Economic inequality is holding back economy

[Wiseacre]

When I read many of the posts from the lefties in this and other threads, I am struck by the impression that they believe income and wealth are zero sum, IOW the rich guys accumulate their wealth at the expense of everyone else. Which is not true, The middle and lower income folks are not and will not be paid more than what it would cost to replace them, regardless of the profit a business makes.

A pretty good chunk of the income inequality is based on capital gains. Since the rich guys have the most money to invest, it stands to reason they will profit the most when the investment pays off. Which it has for the most part, and in spectacular fashion in the last 30 years or so. Think about it, the DOW was around 800 points 30 years ago, now it's around 12,000. That's a lot of wealth creation, and most of it went to the entrepeneurs and investors who risked their money to achieve the rewards.

It's not like everyone else deserves a bigger share of the increase in wealth; why should they, they invested nothing. It's not like that increase in wealth came at the expense of the 99%ers, who by the way did have the option to invest and grow their money too, at least in some cases. Or could have made better career choices, gotten more education or training, or done something to improve their value to employers.

The notion that economic inequality is holding back the economy is not true. Opportunities are there, but people aren't making the best choices. And gov't is not making the best choices either to foster competition and make sure the rules and regs are necessary and effective and followed. We don't need to spend trillions more on temporary jobs bills, we need to create a better business climate here.

 

[gallantwarrior]

When I read many of the posts from the lefties in this and other threads, I am struck by the impression that they believe income and wealth are zero sum, IOW the rich guys accumulate their wealth at the expense of everyone else. Which is not true, The middle and lower income folks are not and will not be paid more than what it would cost to replace them, regardless of the profit a business makes.

A pretty good chunk of the income inequality is based on capital gains. Since the rich guys have the most money to invest, it stands to reason they will profit the most when the investment pays off. Which it has for the most part, and in spectacular fashion in the last 30 years or so. Think about it, the DOW was around 800 points 30 years ago, now it's around 12,000. That's a lot of wealth creation, and most of it went to the entrepeneurs and investors who risked their money to achieve the rewards.

It's not like everyone else deserves a bigger share of the increase in wealth; why should they, they invested nothing. It's not like that increase in wealth came at the expense of the 99%ers, who by the way did have the option to invest and grow their money too, at least in some cases. Or could have made better career choices, gotten more education or training, or done something to improve their value to employers.

The notion that economic inequality is holding back the economy is not true. Opportunities are there, but people aren't making the best choices. And gov't is not making the best choices either to foster competition and make sure the rules and regs are necessary and effective and followed. We don't need to spend trillions more on temporary jobs bills, we need to create a better business climate here.

That is why so many more people, of all income levels, participate in the stock market. Rich guys got richer, so many of the less rich people invested in the market, hoping to become rich guys, too.

 

[ipaps]

When I read many of the posts from the lefties in this and other threads, I am struck by the impression that they believe income and wealth are zero sum, IOW the rich guys accumulate their wealth at the expense of everyone else. Which is not true, The middle and lower income folks are not and will not be paid more than what it would cost to replace them, regardless of the profit a business makes.

A pretty good chunk of the income inequality is based on capital gains. Since the rich guys have the most money to invest, it stands to reason they will profit the most when the investment pays off. Which it has for the most part, and in spectacular fashion in the last 30 years or so. Think about it, the DOW was around 800 points 30 years ago, now it's around 12,000. That's a lot of wealth creation, and most of it went to the entrepeneurs and investors who risked their money to achieve the rewards.

It's not like everyone else deserves a bigger share of the increase in wealth; why should they, they invested nothing. It's not like that increase in wealth came at the expense of the 99%ers, who by the way did have the option to invest and grow their money too, at least in some cases. Or could have made better career choices, gotten more education or training, or done something to improve their value to employers.

The notion that economic inequality is holding back the economy is not true. Opportunities are there, but people aren't making the best choices. And gov't is not making the best choices either to foster competition and make sure the rules and regs are necessary and effective and followed. We don't need to spend trillions more on temporary jobs bills, we need to create a better business climate here.

I guess saying wealth can't be created is indeed unrealistic.

 

[ipaps]

I don't really agree with Say's law. If a product do not have it's own demand, then all the demand associated with it's invention and production will eventually vanish. The creation of a new product can also make old products obsolete, reducing their demand.

