measure it different ways. I found that via: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Uni... One question: aside from arguing the specific numbers, it is irrefutably true that a small minority hold the majority of the money, and it is widely reported that the gap is currently growing, not shrinking. Is this a good thing? Do the specific numbers change the outcome or what our course of action should be? Even that Vanity Fair article concludes the situation is bad.

harryh 11y ago
A line from the article I linked: "In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent." > Do the specific numbers change the outcome or what our course of action should be? Of course the data matters! Especially when (as crdoconnor did) you report data that is incorrect by an order of magnitude! Jesus.
- dahart 11y ago
  I don't disagree with your numbers, or with the notion that accuracy is important. But just for fun, what, exactly, is the difference in course of action you would take given his numbers versus Vanity Fairs'? To make my point more clearly, you (and vanity fair, and Wikipedia) say the top 1% is two orders of magnitude larger than its relative size (40x). Some claim, and Vanity Fair doesn't exactly refute that the top 1% are two orders of magnitude larger than its relative size (90x). Crdoconnor appears to have misquoted by one order of magnitude, saying that the unfairness ratio is three orders of magnitude (900x). So, ignoring crdconnors accidental misquote, and playing devils advocate for a moment, what substantive policy decisions should differ across the line between two orders of magnitude inequality versus three?
  - harryh 11y ago
    The breadth of the tax base necessary to support the pension plans in question (or, for that matter, broad swaths of other social policies on the liberal agenda) is much wider than is implied by misreporting of the degree of inequality. Put more simply: Just taxing the rich more isn't enough to pay for everything.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  "In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent." That doesn't seem to contradict anything said up-thread. If the top 0.1% control 20% of the wealth, the next 0.9% control another 20% of the wealth, and the bottom 90% control 20% of the wealth, then the claim you objected to is true. That would mean the remaining 9%, between the top 1% and the bottom 90%, control the wealth that remains - 40%. I don't think these amounts violate any of the ordering constraints, given the relative size of the groups; in reality there will be variation within the individual groups, but if we assume there isn't the math checks out fine: 20/0.1 > 20/0.9 > 40/9 > 20/90 I'm not saying the original claim was correct - I don't know. Just that what you quoted doesn't refute it.
  - harryh 11y ago
    And that's really the most interesting thing to talk about here. Not what's right and wrong but the degree to which I've properly quoted evidence to support my pov. Really?