6 ms·

Inequality could be lower than people think

30 points by elgfare 7y ago

neonate 7y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20191129144436/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/28/inequality-could-be-lower-than-you-think https://web.archive.org/web/20191129144436/https://www.econo...
pg_is_a_butt 7y ago
Perhaps even too low
temac 7y ago
Or higher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Wealth_Inequality_-_v2.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
- redsymbol 7y ago
  What specifically in this graph invalidates a point in the linked article? And which point?
  - WilliamEdward 7y ago
    It directly invalidates the headline. Rich are getting richer whilst poor remain about the same. Inequality is rising by definition. It also invalidates a 'specific point' about how the top 0.1% are only earning about half of the increase people thought they were between the 70's and 2012, because clearly the graph shows the top 10% is earning MORE than expected, so they ignored the other 9.9% which seems pretty important. In case you desperately wanted a specific point.
    - appleiigs 7y ago
      The article points out the data/calculations have been re-evaluated with new adjustments and the conclusions are different than before. It's a bit nonsensical to try to refute new conclusions by just pointing to the old conclusions again.
      - heavenlyblue 7y ago
        The fact that we have progressed in tech doesn’t mean the equality (that is defined as a relative measure on some date) hasn’t become lower.
saffronique 7y ago
Its never been this good for so many people.
- WilliamEdward 7y ago
  On the contrary: fewer people suffer, but they suffer much much more. And there's still a ton of them regardless.
  - armenarmen 7y ago
    We have the most people ever, with the smallest percentage ever in extreme hunger. So I’m guessing you don’t mean suffering from starvation. Who is suffering and why are they suffering much much more?
    - WilliamEdward 7y ago
      Workers. As more demands are pressured to be met, efforts to crush unions are getting stronger, and wages are not increasing, workers are suffering more than ever.
      - armenarmen 7y ago
        Not to say that it doesn’t suck out there for some laborers, but suffering more than ever? Pinkerton agents used to shoot up union rallies, and people (often children) used to not uncommonly get their limbs yanked off by machinery.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        The problem is the "more than ever" part. Nobody is denying there are problems (and there always will be), but the collective situation is better than it's ever been before.
    - riversflow 7y ago
      This is a microcosm of the whole world, but the statistics about white, middle-aged suicide increasing so much in the west indicates to me a profound suffering, exactly where the article is claiming middle class people are getting some hidden benefit that makes up for the rich getting richer. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521083335/the-forces-driving-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/5210833...
jdkee 7y ago
Given that over half a million families file medical bankruptcies in the United States annually, I find the Economist to lack credibility on the issue. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most...
- rayiner 7y ago
  That’s a highly misleading statistic, based on assuming that anyone with medical debt who declared bankruptcy did so because of the medical debt. In fact, the rate is much lower: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/ > However, the magnitude of the bankruptcy effect is much smaller than previously thought: we estimate that hospitalizations cause only 4% of personal bankruptcies among nonelderly U.S. adults, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the previous estimates described above. WaPo’s fact checker gave that statistic three pinnochios: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/28/sanderss-flawed-statistic-medical-bankruptcies-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/28/sanderss-...
  - jdkee 7y ago
    Per your NIH citation, you may be correct. FTA, "Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from understanding the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems." Healthcare costs have been rising faster than inflation since the 1970s. Health care consumed 4 percent of income in 1960 compared to 6 percent in 2013. https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs-4064878 https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs... And are expected to continue doing so into the near term. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/ForecastSummary.pdf https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Sta...
riversflow 7y ago
This is the exact sort of ridiculously contrarian article that made me stop caring for The Economist. >If you argue that income has shrunk you also have to claim that four decades’ worth of innovation in goods and services, from mobile phones and video streaming to cholesterol-lowering statins, have not improved middle-earners’ lives. I don’t see how the availability of better per dollar technology is an argument that income hasn’t shrunk. Technology, for the consumer class, comes out of disposable income. Businesses (and their wealthy owners) are the biggest financial winners of tech. By a landslide. What about the lack of(available) durable goods. I live around things that are older than me, but things made in the last ~30 years haven’t withstood the test of time so well. That seems like a huge cost I’ve never seen accounted for. I don’t see them addressing the rising cost relative to inflation (as best I can tell) on necessities like food and shelter. Maybe I’m just dumb and full of myself, but this reads like propaganda. The argument about pensions is decent but I think most people who care about economics were already aware of that, and even that is kinda sketch because the pensions are often managed by ultra-wealthy hedge fund managers who line their pockets.
- WilliamEdward 7y ago
  Of course a topic critical of the economy would cause a site called "The Economist" to give a biased viewpoint. That's why it reads like propaganda.
- TimPC 7y ago
  The point they are making is that the inflation index doesn't properly account for increase in quality that these technological innovations are offering. In fact many measures treat a 1992 cell phone as an interchangeable good with a 2019 state of the art smartphone and in that basket of goods the cost of a phone has risen substantially. Never mind that the 2014 phone that's free with a contract can do stuff that in 1992 we didn't even imagine a phone doing. Similarly, by treating health care as a single good and ignoring all the new treatments that get introduced we see the cost of healthcare is dramatically up. But the cost of getting a treatment that didn't exist in the time period was infinity. Regardless, patient outcomes are better too on a per condition basis so the treatment quality has gone up too. I'm not sure many people would take the option to pay a 1970 price for a 1970 standard of health care if they could have that choice now. But the inflation indices treat 1970 healthcare and 2019 healthcare as almost interchangeable. For education, my 2nd year undergrad course used a textbook that was a grad school book at MIT in the 1960's so the material being taught has advanced too. Again, interchangeable good in the index. If inflation is wrong, then most measures of inequality are also wrong because inflation adjusted incomes are wrong.
scandox 7y ago
I only encounter two groups of people in my life: People with more money than they can sanely spend who nonetheless feel slightly as if they're behind the curve People who are struggling to make ends meet every day and who are one or two pay checks (or dole payments) from significant hardship. There hardly seems to be a middle any more. Nothing is more difficult than to be of modest financial ambition. I don't know how well graphs can plot this kind of imbalance.
charwalker 7y ago
Yes, maybe. But like saying Climate Change might not be as bad we think, what does the general population have to lose by working toward alternative energy sources and technologies or regulations and laws that lead to greater equality for most people?
RickJWagner 7y ago
I live in a single-earner household, with 3 kids and 2 adults in the house. My oldest son is in college. I really do not see the problem with college expenses, so long as the student abides by a few guidelines: - In the high school years, the student should recognize that their primary job is to line up scholarships. Nothing beats a good ACT score, and very good study books can be had at GoodWill for $1. - Once at college, eat at the caf. Every. Single. Meal. College kids have no business eating out. - Have a summer job, the primary goal is to make money. - Don't use Spotify, NetFlix, etc. No subscription services. We fund half of what my son's scholarships don't pay, he pays the rest with summer-job money. It's working so well I expect the other 2 kids to graduate debt-free as well.