 

[ipaps]

...stuff nowadays is created through collaboration, and people share that pot of gold.

Not everyone wants the same amount of gold so people decide to collaborate differently. People are different so people need different incomes. Making everyone's income the same is impossible and trying to do it is impossible.

I'm not a god #$#% communist, I'm just saying that maybe labor earn and capital earn are out of balance, whatever that means. I'm still working on it.

 

[expat_panama]

...I'm just saying that maybe labor earn and capital earn are out of balance, whatever that means. I'm still working on it.

We agree you need to work on it, but you announced your ideas before you did the hard work of understanding it. It's better to work it out first and then say how earnings should be afterwards.

 

[ipaps]

...I'm just saying that maybe labor earn and capital earn are out of balance, whatever that means. I'm still working on it.

We agree you need to work on it, but you announced your ideas before you did the hard work of understanding it. It's better to work it out first and then say how earnings should be afterwards.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind?

 

[expat_panama]

...It's better to work it out first and then say how earnings should be afterward.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind?

Something I forgot, most people on this forum never bother to work it out first before deciding, and I have to admit that the main reason I say things here is to see whether other people can prove me wrong or not. You were right after all, speak first and study after!

 

[editec]

When I read many of the posts from the lefties in this and other threads, I am struck by the impression that they believe income and wealth are zero sum, IOW the rich guys accumulate their wealth at the expense of everyone else. Which is not true, The middle and lower income folks are not and will not be paid more than what it would cost to replace them, regardless of the profit a business makes.

A pretty good chunk of the income inequality is based on capital gains. Since the rich guys have the most money to invest, it stands to reason they will profit the most when the investment pays off. Which it has for the most part, and in spectacular fashion in the last 30 years or so. Think about it, the DOW was around 800 points 30 years ago, now it's around 12,000. That's a lot of wealth creation, and most of it went to the entrepeneurs and investors who risked their money to achieve the rewards.

It's not like everyone else deserves a bigger share of the increase in wealth; why should they, they invested nothing. It's not like that increase in wealth came at the expense of the 99%ers, who by the way did have the option to invest and grow their money too, at least in some cases. Or could have made better career choices, gotten more education or training, or done something to improve their value to employers.

The notion that economic inequality is holding back the economy is not true. Opportunities are there, but people aren't making the best choices. And gov't is not making the best choices either to foster competition and make sure the rules and regs are necessary and effective and followed. We don't need to spend trillions more on temporary jobs bills, we need to create a better business climate here.

You need to read some books about macro-economics, Chief.

You make some valid complaints about mistakes being made (those are micro-economic issues, BTW), but you miss the bigger picture the MACRO-economic issue that this thread is really about.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In a sense it's like a pot of gold. Most of the stuff nowadays is created through collaboration, and people share that pot of gold.

ROFL

Leftists live in a fantasy world, with no grasp of reality.

No son, there is no pot of gold. Wealth is created by people determining what others value, and offering that value to them. The net total of wealth in the world increases by the second. It is a product of the mind and the will of man, whether those who create iPods or those who find new means to grow disease resistant crops, wealth is created before it can be looted.

 

[rdean]

Economic inequality is holding back economy

Everyone except Republicans understand that. Even corporations have been telling us they won't create jobs without demand. If no one has any money, there is no demand. It really is that simple.

The Republican "plan" is to give rich people even more and maybe, just maybe, they will take pity on us and create jobs. Because they do things like that. They are almost like "Gawds".

 

[Uncensored2008]

Economic inequality is holding back economy

Mental retardation is holding back rdean.

Everyone except Republicans understand that.

Funny then that you are utterly incapable of intelligently enunciating the logic that your rulers used to make this determination.

Even corporations have been telling us they won't create jobs without demand.

Bullshit.

You have no grasp of economics, which is a big part of the reason that you're a leftist..

Supply and demand are two sides of all transactions. You stumble and vomit forth "demand" as if it were some magic ingredient that the nation lacks, based on your failed grasp of idiocy that blares forth from comedy central, from whence you gain your news, and the fetid hate sites that determine your opinions.

Lord Keynes advocated an economic model that attempted to circumvent the business cycle by applying deficit backs stimulus during recessionary periods in the belief that this would generate demand and move the economy forward.

Ignorant morons such as you, ingesting a steady diet of diarrhea from charlatans like Krugman, foolishly declare this to be "demand side' economics, a claim Keynes would laugh at, as it is nothing of the sort.

