4 ms·

Society should pick a target gini coefficient and manage towards that. Today, in the USA, it's roughly ~40. Versus ~35 in the 1970s. ~35 would be pretty sweet

Society should pick a target gini coefficient and manage towards that. Today, in the USA, it's roughly ~40. Versus ~35 in the 1970s. ~35 would be pretty sweet. GINI Index for the United States https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA

refurb 3y ago
The Gini coefficient is a terrible measure to target. It measures income distribution without regards to absolute measure. For example, Tunisia has a much better Gini coefficient at 33, than the US which is 40. As a poor person, or even middle class, would you prefer to be in Tunisia or the US?
- specialist 3y ago
  Perhaps Tunisia and the USA would choose different target values, to better reflect their own circumstances. What is a better measure? More importantly, how would you address inequity?
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    None of them. The article (the title) is political propaganda that people like hearing. They can blame all their problems on the rich. The article even says: >Since 2020, the wealth of the top 1% has increased by /.../ 49%. >Middle-class Americans have also seen a rising wealth tide, with the middle 50% to 90% of Americans seeing their wealth increase [by] 50%. What really matters is absolute wealth, specifically what goods and services you have access to.
    - specialist 3y ago
      Who else should we blame, if not the rich?
  - refurb 3y ago
    One could argue that Gini coefficient can be one of many important measures. Median income is a very important one. As well as cost of living.
    - specialist 3y ago
      Agreed. Ditto unemployment, literacy, food security, life expectancy, wellness, birthrate, and so forth. Managing to target inequity value, by whatever measure, would moot the endless food fights over the tax code. We should be arguing about the kind of society we want. Not fighting over implementation details, divorced from outcomes.

refurb 3y ago

The Gini coefficient is a terrible measure to target. It measures income distribution without regards to absolute measure. For example, Tunisia has a much better Gini coefficient at 33, than the US which is 40. As a poor person, or even middle class, would you prefer to be in Tunisia or the US?

specialist 3y ago
Perhaps Tunisia and the USA would choose different target values, to better reflect their own circumstances. What is a better measure? More importantly, how would you address inequity?
- Aerroon 3y ago
  None of them. The article (the title) is political propaganda that people like hearing. They can blame all their problems on the rich. The article even says: >Since 2020, the wealth of the top 1% has increased by /.../ 49%. >Middle-class Americans have also seen a rising wealth tide, with the middle 50% to 90% of Americans seeing their wealth increase [by] 50%. What really matters is absolute wealth, specifically what goods and services you have access to.
  - specialist 3y ago
    Who else should we blame, if not the rich?
- refurb 3y ago
  One could argue that Gini coefficient can be one of many important measures. Median income is a very important one. As well as cost of living.
  - specialist 3y ago
    Agreed. Ditto unemployment, literacy, food security, life expectancy, wellness, birthrate, and so forth. Managing to target inequity value, by whatever measure, would moot the endless food fights over the tax code. We should be arguing about the kind of society we want. Not fighting over implementation details, divorced from outcomes.