6 ms·

This is a nice demonstration that ‘raw’ inequality data is not very useful. “X% have Y% of the wealth!” really doesn’t tell you very much. I’m actually only co

by ugh 16y ago

This is a nice demonstration that ‘raw’ inequality data is not very useful. “X% have Y% of the wealth!” really doesn’t tell you very much. I’m actually only concerned about the consequences of inequality (which could be positive or negative), not about inequality itself. What do I care if 1% of the population have 99% of the wealth if there are no consequences to it? I certainly don’t want to reduce inequality out of spite. Statistics that tell me, just as an example, how the wealth of parents corresponds with the success of their children in school are much more interesting and reducing inequality probably wouldn’t even be the best solution for such a problem. It’s not as though all that money in mommy’s and daddy’s bank account makes their kids magically more intelligent. (But it can pay for private schools or for private lessons and so on.)

cperciva 16y ago
It’s not as though all that money in mommy’s and daddy’s bank account makes their kids magically more intelligent. (But it can pay for private schools or for private lessons and so on.) FWIW, numerous studies have found that the vast majority of correlation between parental income and the academic success of children can be explained by a third factor: Parental education. Educated parents both earn more and provide far more educational encouragement and assistance to their children.
- ugh 16y ago
  Yeah, I knew that and should have written that in my comment. You are right. I’m from Germany where this kind of inequality is particularly egregious. The explanation is probably that the fate of students is decided early on, in fourth grade. (You continue in one of three different types of schools after fourth grade, depending on your grades. Switching between schools is a hassle and only the highest school has a clear path to all universities.) Looking back at my own experience in elementary school, I would say that it was essential for me that my parents learned with me and helped me with my homework.
- lsd5you 16y ago
  I feel that you are omitting genetics as a possible (probable) significant cause of academic success, which because of the corelation with the parents own academic success will be hard to disambiguate as a variable. According to horizon (a main stream medium-high brow documentary series in the UK), separated twin studies show that as much as 50% of 'measured intelligence' can be attributed to genetics - which was fairly surprising (not the figure itself, because it agrees with my own suspicions) but because it was on a mainstream show. What is more earlier in the show they talked about a scientist in the 30's (nephew of Francis Galton, forget his name) who had faked a bunch of such studies and made up numbers. The figure he invented was 30%.
  - jshen 16y ago
    Just want to point out that you are assuming that everyone has access to decent public schools. I'll bet genetics is far less important if that weren't the case.
    - lsd5you 16y ago
      Not at all. That would be part of the other 50% ... going with that number. In fact your remark is quite confused. 50% is the variation in a 'typical' population. If everyone had access to public schools genetics would be more important. Since that would eliminate one of the major factors which accounts for the other 50% (again, going with that number).
      - barrkel 16y ago
        He said genetics wouldn't be so important if everyone didn't have access to decent schools. In other words, he's saying genetics is more important if the school inequality is equalized. You're actually agreeing with him.
        lsd5you 16y ago
        I had to reread both of these comments a couple of times, before it dawned on me why you disagreed - correctly. Since I am from the UK public school reads 'posh elite school', not 'state school' so it had an opposite sense to my thinking. As to the alleged assumption, I'm not entirely sure to what degree I am making it. I am assuming of course the same conditions as the experiments I mentioned - which were, I am fairly sure, western society in general in the last few decades. I won't pass judgement as to whether this meets the condition of decent state schools for all. In all not too sure what the point of the original observation was, it could go in both directions. The figure of 50% only makes sense given some context.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
monos 16y ago
> What do I care if 1% of the population have 99% of the > wealth if there are no consequences to it? I certainly > don’t want to reduce inequality out of spite. You might want reduce it because the lowest x% don't have enough to eat. Share the cake.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  This is not necessary in the US or most other industrialized nations - our bottom x% tends to eat too much, not to little.
  - Teckla 16y ago
    The poor don't eat too much compared to the middle class and the wealthy. The poor eat the wrong kinds of foods, because the wrong kinds of food are inexpensive.
    - barry-cotter 16y ago
      The poor eat the wrong kinds of foods, because the wrong kinds of food are inexpensive. Convenient dominates inexpensive. Frozen vegetables fried in a wok with butter and assorted spices is easy, fast and cheap, but not as easy as pizza goes in oven.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      If you are fat, you eat too much food. You have more than enough to eat. The situation described by monos, "the lowest x% don't have enough to eat", does not apply. His advice to "share the cake" will only make the real problem (the bottom x% already eats too much cake) worse. Also, price is not the controlling factor here. 3500 cals of crap might be the same price as 2250 cals of nutritious food, but so what? If you were optimizing for cost, you would eat 2250 cals of crap, not 3500. If you have the money to be fat while eating crap, you also have the money to maintain a healthy weight on nutritious food. If you can can buy a Big Mac, you can also buy a Premium Southwest Salad ( http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/full_menu/salads/premium_southwestsaladwochicken.html http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/full_menu/salads/premium... ).
TimJYoung 16y ago
I would agree and disagree with you. Looking at just wealth inequality is, as you say, asking the wrong question. The real issue is earned wealth versus inherited wealth. Even the founding fathers were particularly wary of the problem of allowing unearned wealth to aggregate over several generations, and how that can eventually allow incompetency to rule over competency. And, this doesn't apply simply to the issue of taxing direct inheritances, so it's not so easy to solve with taxation alone. Someone could easily not give their children a dime in direct inheritance, and just stick them high up in one of their companies with a nice, cushy multi-million dollar salary.