NOW you have magnified your utter and completely stupefying ignorance by dishonestly extrapolating your misconception to hiring practices of fictitious corporations.

If no one has any money, there is no demand. It really is that simple.

You truly are an ignorant baboon.

{A new report released Sunday suggests that $30.9 billion has been spent in online shopping so far this holiday season, or a 15 percent increase compared to last year.}

$30.9B in online holiday sales so far - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal

Virtually nothing you post is accurate or relevant.

The Republican "plan" is to give rich people even more and maybe, just maybe, they will take pity on us and create jobs. Because they do things like that. They are almost like "Gawds".

Rdean, you are a marvel of stupidity. You are the epitome of an Obama supporter. Uneducated, misinformed, ignorant, and downright stupid.

 

[Wiseacre]

When I read many of the posts from the lefties in this and other threads, I am struck by the impression that they believe income and wealth are zero sum, IOW the rich guys accumulate their wealth at the expense of everyone else. Which is not true, The middle and lower income folks are not and will not be paid more than what it would cost to replace them, regardless of the profit a business makes.

A pretty good chunk of the income inequality is based on capital gains. Since the rich guys have the most money to invest, it stands to reason they will profit the most when the investment pays off. Which it has for the most part, and in spectacular fashion in the last 30 years or so. Think about it, the DOW was around 800 points 30 years ago, now it's around 12,000. That's a lot of wealth creation, and most of it went to the entrepeneurs and investors who risked their money to achieve the rewards.

It's not like everyone else deserves a bigger share of the increase in wealth; why should they, they invested nothing. It's not like that increase in wealth came at the expense of the 99%ers, who by the way did have the option to invest and grow their money too, at least in some cases. Or could have made better career choices, gotten more education or training, or done something to improve their value to employers.

The notion that economic inequality is holding back the economy is not true. Opportunities are there, but people aren't making the best choices. And gov't is not making the best choices either to foster competition and make sure the rules and regs are necessary and effective and followed. We don't need to spend trillions more on temporary jobs bills, we need to create a better business climate here.

You need to read some books about macro-economics, Chief.

You make some valid complaints about mistakes being made (those are micro-economic issues, BTW), but you miss the bigger picture the MACRO-economic issue that this thread is really about.

Thank you, I have been doing some reading about it and wil continue to do more. So far I have seen nothing that convinces me that redistribution of wealth will correct any of the problems we face today. IMO there has always been an unequal distribution of wealth, it's nothing new. The thing is that in the past 30 years or so we've seen an explosion of new wealth in this country, most of which went to those who had money to invest. Nothing surprising there, nor particularly alraming. Why? Cuz everybody still has the chance to make it big; maybe not a big chance, and I can see working on creating more chances and greater competition. But I think those who scream and holler about inequality are more concerned with political machinations than really doing things to help the disadvantaged improve their lot of life.

 

[MikeK]

Equality refers to position before the law.

A nation can have economic equality or it can have prosperity.

Not both.

That would be true if you infer the literal meaning of equality.

A better word to use in this context is equitable, which would apply in describing America's most prosperous era, that which occurred between the 40s and the 80s and resulted from FDR's New Deal. That prosperity came about largely by a 91% progressive tax rate and growth of the union movement. It marked the rise of the middle class which came about through the equitable (not equal) distribution of the Nation's wealth resources.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Equality refers to position before the law.

A nation can have economic equality or it can have prosperity.

Not both.

That would be true if you infer the literal meaning of equality.

A better word to use in this context is equitable, which would apply in describing America's most prosperous era, that which occurred between the 40s and the 80s and resulted from FDR's New Deal. That prosperity came about largely by a 91% progressive tax rate and growth of the union movement. It marked the rise of the middle class which came about through the equitable (not equal) distribution of the Nation's wealth resources.

C'mon, Mikey...grow up.

1. Prosperity is an outgrowth of people working as hard as they can and keeping the fruits of their labor.

2. "...most prosperous era, that which occurred between the 40s and the 80s ..."
Result of wartime manufacturing and the fact that after the war our competitors were rebuilding their nations.
Once they did, Volkwagons and Toyotas.