30 points by elgfare 7y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20191129144436/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/28/inequality-could-be-lower-than-you-think https://web.archive.org/web/20191129144436/https://www.econo...

pg_is_a_butt 7y ago

Perhaps even too low

temac 7y ago

Or higher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Wealth_Inequality_-_v2.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...

redsymbol 7y ago
What specifically in this graph invalidates a point in the linked article? And which point?
- WilliamEdward 7y ago
  It directly invalidates the headline. Rich are getting richer whilst poor remain about the same. Inequality is rising by definition. It also invalidates a 'specific point' about how the top 0.1% are only earning about half of the increase people thought they were between the 70's and 2012, because clearly the graph shows the top 10% is earning MORE than expected, so they ignored the other 9.9% which seems pretty important. In case you desperately wanted a specific point.
  - appleiigs 7y ago
    The article points out the data/calculations have been re-evaluated with new adjustments and the conclusions are different than before. It's a bit nonsensical to try to refute new conclusions by just pointing to the old conclusions again.
    - heavenlyblue 7y ago
      The fact that we have progressed in tech doesn’t mean the equality (that is defined as a relative measure on some date) hasn’t become lower.

saffronique 7y ago

Its never been this good for so many people.

WilliamEdward 7y ago
On the contrary: fewer people suffer, but they suffer much much more. And there's still a ton of them regardless.
- armenarmen 7y ago
  We have the most people ever, with the smallest percentage ever in extreme hunger. So I’m guessing you don’t mean suffering from starvation. Who is suffering and why are they suffering much much more?
  - WilliamEdward 7y ago
    Workers. As more demands are pressured to be met, efforts to crush unions are getting stronger, and wages are not increasing, workers are suffering more than ever.
    - armenarmen 7y ago
      Not to say that it doesn’t suck out there for some laborers, but suffering more than ever? Pinkerton agents used to shoot up union rallies, and people (often children) used to not uncommonly get their limbs yanked off by machinery.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      The problem is the "more than ever" part. Nobody is denying there are problems (and there always will be), but the collective situation is better than it's ever been before.
  - riversflow 7y ago
    This is a microcosm of the whole world, but the statistics about white, middle-aged suicide increasing so much in the west indicates to me a profound suffering, exactly where the article is claiming middle class people are getting some hidden benefit that makes up for the rich getting richer. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521083335/the-forces-driving-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/5210833...

