3 ms·

That's a little bit like saying you don't like air temperature as a measure because it doesn't show humidity, which is also important. Sure, overall GDP per cap

That's a little bit like saying you don't like air temperature as a measure because it doesn't show humidity, which is also important. Sure, overall GDP per capita + GINI might make sense as a measure of overall/median/average/something standard of living, but GINI isn't a standard of living measure, just one component of that. Edit: I think parent edited their post to add a few more clarifying statements, so this post makes less sense now. Even with the new added bits I still disagree; having one class that owns everything, even if the rest of the country has their basic needs met, could describe a system of principled slaveholders. Wanting a more-or-less equal distribution of money/power doesn't necessarily boil down to envy over wealth.

lmilcin 7y ago
This is obviously wrong. You can have uniformly poor country (theoretically) that has very good GINI. Look at the table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... You have Ukraine which has fantastic GINI of 25%, much better than 41% of US. Other countries that have GINI in neighborhood of US? Senegal, Madagascar, Angola? What kind of measure is that?
- WaxProlix 7y ago
  I think I may have worded that poorly, since it sounds like you're agreeing with me. GINI is a measure of relative distribution, but doesn't necessarily have anything to say about overall wealth. I was responding to someone who seemed to be saying that GINI is bad because it only measures one thing, which seems a lot like saying the centiliter is bad because it measures volume and not temperature, when sometimes you want to know both volume and temperature.
- jonfw 7y ago
  People always try to tie income inequality things like standard of living and centralization of power. Why not attempt to measure those things directly? Income inequality may be a useful factor in an attempt to quantify those things (or it may not)- but it certainly isn't a measure in itself.
  - lmilcin 7y ago
    Centralization of power might still be good for wealth (at least temporarily). Centralization of power improves (potential) competitiveness through ability to make and implement decisions. For example, China was able to progress very quickly from a very poor to superpower by implementing unpopular changes, breaking what we think as "human rights", etc. One could say that "on average" Chinese people are better off having strong central government for the past half century than if they had ineffective democracy. Again, "on average" Chinese family might not care that their communications are being monitored, that they are being lied to or that they have no rights. What they might care is that they have electricity, food, education and work. The democracy is not a solution for fast short term progress and wealth. Democracy was meant to maximize freedom and the chance to keep it in a long run. So it all depends on what you value. Freedom seems to always cost and if society is not ready to pay a little bit for it it might just end.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

lmilcin 7y ago

This is obviously wrong. You can have uniformly poor country (theoretically) that has very good GINI. Look at the table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... You have Ukraine which has fantastic GINI of 25%, much better than 41% of US. Other countries that have GINI in neighborhood of US? Senegal, Madagascar, Angola? What kind of measure is that?

WaxProlix 7y ago
I think I may have worded that poorly, since it sounds like you're agreeing with me. GINI is a measure of relative distribution, but doesn't necessarily have anything to say about overall wealth. I was responding to someone who seemed to be saying that GINI is bad because it only measures one thing, which seems a lot like saying the centiliter is bad because it measures volume and not temperature, when sometimes you want to know both volume and temperature.
jonfw 7y ago
People always try to tie income inequality things like standard of living and centralization of power. Why not attempt to measure those things directly? Income inequality may be a useful factor in an attempt to quantify those things (or it may not)- but it certainly isn't a measure in itself.
- lmilcin 7y ago
  Centralization of power might still be good for wealth (at least temporarily). Centralization of power improves (potential) competitiveness through ability to make and implement decisions. For example, China was able to progress very quickly from a very poor to superpower by implementing unpopular changes, breaking what we think as "human rights", etc. One could say that "on average" Chinese people are better off having strong central government for the past half century than if they had ineffective democracy. Again, "on average" Chinese family might not care that their communications are being monitored, that they are being lied to or that they have no rights. What they might care is that they have electricity, food, education and work. The democracy is not a solution for fast short term progress and wealth. Democracy was meant to maximize freedom and the chance to keep it in a long run. So it all depends on what you value. Freedom seems to always cost and if society is not ready to pay a little bit for it it might just end.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]