From H. W. Brands, “American Colossus: The Triumph of American Capitalism, 1865-1900"...
An interesting historical anomaly is the period 1945 through 1965, a golden age in many ways. This was the period after the war, when any of our potential competitors were rebuilding from the devastation, making it impossible for the United States economy not to thrive. Beneficiaries included the unions and blue collar high school graduates…who were assured of high paying jobs. That is no longer true, and probably won’t be again, short of a third World War.

This is why unskilled workers no longe get good-paying manuacturing jobs.


Equitable?
First, it's none of your business how much your neighbor makes.
Second, at the present, it is equitable in that the more you work, the more you make.

3. Income and wealth inequality…or demographics. In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.

a. In 2004, 56.4% of households in the bottom fifth featured no work by anyone for the entire year.
HINC-05--Part 1

b.The total number of full time, year round workers in the bottom fifth for 2004 was less than 3 million…which compares to 16.4 million in the top fifth of households. Ibid.

The difference in income does not reflect inequality, but rather, productivity. The fact that the lowest fifth are neither starving, nor living in the streets reflects the intrinsic generosity of our society, and the transfer of incomes via government programs. 80% of income in the bottom fifth is from such transfers; it is only 2% for the top fifth.

 

[Dragon]

When I read many of the posts from the lefties in this and other threads, I am struck by the impression that they believe income and wealth are zero sum, IOW the rich guys accumulate their wealth at the expense of everyone else.

It's not zero sum. It's worse.

First of all, one may express income as a percentage, and if you do that then it is zero-sum exactly. If the top 1% richest people take home 5% of the income, then the bottom 99% take home 95%; if the top 1% richest people take home 25%, then the other 99% take home only 75%.

Of course this is slightly misleading, since the question isn't answered: "X% of WHAT?" It's possible for both the 99% and the 1% to have an increased income as long as the total size of the economy (per capita) is increased more than the increased share taken by the 1%.

But that in turn is slightly misleading, since the REAL question is not whether the 99% are making more money, but rather this:

If the richest people take an increased share of the nation's income, will the total per capita income be more or less than if they don't?

The answer, evident from economic theory and also from an observation of history, is that the total per capita income will be LESS if the rich take a high share of income than if they take a smaller one. So the non-rich end up taking, not a smaller slice of a bigger pie, but a smaller slice of a smaller one.

Which is not to say they're taking a slice of a pie that's smaller than it USED to be necessarily. But it is to say that the pie is smaller than it COULD have been, and WOULD have been if they also had a larger slice of it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Fewer Americans See U.S. Divided Into "Haves," "Have Nots"

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans are now less likely to see U.S. society as divided into the "haves" and "have nots" than they were in 2008, returning to their views prior to that point. A clear majority, 58%, say they do not think of America in this way, after Americans were divided 49% to 49% in the summer of 2008.

If they had to choose, 58% of Americans would say they are in the "haves," rather than the "have nots" group. This breakdown has held remarkably steady over the past two decades of economic boom and bust, with a record-high 67% of Americans putting themselves in the "haves" category during the strong economic times of the late 1990s.




Not surprisingly, Republicans and Democrats are on opposite ends of the spectrum in both cases, with Democrats more likely than Republicans to say society is divided into haves and have nots, and more likely to see themselves in the "have nots" group. However, it is independents and moderates who since 2008 have grown significantly less likely to see society this way.




Postgraduates and those making $75,000 or more per year join Republicans as those most likely to label themselves as "haves." Americans making less than $30,000 per year, nonwhites, those with a high school education or less, and those not employed join Democrats as the groups most likely to label themselves as "have nots."

The party of the envious isn't having much of an effect in jealousy propaganda.

 

[Wiseacre]

When I read many of the posts from the lefties in this and other threads, I am struck by the impression that they believe income and wealth are zero sum, IOW the rich guys accumulate their wealth at the expense of everyone else.

It's not zero sum. It's worse.

First of all, one may express income as a percentage, and if you do that then it is zero-sum exactly. If the top 1% richest people take home 5% of the income, then the bottom 99% take home 95%; if the top 1% richest people take home 25%, then the other 99% take home only 75%.

Of course this is slightly misleading, since the question isn't answered: "X% of WHAT?" It's possible for both the 99% and the 1% to have an increased income as long as the total size of the economy (per capita) is increased more than the increased share taken by the 1%.

But that in turn is slightly misleading, since the REAL question is not whether the 99% are making more money, but rather this:

If the richest people take an increased share of the nation's income, will the total per capita income be more or less than if they don't?

