3 ms·

From the article: In my hometown of Mumbai, we have had many of these conveniences...This narrative ignores another vital ingredient, without which this new eco

From the article: In my hometown of Mumbai, we have had many of these conveniences...This narrative ignores another vital ingredient, without which this new economy would fall apart: inequality. Only one problem with the narrative: India (Gini 33.9) has considerably less inequality than the US (Gini 48). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... Oops!

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
India is less unequal than the US, yes. But it has a lot more poor people.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 12y ago
  Which points out that income inequality is not useful on an absolute scale. In other words if you make 1M a year and your neighbor makes 2M a year your lifestyles are very similar. However, if you make 10$/day and your neighbor makes 20$/day your lifestyle can be very different.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Just because a number is useless on its own does not mean that it's useless in all circumstances. Generally, we know both inequality and average income.
refurb 12y ago
Only one problem with the narrative: India (Gini 33.9) has considerably less inequality than the US (Gini 48). You point out the problem with measuring inequality using the Gini co-efficient. A country where everyone is equally poor has a lower (better) Gini co-efficient than a country where few are poor and few are very rich.
- bradbeattie 12y ago
  Might be better then to consider the inequality-adjusted HDI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequalit...
- parennoob 12y ago
  A country where everyone is equally poor has a lower (better) Gini co-efficient than a country where few are poor and few are very rich. How is "equally poor" bad from the point of view of inequality enabling services like Uber though? In the extreme case, if everyone in India was "equally poor" as you put it, no one should be able to do jobs as cheaply as the author mentions.
SamReidHughes 12y ago
The article says this, too, so what point are you trying to make?

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

India is less unequal than the US, yes. But it has a lot more poor people.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Retric 12y ago
Which points out that income inequality is not useful on an absolute scale. In other words if you make 1M a year and your neighbor makes 2M a year your lifestyles are very similar. However, if you make 10$/day and your neighbor makes 20$/day your lifestyle can be very different.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Just because a number is useless on its own does not mean that it's useless in all circumstances. Generally, we know both inequality and average income.

refurb 12y ago

Only one problem with the narrative: India (Gini 33.9) has considerably less inequality than the US (Gini 48). You point out the problem with measuring inequality using the Gini co-efficient. A country where everyone is equally poor has a lower (better) Gini co-efficient than a country where few are poor and few are very rich.

bradbeattie 12y ago
Might be better then to consider the inequality-adjusted HDI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequalit...
parennoob 12y ago
A country where everyone is equally poor has a lower (better) Gini co-efficient than a country where few are poor and few are very rich. How is "equally poor" bad from the point of view of inequality enabling services like Uber though? In the extreme case, if everyone in India was "equally poor" as you put it, no one should be able to do jobs as cheaply as the author mentions.

SamReidHughes 12y ago

The article says this, too, so what point are you trying to make?