Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Guess which city is number one in income inequality in America. Hint: They hosted an Olympics and are known for dirty birds   ( ca.finance.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Economic inequality, U.S. Census Bureau, greatest income disparity, Dunn/Getty Images Atlanta, New Orleans, Metropolitan Policy Program, Delta Air Lines, minimum population requirement  
•       •       •

9743 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2018 at 10:50 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-10-11 06:22:51 PM  

mr lawson: Why is it anybody's responsibility to teach" somebody else


Hark!  What's that I hear?.... I believe it's the mating cry of the Common Libertarian, taxonomically known as Oblivionus Priviligedon!  Watch how he stalks the low-hanging fruit, completely unaware of the advantages conferred on him by his daddy's genetic structure and financial standing....
 
2018-10-11 06:33:55 PM  

Z-clipped: No. Whether Gini is a good metric for inequality might be debatable, but high wealth/income inequality is bad for a society, period.  Anyone who claims otherwise is either an idiot, or a sociopath.


That means it's better to have everyone be poor than half of people doing well.  It also means that it's bad to lift some people out of poverty if you can't lift the entire world population out at once.  Even as a libby lib, I just don't how that's even close to remotely rational.  Sorry.
 
2018-10-11 07:06:03 PM  

punkwrestler: camaroash: I would have guessed Salt Lake City because Mormon housewives don't generally have to work and because our state bird eats garbage.
[d2v9y0dukr6mq2.cloudfront.net image 850x478]/The Bald Eagle? He's their husband

Maybe one of the wives don't have to work, but what about the other 4?


Oh they still work... but getting paid for that kind of work is only legal in Nevada.

BTW, the blurry seagull flying toward the camera is a grown daughter setting out on her own... for a BYU Superdate.
 
2018-10-11 07:07:31 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: That means it's better to have everyone be poor than half of people doing well.


Incorrect.  "Half the people doing well" is not a description of high income/wealth disparity in this context, and 1% of America owning 40% of the nation's wealth is definitely not "Half the people doing well".

ThrobblefootSpectre: It also means that it's bad to lift some people out of poverty if you can't lift the entire world population out at once.


This is such a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum that it's not only not right- it isn't even coherent enough to be wrong.  Try your strawmen on someone else.  I'm not falling for them.
 
2018-10-11 07:16:57 PM  

Z-clipped: This is such a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum that it's not only not right- it isn't even coherent enough to be wrong.  Try your strawmen on someone else.  I'm not falling for them.


It's your strawman.  Your the one who made the absurd claim.

Look at it this way.  Say we have an area (not necessarily in the U.S.) where almost everyone is poor.  The government (of wherever) introduces vocational training for adults and improved education for children.  Ten years later 50% of people are doing better economically, but income inequality, pretty much by definition, has increased.  I would say this is a good thing.  Are you claiming what happened to this area was bad?  IMO, only an ignorant sociopath would say it's bad that 50% of people are now doing well.
 
2018-10-11 07:45:35 PM  

Z-clipped: cirby: So, according to the survey, a city where 9.3% of households make less than $10,000 a year and 18% make more than $150,000 a year is worse than New Orleans, where 15.1% make less than $10,000 a year and 9.1% make more than $150,000 a year?

That seems pretty backwards. A city where there are more poor people than rich people is more equal than a city where there are more rich people than poor people?

So in other words, you don't understand how data curves work?   It's not backwards at all.  The entire point of the Gini coefficient is to quantify the ways in which the curve is NOT bell-shaped.

"Poor"  vs. "rich" is not defined by "people making <$10K" vs. "people making >$150K".   That's just one slice of the histogram.  Those Atlanta numbers could have 80% making less than $20K (which is below poverty level for a 3-person household), 18% super-wealthy, and 2% in the middle, which would be extremely unequal.  New Orleans could be 5.8% higher in extreme poverty, but also have much larger middle class, which would lower the Gini value significantly.


Those numbers "could" say what you suggest, but they don't.

If you have only 9.3% of households making less than $10,000 a year, it's nearly impossible to bend the income curve enough to make that many people earn just over that number.

Meanwhile, San Francisco, with its INSANE levels of economic inequality (and crazy cost of living, to the point where a "middle class" income is actually poor) actually has a better showing, and anyone who's been there knows better.
 