The answer, evident from economic theory and also from an observation of history, is that the total per capita income will be LESS if the rich take a high share of income than if they take a smaller one. So the non-rich end up taking, not a smaller slice of a bigger pie, but a smaller slice of a smaller one.

Which is not to say they're taking a slice of a pie that's smaller than it USED to be necessarily. But it is to say that the pie is smaller than it COULD have been, and WOULD have been if they also had a larger slice of it.

Interesting turn of phrase there, rich people taking an increased share vs earning it. I can see the application when you consider the CEOs and senior executives that pay themselves exorbitant amounts of money that seldom happens in other countries. Most of that though is in capital gains, stock options and such that appreciate over time, especially if they get the options at a greatly reduced price. I don't think they earn tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in a year, even if the company has done well that year.

However, most of these cases are public companies, and if the board of directors approve it and the stockholders do not object then I'm not sure it's anyone else's business. If it was me I'd make sure compensation packages had to be approved by a majority of stockholders over a certain amount, say a million bucks/yr. If it's a private company though, whatever they pay themselves is also no one else's business, as long as no laws are broken to obtain that wealth.

The real issue with income inequality is with investment income - capital gains. The Warren Buffets of the world make huge amounts of money investing in businesses, commodities, and whatever else to turn a buck. Lotsa bucks, and we can argue about whether they earned it or not but the truth is that it takes money to make money. The guys with the most money to invest are the guys that get the most return, there's nothing wrong with that.

The truth is that many if not most of those 1%ers earned what they got legitimately, through years of hard work and/or putting themselves through school and accumulating large debts. Some cheated, some got lucky, but we shouldn't label everyone based on the actions of a few. And BTW, it ain't the same people year in and year out. In 5 years estimates are that the turnover of who those 1%ers are approaches 40-50%. People move up the income ladder, many deserve the full fruits of their labor after working many years to get where they are.

I'm not sure there are any honest studies out there that support the claim that spreading the wealth around will make any difference to the economic output. I'm pretty sure though that if the gov't is involved it'll be more for political reasons and therefore be less effective and probably subject to more fraud, waste, and abuse.

 

[Wiseacre]

Let's look at it from the lower end of the pay scale. Say you're a worker bee or lower level supervisor in a company that paid it's CEO tens of millions. Are you worth more than the person doing your same job in another company that paid their CEO half of what your CEO got? There's no skin off your nose in either case, you get paid the same whether the company is profitable or not.

Not if you're not being paid the same, then you need to be looking for another job. These days that ain't easy and jobs are hard to come by, but most companies realize that good employees are worth paying more to keep them. The companies that don't will eventually pay the price when they lose good people.

Many on the left believe the highly profitable company oughta share the wealth, and many do with Christmas bonuses and the like. Usually not much compared to what the top execs get, but so what? You have the right to quit anytime you want, and go find a better paying job. You have the option to improve your skills, sometimes at company expense, to make yourself worth more. Most people do, they don't spend that long on the bottom rung of the income ladder, and if they do who's fault is that?
Upward mobility it's called, if Barack Obama can get where he's gotten, so can anybody else.

The laws of supply and demand cover employment too. If an employer can find 5 other people to do your job, why should you get paid more than someone else? It's not the company's business to pay you more than you're worth, it's your business to make yourself worth a higher wage through your own efforts. There are an awful lot of people who are satisified with their current situation; we shouldn't be giving them more money if they don't earn it. It disincentivizes them to better themselves, and to me that's immoral.

 

[Dragon]

Interesting turn of phrase there, rich people taking an increased share vs earning it.

Well, there's no doubt that anyone who holds a difficult job, such as CEO of a big company, does earn some serious compensation. But the job hasn't gotten harder since the 1960s, when CEOs took home maybe 20 times what someone working the factory floor earned, and yet they're now making hundreds of times what the typical working-class person makes. That change is a result of changes in the economic rules -- they didn't earn it.

The truth is that many if not most of those 1%ers earned what they got legitimately, through years of hard work and/or putting themselves through school and accumulating large debts.

I'm aware of that. The assertion here isn't that the rich don't deserve to be rich (on the whole, recognizing that there are some exceptions to that). The question, though, is HOW rich. Really, the way that the rich today became so much richer than the rich of decades ago, has little to do with anyone's individual effort and a lot to do with bribing politicians.

