4 ms·

Added a graph and a link to where I found the data.

by jgervin 17y ago

michaelkeenan 17y ago
Your current text is "Also, income inequality, measured by the ratio of the top 10% of wage earners compared to the bottom 90%" You need it to be "Also, income inequality, measured by the ratio of the average income of the top 10% of wage earners compared to the bottom 90%" But the linked article doesn't make sense either, or maybe I'm just not getting it. It put it this way: "Under President Hoover, income inequality, as measured by the ratio of the average income of the top 10 percent compared to the average income of the bottom 90 percent, rose from 7.1 percent in 1929 to 7.8 percent in 1932." Ratios are when you compare two quantities, like 1:9. Percentages are fractions of a whole. So it's strange to express a ratio as a percentage. The obvious interpretation is to say that a ratio of 7% means a ratio of 7:93. But I don't think that's what they're saying, because in the same paragraph they say: "These periods of high-income inequality sharply contrast the period 1942–1987, when the ratio of top incomes to the incomes of most Americans never exceeded five." Which would imply a percentage of 17%, if we're using this strange ratio/percentage conversion. That is: 17:73, i.e. 1:5. But they seem to think that higher is worse, so that can't be it. Maybe they never meant to put percentage symbols in there, and they just meant that the average income of the top 10% is 7.9 times higher than the bottom 90%. If that's the case, I would distrust that source if I were you. That's a basic error.
- jgervin 17y ago
  I understand ratios. Thanks for your help. I believe they are focusing in the inequality as in average income. Meaning $ figures increased or decreased within those two groups. They are still the 90% and 10% groups so the rich got richer and poor got poorer.
  - michaelkeenan 17y ago
    I've figured out how they got the figures. These are the numbers they gave in the article: Average income for top 10% in 1929: $76,625 Average income for bottom 90% in 1929: $10,847 $76,625 is $10,847 times 7.1. Average income for top 10% in 1932: $52,026 Average income for bottom 90% in 1932: $6,688 $52,026 is $6,688 times 7.8. They wrote: "Under President Hoover, income inequality, as measured by the ratio of the average income of the top 10 percent compared to the average income of the bottom 90 percent, rose from 7.1 percent in 1929 to 7.8 percent in 1932." They meant: "Under President Hoover, income inequality, as measured by the ratio of the average income of the top 10 percent compared to the average income of the bottom 90 percent, rose from 7.1 in 1929 to 7.8 in 1932." This confusion of ratios and percentage makes me doubt the competence of the authors. I suggest you alter your wording to fix the ratio/percentage confusion. You should probably also check any other figures you used from that article. Also, that article doesn't seem to describe a study. Are you sure your terminology is correct? You might want to call it an article rather than a study. I'm confused about what you meant by "the year the study was conducted". You might be talking about a paper by Saez, Emmanuel and Thomas Piketty, which was referenced by the article?
    - jgervin 17y ago
      You are correct. See my comment above yours.

Added a graph and a link to where I found the data.

by jgervin 17y ago

Added a graph and a link to where I found the data.

Your current text is "Also, income inequality, measured by the ratio of the top 10% of wage earners compared to the bottom 90%" You need it to be "Also, income inequality, measured by the ratio of the average income of the top 10% of wage earners compared to the bottom 90%" But the linked article doesn't make sense either, or maybe I'm just not getting it. It put it this way: "Under President Hoover, income inequality, as measured by the ratio of the average income of the top 10 percent compared to the average income of the bottom 90 percent, rose from 7.1 percent in 1929 to 7.8 percent in 1932." Ratios are when you compare two quantities, like 1:9. Percentages are fractions of a whole. So it's strange to express a ratio as a percentage. The obvious interpretation is to say that a ratio of 7% means a ratio of 7:93. But I don't think that's what they're saying, because in the same paragraph they say: "These periods of high-income inequality sharply contrast the period 1942–1987, when the ratio of top incomes to the incomes of most Americans never exceeded five." Which would imply a percentage of 17%, if we're using this strange ratio/percentage conversion. That is: 17:73, i.e. 1:5. But they seem to think that higher is worse, so that can't be it. Maybe they never meant to put percentage symbols in there, and they just meant that the average income of the top 10% is 7.9 times higher than the bottom 90%. If that's the case, I would distrust that source if I were you. That's a basic error.

jgervin 17y ago
I understand ratios. Thanks for your help. I believe they are focusing in the inequality as in average income. Meaning $ figures increased or decreased within those two groups. They are still the 90% and 10% groups so the rich got richer and poor got poorer.
- michaelkeenan 17y ago
  I've figured out how they got the figures. These are the numbers they gave in the article: Average income for top 10% in 1929: $76,625 Average income for bottom 90% in 1929: $10,847 $76,625 is $10,847 times 7.1. Average income for top 10% in 1932: $52,026 Average income for bottom 90% in 1932: $6,688 $52,026 is $6,688 times 7.8. They wrote: "Under President Hoover, income inequality, as measured by the ratio of the average income of the top 10 percent compared to the average income of the bottom 90 percent, rose from 7.1 percent in 1929 to 7.8 percent in 1932." They meant: "Under President Hoover, income inequality, as measured by the ratio of the average income of the top 10 percent compared to the average income of the bottom 90 percent, rose from 7.1 in 1929 to 7.8 in 1932." This confusion of ratios and percentage makes me doubt the competence of the authors. I suggest you alter your wording to fix the ratio/percentage confusion. You should probably also check any other figures you used from that article. Also, that article doesn't seem to describe a study. Are you sure your terminology is correct? You might want to call it an article rather than a study. I'm confused about what you meant by "the year the study was conducted". You might be talking about a paper by Saez, Emmanuel and Thomas Piketty, which was referenced by the article?
  - jgervin 17y ago
    You are correct. See my comment above yours.