3 ms·
I could perhaps have been clearer about the kind of inequality I was talking about - intra-national - but at the very best it's been flat over the last few deca
by frereubu 4y ago
I could perhaps have been clearer about the kind of inequality I was talking about - intra-national - but at the very best it's been flat over the last few decades: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/11/28/economists-are-rethinking-the-numbers-on-inequality https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/11/28/economists-are... I personally don't really buy the post-tax rationale presented in that article though. Pre-tax is more interesting to me in that it's where the money is, not how much spending power people have after tax.
- eru 4y agoKeep in mind that you get different results looking at income distribution vs wealth distribution. Also keep in mind that because so much of the wealth of the very rich is tied up in assets like shares, the wealth share of the very rich takes a (comparative) nose dive whenever the economy enters a recession. Their wealth and income drops dramatically more than that of your rank and file employee, or that of someone on government handouts. Absolutely, the rich are still rich and the poor are still poor in a recession. but on paper the gap between, say, average and top 0.1% narrows. And, obviously, recessions are bad for both poor and average people. But you wouldn't get that from looking at inequality. Just another reason to focus on absolute numbers, instead of whether the Joneses have more. Btw, why do you want to focus on where the gross money is, instead of what you can buy after taxes with your money? People don't eat money, usually.