4 ms·
Given different bases (inevitable), it's easier to compare the Gini coeffs directly (though maybe no less misleading because of scale distortions) From TFA: T
by gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
Given different bases (inevitable), it's easier to compare the Gini coeffs directly (though maybe no less misleading because of scale distortions)
From TFA:
The Roman Empire scored 0.46 and Han China scored 0.48. ... currently the Gini coefficient for the U.S. is 0.41.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoIt’s comparing social positions in ancient societies, including one where a grain dole was the revolutionary social service, with income today. TFA isn’t the original source.
- gsf_emergency_2 2y agoYour link gives the Gini for US : 0.413
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoTFA states “the researchers used a social table, which categorizes people by social position along with associated incomes” to estimate Roman and Han Gini coëfficients. The Gini being calculated for that era isn’t meant to be compared to the modern metric because it’s a different measure; the researchers were careful in couching this in a way the article is not.
- gsf_emergency_2 2y agoAha I see source of the misunderstanding the original paper's IER is absolutely meant to be compared across eras. (It tries to correct for the distortions of Gini I mentioned above) Tiny bit of bad faith, IER for US is ~0.41(!), much less extractive than Han or Rome. IER is not covered by visualcapitalist.com which hints that they are not a totally good faith source as well..