2018-10-11 07:50:19 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Are you claiming what happened to this area was bad?


One more time, since you seem to have diminished reading comprehension:

My claim is that high wealth/income inequality is a symptom of problems in an economy.  This is not that same as saying "any income inequality is worse than 100% poverty", and frankly, only a farking idiot would infer the second statement from the first.

The only question that remains is, are you disingenuously pretending to be this stupid, or are you actually this stupid?
 
2018-10-11 07:51:32 PM  

Z-clipped: ThrobblefootSpectre: That means it's better to have everyone be poor than half of people doing well.

Incorrect.  "Half the people doing well" is not a description of high income/wealth disparity in this context, and 1% of America owning 40% of the nation's wealth is definitely not "Half the people doing well".


A country where EVERYONE makes $1 a day has a perfect "1" on the Gini scale

A country with 1% poor people, 9% not-so-poor people, 80% well-off people, 9% rich-to-stinking-rich people, and 1% crazy-rich people, would have a much lower one. That's just math.

...and which country would you prefer to live in?
 
2018-10-11 08:01:31 PM  

cirby: If you have only 9.3% of households making less than $10,000 a year, it's nearly impossible to bend the income curve enough to make that many people earn just over that number.


It's adorable that you think that.  Most people have no concept of how vastly uneven the distribution of wealth and income are in the US.  Even the ones who recognize that it's bad.

Wealth Inequality in America EXPLAINED
Youtube zjQm83F0MhQ
 
2018-10-11 08:06:06 PM  

Z-clipped: Magnus: Z-clipped: Magnus: big pig peaches: ChadM89: ChuckRoddy: Ah, the Income inequality metric. Useless to everyone who isn't a Marxist.

But hey, Venezuela is  REALLY equal now!

For the sake of clarity: are you claiming that income and wealth disparity is not a problem for a society at all, no matter the degree, and is something that can and should be ignored entirely?

If I may chime in. It's a useless metric when you completely ignore individual behavior.

It is a useless metric when all you look at is that metric.

A high degree of wealth/income inequality by itself is a good indicator that something is wrong with an economy.  It's just not a very good window on its own into exactly what is wrong.

It is an indicator.  Good or bad is debatable.

No. Whether Gini is a good metric for inequality might be debatable, but high wealth/income inequality is bad for a society, period.  Anyone who claims otherwise is either an idiot, or a sociopath.


At what point do you think that the wealth/income inequality has reached "high"?  You seem marking people as idiots just  because they don't agree with your opinion of what is "high".  To call someone a sociopath just because they differ from your opinion seems...emotional.

For example, if my sister Amy won the lottery and quit her job, her income is zero and the income disparity between her and myself  would be very high.  I wouldn't think that is a problem.  In your view of the world, I am a sociopath.  However, our wealth disparity would be enormous with her on the other end, which I still don't see as a problem.  And still, I'm the sociopath in your view.   Leaves me to wonder where the problem actually is.

Yes, I'm being a bit facetious but your extremist position leaves the realm of rational discussion.
 
2018-10-11 08:12:02 PM  

corn-bread: ChadM89: Magnus: ChadM89: Could you shed some light on the topic by explaining what other factors should be considered and how they relate to/affect the topic?

Sure, we could discuss how the Gini Cofficient doesn't count debt or negative wealth and how that skews the measure.  We could also discuss how it doesn't really factor in time so it completely leaves out growth rate and whether people that were once in the bottom half of the scale have now transited into the upper part of the scale to indicate is that bad or good.  I would love to go on but then I would be TL;DR and I suspect you weren't really interested in that discussion or you would have brought up your own points instead of trying to get me to further your interests.

Oh that's not true. I admit to not being an expert on the topic. I'm a 40-something with a job, a house I'm fixing up, a lady and hobbies. It doesn't leave me a lot of time to drill down and do a lot of research on specific topics that lay outside my field of professional expertise or that relate to my personal interests.


Agreed.  I too am ignorant on the topic, have never heard of the "Gini Coefficient", and wished to know more.

Dude just kinda murdered that discussion.


http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~jthuang/Gini​.​pdf
https://www.saintleo.edu/economics-ba​c​helor-degree

Discussion officially unmurdered...I think.  Not sure what you mean by "murdered' the discussion.
 
