5 ms·

If everyone gets 2x as much tomorrow as today, income inequality rises. Ask people if they would support everyone getting 2x their income tomorrow.

kazagistar 9y ago
Did you not understand the chart? Its a chart based on percent growth. ×2 across the board would be a flat line. Instead, the income of the ultra rich is vastly up, while for everyone else it is much smaller, not in terms of absolute numbers, but percentage.
creaghpatr 9y ago
Yes, this is how inflation is leveraged by those at the top to dilute the bottom 98%. People think in terms of dollars instead of purchasing power, the fed need only boil the water slow enough for people to remain compliant.
- wonder_er 9y ago
  Not sure why the downvotes. Purchasing power is all that matters. Would you rather earn $1/hr or $15/hr? All that matters is what that money can purchase. This is the funny thing about our steadily increasing minimum wage laws. I've not seen many people discuss why purchasing power keeps declining. In 1990, $15/hr then was equivalent to $28.72/hr today. [0] Obviously, something is happening to purchasing power of our dollars, but it doesn't get discussed much. [0] https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=15&year=1990 https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Jack000 9y ago
wait, wouldn't scaling income by a constant multiple be the same as not changing anything? Your income and expenses are both doubled. this would just kill the bank accounts of anyone holding cash.
- adamzochowski 9y ago
  I think the OP purposes that there are people earning zero, skewing the bottom percentiles, no matter how linearly the income is multiplied.
- sn9 9y ago
  Why would your expenses double?
  - viraptor 9y ago
    If everybody's income raises 2x it means they're paid 2x the previous amount. "they're paid" means someone's expenses are 2x higher to cover it. (you could guess, everyone's expenses, but actually... it's interesting how would that be distributed)
pmyteh 9y ago
That is not, however, what the chart in TFA shows. It shows the bottom 5th percentile with income going down, and income gains increasing in relative (as well as absolute) terms as you get higher up the income percentiles. FWIW income inequality is normally reported proportionally (using the Gini coefficient or something similar) so even in your hypothetical case inequality would be reported as constant rather than increasing.
scarmig 9y ago
I'm pretty sure that's not true, at least by the most common measure of inequality, the Gini index. It's scale invariant. Doubling everyone's income wouldn't be reflected in it one way or another. More to your actual point, the imagined choice isn't between doubling incomes for everyone or stagnation. It's between shared growth and the top 1% quadrupling their income, the next 50% growing slowly, and the rest dog paddling or getting poorer.
tormeh 9y ago
Not as inequality is normally measured, no.
mxfh 9y ago
I you apply a scaling factor 𝒌 to everything, nothing changes between the incomes in relative terms and that relative change is what matters and is shown in the chart.

kazagistar 9y ago

Did you not understand the chart? Its a chart based on percent growth. ×2 across the board would be a flat line. Instead, the income of the ultra rich is vastly up, while for everyone else it is much smaller, not in terms of absolute numbers, but percentage.

creaghpatr 9y ago

Yes, this is how inflation is leveraged by those at the top to dilute the bottom 98%. People think in terms of dollars instead of purchasing power, the fed need only boil the water slow enough for people to remain compliant.

wonder_er 9y ago
Not sure why the downvotes. Purchasing power is all that matters. Would you rather earn $1/hr or $15/hr? All that matters is what that money can purchase. This is the funny thing about our steadily increasing minimum wage laws. I've not seen many people discuss why purchasing power keeps declining. In 1990, $15/hr then was equivalent to $28.72/hr today. [0] Obviously, something is happening to purchasing power of our dollars, but it doesn't get discussed much. [0] https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=15&year=1990 https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Jack000 9y ago

wait, wouldn't scaling income by a constant multiple be the same as not changing anything? Your income and expenses are both doubled. this would just kill the bank accounts of anyone holding cash.

adamzochowski 9y ago
I think the OP purposes that there are people earning zero, skewing the bottom percentiles, no matter how linearly the income is multiplied.
sn9 9y ago
Why would your expenses double?
- viraptor 9y ago
  If everybody's income raises 2x it means they're paid 2x the previous amount. "they're paid" means someone's expenses are 2x higher to cover it. (you could guess, everyone's expenses, but actually... it's interesting how would that be distributed)

pmyteh 9y ago

That is not, however, what the chart in TFA shows. It shows the bottom 5th percentile with income going down, and income gains increasing in relative (as well as absolute) terms as you get higher up the income percentiles. FWIW income inequality is normally reported proportionally (using the Gini coefficient or something similar) so even in your hypothetical case inequality would be reported as constant rather than increasing.

scarmig 9y ago

I'm pretty sure that's not true, at least by the most common measure of inequality, the Gini index. It's scale invariant. Doubling everyone's income wouldn't be reflected in it one way or another. More to your actual point, the imagined choice isn't between doubling incomes for everyone or stagnation. It's between shared growth and the top 1% quadrupling their income, the next 50% growing slowly, and the rest dog paddling or getting poorer.

tormeh 9y ago

Not as inequality is normally measured, no.

mxfh 9y ago

I you apply a scaling factor 𝒌 to everything, nothing changes between the incomes in relative terms and that relative change is what matters and is shown in the chart.