by ugh 16y ago

cperciva 16y ago

It’s not as though all that money in mommy’s and daddy’s bank account makes their kids magically more intelligent. (But it can pay for private schools or for private lessons and so on.) FWIW, numerous studies have found that the vast majority of correlation between parental income and the academic success of children can be explained by a third factor: Parental education. Educated parents both earn more and provide far more educational encouragement and assistance to their children.

ugh 16y ago
Yeah, I knew that and should have written that in my comment. You are right. I’m from Germany where this kind of inequality is particularly egregious. The explanation is probably that the fate of students is decided early on, in fourth grade. (You continue in one of three different types of schools after fourth grade, depending on your grades. Switching between schools is a hassle and only the highest school has a clear path to all universities.) Looking back at my own experience in elementary school, I would say that it was essential for me that my parents learned with me and helped me with my homework.
lsd5you 16y ago
I feel that you are omitting genetics as a possible (probable) significant cause of academic success, which because of the corelation with the parents own academic success will be hard to disambiguate as a variable. According to horizon (a main stream medium-high brow documentary series in the UK), separated twin studies show that as much as 50% of 'measured intelligence' can be attributed to genetics - which was fairly surprising (not the figure itself, because it agrees with my own suspicions) but because it was on a mainstream show. What is more earlier in the show they talked about a scientist in the 30's (nephew of Francis Galton, forget his name) who had faked a bunch of such studies and made up numbers. The figure he invented was 30%.
- jshen 16y ago
  Just want to point out that you are assuming that everyone has access to decent public schools. I'll bet genetics is far less important if that weren't the case.
  - lsd5you 16y ago
    Not at all. That would be part of the other 50% ... going with that number. In fact your remark is quite confused. 50% is the variation in a 'typical' population. If everyone had access to public schools genetics would be more important. Since that would eliminate one of the major factors which accounts for the other 50% (again, going with that number).
    - barrkel 16y ago
      He said genetics wouldn't be so important if everyone didn't have access to decent schools. In other words, he's saying genetics is more important if the school inequality is equalized. You're actually agreeing with him.
      - lsd5you 16y ago
        I had to reread both of these comments a couple of times, before it dawned on me why you disagreed - correctly. Since I am from the UK public school reads 'posh elite school', not 'state school' so it had an opposite sense to my thinking. As to the alleged assumption, I'm not entirely sure to what degree I am making it. I am assuming of course the same conditions as the experiments I mentioned - which were, I am fairly sure, western society in general in the last few decades. I won't pass judgement as to whether this meets the condition of decent state schools for all. In all not too sure what the point of the original observation was, it could go in both directions. The figure of 50% only makes sense given some context.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

monos 16y ago

> What do I care if 1% of the population have 99% of the > wealth if there are no consequences to it? I certainly > don’t want to reduce inequality out of spite. You might want reduce it because the lowest x% don't have enough to eat. Share the cake.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
This is not necessary in the US or most other industrialized nations - our bottom x% tends to eat too much, not to little.
- Teckla 16y ago
  The poor don't eat too much compared to the middle class and the wealthy. The poor eat the wrong kinds of foods, because the wrong kinds of food are inexpensive.
  - barry-cotter 16y ago
    The poor eat the wrong kinds of foods, because the wrong kinds of food are inexpensive. Convenient dominates inexpensive. Frozen vegetables fried in a wok with butter and assorted spices is easy, fast and cheap, but not as easy as pizza goes in oven.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    If you are fat, you eat too much food. You have more than enough to eat. The situation described by monos, "the lowest x% don't have enough to eat", does not apply. His advice to "share the cake" will only make the real problem (the bottom x% already eats too much cake) worse. Also, price is not the controlling factor here. 3500 cals of crap might be the same price as 2250 cals of nutritious food, but so what? If you were optimizing for cost, you would eat 2250 cals of crap, not 3500. If you have the money to be fat while eating crap, you also have the money to maintain a healthy weight on nutritious food. If you can can buy a Big Mac, you can also buy a Premium Southwest Salad ( http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/full_menu/salads/premium_southwestsaladwochicken.html http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/full_menu/salads/premium... ).

TimJYoung 16y ago

I would agree and disagree with you. Looking at just wealth inequality is, as you say, asking the wrong question. The real issue is earned wealth versus inherited wealth. Even the founding fathers were particularly wary of the problem of allowing unearned wealth to aggregate over several generations, and how that can eventually allow incompetency to rule over competency. And, this doesn't apply simply to the issue of taxing direct inheritances, so it's not so easy to solve with taxation alone. Someone could easily not give their children a dime in direct inheritance, and just stick them high up in one of their companies with a nice, cushy multi-million dollar salary.