2018-10-11 08:21:48 PM  

cirby: A country where EVERYONE makes $1 a day has a perfect "1" on the Gini scale


Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong.  How about you go read up on how the index is calculated before you start in with the nonsense, mmmmkay?  And even though your mistake is evident from the second paragraph, I encourage you to read on and actually learn something.  You might come out with an opinion that's actually worth posting on the internet.

cirby:
...and which country would you prefer to live in?

I would prefer to live in a country where people don't mix absolute income with percentile income in the same hypothetical and labor under the illusion that they've made some kind of intelligent point.
 
2018-10-11 08:22:44 PM  

Z-clipped: One more time, since you seem to have diminished reading comprehension:


Uh huh.   So in my example, 50% of people not benefiting from the economic progress isn't "high" to you.    But apparently 1% of people being wealthy in the U.S. with only 13% poverty rate (less than my example) is somehow worse in your mind.   And I'm the one with comprehension problems.  Right.   Comedy gold.  :D

Apparently you are going to hide behind the definition of "high" and continue to respond with insults instead of anything that makes a bit of sense.  The true sign of someone who knows he has no point whatsoever.  Sorry.  :(


Z-clipped: and 1% of America owning 40% of the nation's wealth is definitely not "Half the people doing well".


Btw - did you know the majority of Americans are in a very high income bracket globally speaking.  Including the people classified as poor here. Fact.  And I know that fact makes you angry and unhappy, and you will respond incoherently with more insults again.  :(

If you could respond with higher than 5 year old vocabulary level, maybe it would help get your point across, if you actually ever had one.  Sincere advice.  And I'm being honest.
 
2018-10-11 08:39:13 PM  

Magnus: You seem marking people as idiots just  because they don't agree with your opinion of what is "high".


I have done no such thing.  I've marked people as idiots who cannot read a simple sentence without inferring completely ridiculous conclusions that are way down some slippery slope fallacy.  No one has made any attempt to argue about what "high" means.

Magnus: For example, if my sister Amy won the lottery and quit her job, her income is zero and the income disparity between her and myself  would be very high.  I wouldn't think that is a problem.


You would if you were in competition for goods and services, and the population of your economy were limited to just the two of you. You would effectively be her slave. She would have the power to set all prices and all wages.  You would be completely at her mercy.

Your example actually proves my point quite well if you express it in relevant economic context.
 
2018-10-11 08:45:10 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: So in my example, 50% of people not benefiting from the economic progress isn't "high" to you.


You haven't provided any meaningful data, probably because you still don't understand what the word "disparity" means.  You just want to toss around the term "doing well" without defining it, probably so you can later try to pretend that 80% of America is "middle class".
 
2018-10-11 08:46:35 PM  

Z-clipped: probably so you can later try to pretend that 80% of America is "middle class".


ThrobblefootSpectre: But apparently 1% of people being wealthy in the U.S.


And there it is, in the very next sentence.

Chessmate, librarians!
 
2018-10-11 08:47:14 PM  

Magnus: For example, if my sister Amy won the lottery and quit her job, her income is zero and the income disparity between her and myself  would be very high.  I wouldn't think that is a problem.  In your view of the world, I am a sociopath.  However, our wealth disparity would be enormous with her on the other end, which I still don't see as a problem.  And still, I'm the sociopath in your view.   Leaves me to wonder where the problem actually is.


There was a fark thread about an academic study on this a few weeks ago.  Basically, why does wealth inequality actually matter.  I don't have the study in front of me, could look it up in farkives when I get home from work, but summary is: people are hardwired to be unhappy when someone else is doing better than them, even if they themselves are doing better over time also.  In other words, if you have population sample A and B.  In 1990, say, population A and B are lower middle to middle class (American level well fed and comfortable).  If, in 2010, population A has 20% more disposable income, and population B has 50% more, then population A will report being even more unhappy in 2010 than back when they were poorer.   People are actually emotionally less happy when others around them are doing comparatively well.
 
2018-10-11 09:13:36 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Magnus: For example, if my sister Amy won the lottery and quit her job, her income is zero and the income disparity between her and myself  would be very high.  I wouldn't think that is a problem.  In your view of the world, I am a sociopath.  However, our wealth disparity would be enormous with her on the other end, which I still don't see as a problem.  And still, I'm the sociopath in your view.   Leaves me to wonder where the problem actually is.