jdkee 7y ago

Given that over half a million families file medical bankruptcies in the United States annually, I find the Economist to lack credibility on the issue. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most...

rayiner 7y ago
That’s a highly misleading statistic, based on assuming that anyone with medical debt who declared bankruptcy did so because of the medical debt. In fact, the rate is much lower: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/ > However, the magnitude of the bankruptcy effect is much smaller than previously thought: we estimate that hospitalizations cause only 4% of personal bankruptcies among nonelderly U.S. adults, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the previous estimates described above. WaPo’s fact checker gave that statistic three pinnochios: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/28/sanderss-flawed-statistic-medical-bankruptcies-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/28/sanderss-...
- jdkee 7y ago
  Per your NIH citation, you may be correct. FTA, "Overemphasizing “medical bankruptcies” may distract from understanding the true nature of economic hardship arising from high-cost health problems." Healthcare costs have been rising faster than inflation since the 1970s. Health care consumed 4 percent of income in 1960 compared to 6 percent in 2013. https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs-4064878 https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs... And are expected to continue doing so into the near term. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/ForecastSummary.pdf https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Sta...

riversflow 7y ago

This is the exact sort of ridiculously contrarian article that made me stop caring for The Economist. >If you argue that income has shrunk you also have to claim that four decades’ worth of innovation in goods and services, from mobile phones and video streaming to cholesterol-lowering statins, have not improved middle-earners’ lives. I don’t see how the availability of better per dollar technology is an argument that income hasn’t shrunk. Technology, for the consumer class, comes out of disposable income. Businesses (and their wealthy owners) are the biggest financial winners of tech. By a landslide. What about the lack of(available) durable goods. I live around things that are older than me, but things made in the last ~30 years haven’t withstood the test of time so well. That seems like a huge cost I’ve never seen accounted for. I don’t see them addressing the rising cost relative to inflation (as best I can tell) on necessities like food and shelter. Maybe I’m just dumb and full of myself, but this reads like propaganda. The argument about pensions is decent but I think most people who care about economics were already aware of that, and even that is kinda sketch because the pensions are often managed by ultra-wealthy hedge fund managers who line their pockets.

WilliamEdward 7y ago
Of course a topic critical of the economy would cause a site called "The Economist" to give a biased viewpoint. That's why it reads like propaganda.
TimPC 7y ago
The point they are making is that the inflation index doesn't properly account for increase in quality that these technological innovations are offering. In fact many measures treat a 1992 cell phone as an interchangeable good with a 2019 state of the art smartphone and in that basket of goods the cost of a phone has risen substantially. Never mind that the 2014 phone that's free with a contract can do stuff that in 1992 we didn't even imagine a phone doing. Similarly, by treating health care as a single good and ignoring all the new treatments that get introduced we see the cost of healthcare is dramatically up. But the cost of getting a treatment that didn't exist in the time period was infinity. Regardless, patient outcomes are better too on a per condition basis so the treatment quality has gone up too. I'm not sure many people would take the option to pay a 1970 price for a 1970 standard of health care if they could have that choice now. But the inflation indices treat 1970 healthcare and 2019 healthcare as almost interchangeable. For education, my 2nd year undergrad course used a textbook that was a grad school book at MIT in the 1960's so the material being taught has advanced too. Again, interchangeable good in the index. If inflation is wrong, then most measures of inequality are also wrong because inflation adjusted incomes are wrong.

scandox 7y ago

I only encounter two groups of people in my life: People with more money than they can sanely spend who nonetheless feel slightly as if they're behind the curve People who are struggling to make ends meet every day and who are one or two pay checks (or dole payments) from significant hardship. There hardly seems to be a middle any more. Nothing is more difficult than to be of modest financial ambition. I don't know how well graphs can plot this kind of imbalance.

charwalker 7y ago

Yes, maybe. But like saying Climate Change might not be as bad we think, what does the general population have to lose by working toward alternative energy sources and technologies or regulations and laws that lead to greater equality for most people?

RickJWagner 7y ago

I live in a single-earner household, with 3 kids and 2 adults in the house. My oldest son is in college. I really do not see the problem with college expenses, so long as the student abides by a few guidelines: - In the high school years, the student should recognize that their primary job is to line up scholarships. Nothing beats a good ACT score, and very good study books can be had at GoodWill for $1. - Once at college, eat at the caf. Every. Single. Meal. College kids have no business eating out. - Have a summer job, the primary goal is to make money. - Don't use Spotify, NetFlix, etc. No subscription services. We fund half of what my son's scholarships don't pay, he pays the rest with summer-job money. It's working so well I expect the other 2 kids to graduate debt-free as well.