Shocking Trend In U.S. Individual Income Inequality, 1994-2010

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bripat9643, Oct 27, 2011.

  1. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,871
    Thanks Received:
    8,088
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,405
    Shocking Trend In U.S. Individual Income Inequality, 1994-2010

    Perhaps the most common measure of income inequality in a nation is the Gini Coefficient (aka the "Gini Ratio"), which ranks the amount of inequality there is in a country on a scale from 0, which represents perfect equality, where everyone would have an equal share of the nation's income, to a value of 1, which represents perfect inequality, where one person would have all the income, but everyone else has none.

    So now, thanks to so much media attention being focused on the Occupy Wall Street "movement" (aka "politically-oriented publicity stunt"), where many activists (aka "not-too-bright people") appear to be upset at "the Top 1%" (aka "really high income earners"), who they claim have "gotten too rich" (aka "earned a high income by doing things that satisfy other people's needs"), we thought we'd use the "Gini coefficient" (aka "a well-established mathematically-based method for measuring inequality") to find out how out of whack things have become in the United States over the years.

    Or more specifically, the years from 1994 through 2010, for which the U.S. Census has published detailed data related to the incomes earned by Americans based on their annual surveys of the U.S. population. Our chart showing the trend in income inequality for all individuals as measured by the Gini ratio for these years is below:

    [​IMG]

    We were shocked to see the overall trend from 1994 through 2010 take the path it has, because it's so completely contrary to what we keep hearing in the news.

    We only ask that someone ask the media for their reaction to this disturbing data!
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2011
  2. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,725
    Thanks Received:
    4,712
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +16,007
    1994-2010? That's a misleading crock of shit. Try starting at 1979.
     
  3. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,165
    And how exactly is going from 1979 and stopping years before now going to be more accurate?

    And how do you expect him to start at 1979 if they started measuring it in 1994?
     
  4. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,725
    Thanks Received:
    4,712
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +16,007
  5. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,725
    Thanks Received:
    4,712
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +16,007
  6. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,165
  7. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,725
    Thanks Received:
    4,712
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +16,007
  8. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,725
    Thanks Received:
    4,712
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +16,007

Share This Page