I'm not sure there are any honest studies out there that support the claim that spreading the wealth around will make any difference to the economic output. I'm pretty sure though that if the gov't is involved it'll be more for political reasons and therefore be less effective and probably subject to more fraud, waste, and abuse.

The theory is easiest to explain so I'll start with that. Several facts which may not seem obvious:

1) An economy is driven by consumer demand. The more demand, the more investment in the production of products and services to meet the demand, hence the more production of wealth.

2) All income goes either to consumer spending or to capital formation. The more consumer spending happens, the less capital will be formed out of any one year's income, and vice-versa.

3) People save/invest a larger share of their income, on the average, as income rises. That is, people who make lots of money tend to save and invest an increasing share of what they make, compared to people who don't make as much, who tend to spend a larger share of it.

What that means is that the more UNequally income is distributed, the more of that income goes to capital formation and the less of it goes to consumer spending. Or (to say the same thing a different way), the more equally income is distributed, the more of that income goes to consumer spending and the less to capital formation.

Now refer back to #1, above. The more consumer demand there is, the more money will be invested in the production of goods and services to meet that demand. Above the point where consumer demand is all met, capital still gets invested, but it goes into various rent-seeking schemes, financial-instrument shell-games, or bubble-blowing. These things "make" money for the investor (or lose it), but they don't produce any real wealth, and that means all that's happening is that money is being shifted from one person to another -- from the losing investors to the winning ones.

So up to a theoretical point where consumer demand actually outstrips available capital (which we've never reached), it's always better for the economy to make incomes more equal.

That's the theory. On the basis of that theory, I would predict two things:

1) The U.S. economy has grown fastest when incomes were more nearly equal, and grown more slowly overall when incomes were more unequal.

2) The richest countries in the world will, in most cases, be ones in which incomes are more nearly equal, and poorer countries will tend to be ones in which incomes are more unequal.

Both of these turn out to be true. American incomes were most nearly equal during the four decades from 1940 until 1980, compared to either the earlier four decades (1900 to 1940), or the time since then (1980 to present). The middle four decades saw real per capita income grow, on average, more than twice as fast as either the earlier or later period. As for the international situation, I'll give you two links to lists. Open these in two separate tabs:

List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the first one (countries by income equality), scroll down to the first table and leave it in alpha order for easy reference.

Looking at the richest country list from the second link, I go down the list and take out small, oil-rich Middle Eastern countries. The resulting list of the richest 20 countries, let's say, with their associated Gini coefficients (World Bank), is as follows:

1. Luxembourg (31)
2. Singapore (42)
3. Norway (26)
4. United States (41)
5. Switzerland (34)
6. Netherlands (31)
7. Ireland (34)
8. Austria (29)
9. Denmark (25)
10. Australia (35)
11. Sweden (25)
12. Canada (33)
13. Germany (28)
14. Belgium (33)
15. Finland (27)
16. UK (36)
17. Iceland (28)
18. Japan (25)
19. France (33)
20. Spain (35)

Now, looking at the 20 poorest countries in the list, and making the same comparison, we find:

1. Dem. Rep. of the Congo (44)
2. Burundi (33)
3. Liberia (38)
4. Niger (34)
5. Central African Republic (56)
6. Sierra Leone (43)
7. Malawi (39)
8. Timor-Leste (32)
9. Mozambique (46)
10. Afghanistan (29)
11. Madagascar (47)
12. Togo (34)
13. Ethiopia (30)
14. Mali (39)
15. Guinea (39)
16. Comoros (64)
17. Haiti (60)
18. Rwanda (53)
19. Guinea-Bissau (36)
20. Nepal (47)

The 20 richest countries have a GINI coefficient averaging 31.55. For the 20 poorest countries, it's 42.15.

There are some exceptions in both lists, especially the second one. But while there are many exceptions on the second list, there are only two on the first (Singapore and the U.S.) with GCs above 35, and even those aren't nearly as high as the highest on the poor list. So we can say it's fairly easy to have relatively equal incomes and be poor (poverty can come from lack of technology, lack of resources, etc.), but it's really hard to have highly unequal incomes and be rich. And I would say that at least one of the rich exceptions (the U.S.) once had a Gini coefficient much lower than we do now, and at that time would have been no. 1, not no. 4. We're still quite high, but that's because we had so far to fall.