Where is this guy getting his numbers? From wikipedia[1]: 2011 had a pre-tax Gini coefficient of 0.477 whereas 1967 had 0.397 (the first year the Gini was actua

Where is this guy getting his numbers? From wikipedia[1]: 2011 had a pre-tax Gini coefficient of 0.477 whereas 1967 had 0.397 (the first year the Gini was actually measured), demonstrating considerable increase in inequality. There's an Economist article[2] that puts the US's pre-tax Gini at 0.57 for 2013. So yeah, income inequality has increased astronomically, undeniably, conclusively. The author seems to write off income inequality as a metric because it "doesn't track societal progress" and "isn't helpful for policy making purposes" both of which I would strongly reject. First, let's explicitly state the axiom that money is equal to political and social power. An increasing Gini means we're moving farther and farther away from an equitable society and closer to feudalism or a plutocracy where the richest control everything via their ability to manipulate the political process with money. I think that it's fairly clear that our current government has been repeatedly bought, sold, and manipulated by a few plutocrats with special interests for the sake of making them and their buddies even more money. If you're looking for an example to support this argument, consider the billionaire Koch brothers and their political empire. Next, let's consider what a rising Gini means for policy making purposes. If you are a policymaker whose primary constituents are the rich, a rising Gini is a stat which you can bring out at your fundraisers (a bit ridiculous, sure) to show that you're on average channeling wealth into the right pockets with your policies. On the flip side (and more realistic side), if you're an Elizabeth Warren type, you can connect your constituent's cries for a stronger safety net to a statistic which proves they're not just perpetually hungry for more. If you bring a piece of information like a Gini to the public, it's possible to win over people who may have been skeptical about supporting stronger social programs because they're unwilling to support "deadbeats" or the like-- after all, this Gini thing says that even if they're productive members of society, they're still not as well off as before. Their piece of the pie has actually become smaller over time, and their complaints are not baseless. That said, I like the author's plug for basic income. The sooner we chop up the concept of capitalism and move on to a more just system, the sooner we'll unlock the underclass from the survival grind and free them to pursue more socially useful ends. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient [2]: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/in...