5 ms·

To be fair, if we’re talking about wealth distribution (as opposed to income distribution) many European countries have similar inequality to the US. Some, like

by wwtrv 6y ago

To be fair, if we’re talking about wealth distribution (as opposed to income distribution) many European countries have similar inequality to the US. Some, like Sweden for instance, are even worse than the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_equality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_...

tokai 6y ago
So Russia is the second most equal country after the Netherlands, and Brazil more equal than Denmark? I'm not buying that data.
- Paradigma11 6y ago
  There are not enough oligarchs to make an impact.
- zzzpaz 6y ago
  You're reading that the opposite way. > A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values Was easy to spot, US and Russia are definitely not at the top when it comes to income equality as both are controlled by oligarchy
- mrweasel 6y ago
  Everyone could be equally poor.
mrweasel 6y ago
I honestly had no idea. That's pretty interesting, I wonder if it's because of a few REALLY wealthy individuals? Generally you have a lower limit to how poor a person can be, in Scandinavia that limit is reasonably high (I sure it doesn't feel that way if you're actually poor), so I would have assumed that would level out the inequality somewhat. Denmark in particular have also always excluded students from statistics on who's poor, because it's seen a temporary thing. So we don't see them as truly poor, even if they often are, but I suspect that they have to be included in the Gini coefficients calculation.
- wwtrv 6y ago
  In many European countries you can be "poor" (i.e. have low or negative wealth) while still maintaining a relatively high standard of living. The most expensive asset most people own is their home, so if you rent all your life or have a very long mortgage that you don't necessary intend to pay off (which is not uncommon in some countries) you might have very low or negative wealth. And you might not need to save as much due to socialized healthcare, social safety nets, etc. Looking at the median wealth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...), a median person in Spain is 3 times as "rich" then someone in Sweden and Germans or the Dutch are more "poor" than Slovaks or Greeks etc. But this is largely a result of relatively low home ownership rate in most North European countries. However if we disregard average people and look just at the top 10% or even 1% Sweden is still Remarkably similar to the US: Wealth Share of the top 10%/1% * United States: 75.9% / 35.4% Sweden: 75.3% / 37.4% Netherlands: 68% / 26.6% Denmark: 66.6% / 29.3% Germany: 65.1% / 30.2% Norway: 65% / 32% United Kingdom: 59.3% / 24.5% Spain: 55% / 23.8% France: 54.6% / 22.2% ... * according to https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/g..., see page 168 in "Global wealth databook 2019" fro the full table
- hjnilsson 6y ago
  In general, greater income tax leads to greater wealth inequality. The reason is, higher income tax means it is more difficult to become wealthy. So in countries with high income tax, the majority of wealthy people is those that inherited their wealth. Over time some wealthy people become poor, but with high income tax, even fewer become rich. This means that wealth becomes more and more concentrated among the few, which is somewhat counter-intuitive. So in the US, wealth-mobility is greater than Denmark for example, resulting in the list on Wikipedia, where countries that are thought of as "unequal" actually are the most equal of all when it comes to wealth. Article studying the effect: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154196 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
  - mrweasel 6y ago
    That doesn't make a ton of sense, research shows that social/wealth-mobility is greater in Denmark, compared to the US, by a lot: https://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2018/03/Om-social-mobilitet-i-Danmark-og-USA-3.pdf https://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2018/03/Om-social-... The reasoning is pretty much the opposite, the redistribution of health helps to move children out of their parents wealth/social-class. It might be that an individual adult in the US is able to move from poor to wealthy more easily, but I sort of doubt it.

by wwtrv 6y ago

tokai 6y ago

So Russia is the second most equal country after the Netherlands, and Brazil more equal than Denmark? I'm not buying that data.

Paradigma11 6y ago
There are not enough oligarchs to make an impact.
zzzpaz 6y ago
You're reading that the opposite way. > A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values Was easy to spot, US and Russia are definitely not at the top when it comes to income equality as both are controlled by oligarchy
mrweasel 6y ago
Everyone could be equally poor.

mrweasel 6y ago

I honestly had no idea. That's pretty interesting, I wonder if it's because of a few REALLY wealthy individuals? Generally you have a lower limit to how poor a person can be, in Scandinavia that limit is reasonably high (I sure it doesn't feel that way if you're actually poor), so I would have assumed that would level out the inequality somewhat. Denmark in particular have also always excluded students from statistics on who's poor, because it's seen a temporary thing. So we don't see them as truly poor, even if they often are, but I suspect that they have to be included in the Gini coefficients calculation.

wwtrv 6y ago
In many European countries you can be "poor" (i.e. have low or negative wealth) while still maintaining a relatively high standard of living. The most expensive asset most people own is their home, so if you rent all your life or have a very long mortgage that you don't necessary intend to pay off (which is not uncommon in some countries) you might have very low or negative wealth. And you might not need to save as much due to socialized healthcare, social safety nets, etc. Looking at the median wealth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...), a median person in Spain is 3 times as "rich" then someone in Sweden and Germans or the Dutch are more "poor" than Slovaks or Greeks etc. But this is largely a result of relatively low home ownership rate in most North European countries. However if we disregard average people and look just at the top 10% or even 1% Sweden is still Remarkably similar to the US: Wealth Share of the top 10%/1% * United States: 75.9% / 35.4% Sweden: 75.3% / 37.4% Netherlands: 68% / 26.6% Denmark: 66.6% / 29.3% Germany: 65.1% / 30.2% Norway: 65% / 32% United Kingdom: 59.3% / 24.5% Spain: 55% / 23.8% France: 54.6% / 22.2% ... * according to https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/g..., see page 168 in "Global wealth databook 2019" fro the full table
hjnilsson 6y ago
In general, greater income tax leads to greater wealth inequality. The reason is, higher income tax means it is more difficult to become wealthy. So in countries with high income tax, the majority of wealthy people is those that inherited their wealth. Over time some wealthy people become poor, but with high income tax, even fewer become rich. This means that wealth becomes more and more concentrated among the few, which is somewhat counter-intuitive. So in the US, wealth-mobility is greater than Denmark for example, resulting in the list on Wikipedia, where countries that are thought of as "unequal" actually are the most equal of all when it comes to wealth. Article studying the effect: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154196 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- mrweasel 6y ago
  That doesn't make a ton of sense, research shows that social/wealth-mobility is greater in Denmark, compared to the US, by a lot: https://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2018/03/Om-social-mobilitet-i-Danmark-og-USA-3.pdf https://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/app/uploads/2018/03/Om-social-... The reasoning is pretty much the opposite, the redistribution of health helps to move children out of their parents wealth/social-class. It might be that an individual adult in the US is able to move from poor to wealthy more easily, but I sort of doubt it.