There was a fark thread about an academic study on this a few weeks ago.  Basically, why does wealth inequality actually matter.  I don't have the study in front of me, could look it up in farkives when I get home from work, but summary is: people are hardwired to be unhappy when someone else is doing better than them, even if they themselves are doing better over time also.  In other words, if you have population sample A and B.  In 1990, say, population A and B are lower middle to middle class (American level well fed and comfortable).  If, in 2010, population A has 20% more disposable income, and population B has 50% more, then population A will report being even more unhappy in 2010 than back when they were poorer.   People are actually emotionally less happy when others around them are doing comparatively well.


Otherwise known as the salty vajeen effect.
 
2018-10-11 09:52:48 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: There was a fark thread about an academic study on this a few weeks ago.


You are probably thinking about the Easterlin Paradox
 
2018-10-12 02:23:12 AM  
Fark's A-Team showed up for this thread.

Green from top to farking bottom.
 
2018-10-12 06:04:16 AM  
I grew up in north metro Atlanta. My parents still live there. Bought their home for $13k in 1966. They are surrounded by neighborhoods with houses "from $500k" and one with houses advertised. "From $800k". A whole neighborhood priced like that. Amazing. I just don't know how some of you folks do it. I make pretty good money, but damn.

Oh and Go Tech! THWG!
 
2018-10-12 07:13:31 AM  
Magnus

mrwknd: Magnus

mrwknd: I do believe that it is the Republiderps dream to stagnate pay in Georgia, it's $5.15 an hr herebut at least most companies pay the Federal minimum of $7.25, too bad that helps no one when rents have increased about 600%+ in twenty years.

actually, all companies that are in compliance with the law pay $7.25/hr.  If the Fed says it's $7.25, it's that at the least in every state.  It's how our system of government works.

Yes, but that doesn't mean Georgia State Law must change what's on their books now at $5.15hr to $7.25hr. Does Georgia have the lowest minimum wage in the country ... . This is still the "South", and some people will still work for that amount because they're desperate, and yes most cases it would be under the table anyway.


/not enough of us goddamned Yankees moved down here yet to make real improvements...

???  That's exactly what a Federal system means.


Some laws should change to keep up with the times, but then we need to question we they are, what is the purpose for not updating, or in this case is the law being held in hopes that the wage minimum would come down so they don't have to re-write the law again. To me it's funny, absurd, and dumb at the same time, but also it's a question that our "leaders" would more than likely walk away from than straight out answer. This also goes for new laws that seem to take precedence that are just wtf like, House bans eating of cats, dogs - CBS News. So I sit wondering "is the Government hiding something" because otherwise are there that many people eating their pets, their neighbors pets, or are there that many starving (or will be) in Georgia (and a few other States). What happened to fishing?

/ yep, just farking around the absurdities
 
2018-10-12 09:30:54 AM  

mrwknd: "is the Government hiding something"


I think I see what's going on here.  I'm a sleepy sheeple, aren't I?
 
2018-10-12 09:35:28 AM  

Z-clipped: Magnus: You seem marking people as idiots just  because they don't agree with your opinion of what is "high".

I have done no such thing.  I've marked people as idiots who cannot read a simple sentence without inferring completely ridiculous conclusions that are way down some slippery slope fallacy.  No one has made any attempt to argue about what "high" means.

Magnus: For example, if my sister Amy won the lottery and quit her job, her income is zero and the income disparity between her and myself  would be very high.  I wouldn't think that is a problem.

You would if you were in competition for goods and services, and the population of your economy were limited to just the two of you. You would effectively be her slave. She would have the power to set all prices and all wages.  You would be completely at her mercy.

Your example actually proves my point quite well if you express it in relevant economic context.


It would if we moved the goal posts to where you placed them.

Thread will probably be closed by time you respond, so thanks for the conversation and pulling back on the hyperbole.  I'm sure we'll get a chance to exchange thoughts another time.  Fark needs a lot more of this to halt the echo chamber like qualities that exist around here.
 
2018-10-12 12:13:57 PM  
Magnus

mrwknd: "is the Government hiding something"

I think I see what's going on here.  I'm a sleepy sheeple, aren't I?


Always question Government, especially if they make laws outlawing eating cats and dogs but not your pet fish or Parakeet because you know some sh*t is about to go down.
 
Displayed 25 of 125 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report