The Shape of Inequality
May 20, 2015 11:52 PM Subscribe
Can YOU recognize the shape of inequality in America? Most can't.
The Washington Post:
"We wrote on Monday about some new research showing how woefully confused most people are about inequality, not just in the U.S. but around the world. People tend to be very, very bad at accurately answering questions about the shape of the income distribution in their country, the share of people living in poverty, and the typical incomes made by workers at the top and bottom."
The Washington Post:
"We wrote on Monday about some new research showing how woefully confused most people are about inequality, not just in the U.S. but around the world. People tend to be very, very bad at accurately answering questions about the shape of the income distribution in their country, the share of people living in poverty, and the typical incomes made by workers at the top and bottom."
The Walton family alone has more wealth than 40% of American families combined. I didn't see the graph representing a boot stomping on a human face forever.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 12:24 AM on May 21, 2015 [41 favorites]
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 12:24 AM on May 21, 2015 [41 favorites]
Both times I got a question wrong, it was from believing that things are worse than they actually are. Yay? On the other hand, I got 5/7 right for believing that things are really bad, so.
posted by naju at 12:24 AM on May 21, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by naju at 12:24 AM on May 21, 2015 [20 favorites]
These seem to be primarily concerned with income. I wonder what the difference would be if they visualized wealth instead? It seems like that would describe inequality more accurately.
Also, this may just show that people have a difficult time interpreting poorly labeled graphs.
posted by buriednexttoyou at 12:31 AM on May 21, 2015 [37 favorites]
Also, this may just show that people have a difficult time interpreting poorly labeled graphs.
posted by buriednexttoyou at 12:31 AM on May 21, 2015 [37 favorites]
The top 20% did pretty good over this time period
Really.
posted by phunniemee at 1:02 AM on May 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
Really.
posted by phunniemee at 1:02 AM on May 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
Somewhere in there the Washington Post quoted a Mother Jones analysis.
posted by goofyfoot at 1:02 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by goofyfoot at 1:02 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not really a math whiz but I kind of feel like the average person is going to get a confused message from this because it isn't really graphically nailing home how big the population of people in the bottom rungs is compared to how small the population of the people on the top is. I mean, Question 1 Answer B looks pretty fair if you don't adjust for how small the top of the pyramid is and how large the base is.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:09 AM on May 21, 2015 [25 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 1:09 AM on May 21, 2015 [25 favorites]
They quote their source after you answer. In particular, question 2 comes from The Distribution of Household Income and the Middle Class : Table 2. The method they used is to sort all households by income, divide them into 5 equal brackets (~24.5million households each), and then graph what percentage of income that part represents.
Now for some armchair conjecture about the Waltons:
How does the statistic that the Walton families wealth is greater than the combined wealth of the bottom 42% correlate with the graph in question 2? Shouldn't the graph be more like answer (A) perhaps?
Wealth is different than income. Income is what you make in a year; wealth is that plus all your assets and minus your liabilities. My guess is that the Waltons have a ton of assets and very little personal liability. Their income is great, but probably only a fraction of the value of their assets.
Whereas the bottom 42% have wealth that, if they're luck, nearly equals their income. Largely because people in those brackets have a mortgage with little equity or are outright underwater, with a lot more medical/student load debt. Much of the lower brackets will have negative wealth, and you will need to greatly expand your range to balance both those in the negative and the extreme wealth of the Waltons.
But back to the graph, which measures income, even many people in the lowest bracket have positive incomes. So it's not possible to take the statistic about the relative wealth of the Walton family and compare it to the relative incomes in the graph.
posted by sbutler at 1:12 AM on May 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
Now for some armchair conjecture about the Waltons:
How does the statistic that the Walton families wealth is greater than the combined wealth of the bottom 42% correlate with the graph in question 2? Shouldn't the graph be more like answer (A) perhaps?
Wealth is different than income. Income is what you make in a year; wealth is that plus all your assets and minus your liabilities. My guess is that the Waltons have a ton of assets and very little personal liability. Their income is great, but probably only a fraction of the value of their assets.
Whereas the bottom 42% have wealth that, if they're luck, nearly equals their income. Largely because people in those brackets have a mortgage with little equity or are outright underwater, with a lot more medical/student load debt. Much of the lower brackets will have negative wealth, and you will need to greatly expand your range to balance both those in the negative and the extreme wealth of the Waltons.
But back to the graph, which measures income, even many people in the lowest bracket have positive incomes. So it's not possible to take the statistic about the relative wealth of the Walton family and compare it to the relative incomes in the graph.
posted by sbutler at 1:12 AM on May 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
I only got a couple right, because I consistently massively overestimated how bad things are.
I am not American and most of my knowledge of inequality and poverty in the USA comes from metafilter and things linked here. It's nice to know it's not as dire as it usually sounds!
posted by lollusc at 1:36 AM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
I am not American and most of my knowledge of inequality and poverty in the USA comes from metafilter and things linked here. It's nice to know it's not as dire as it usually sounds!
posted by lollusc at 1:36 AM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think the results of this are less "people don't understand inequality" and more "people don't understand our extremely small graphs, which are unlabeled in a way that they are super confusing, especially because we didn't bother indicating what the axes are". I mean, it's likely that people ALSO don't understand inequality.
I feel like this Sociological Image does more to explain what is wrong than anything in that Post quiz.
posted by NoraReed at 1:40 AM on May 21, 2015 [45 favorites]
I feel like this Sociological Image does more to explain what is wrong than anything in that Post quiz.
posted by NoraReed at 1:40 AM on May 21, 2015 [45 favorites]
I thought that in the US, the richest 400K had more than the bottom 50%? If so, I just don't see how this is accurate at all. Is this the WaPo sucking up to its rich paymasters? Way to confuse the issue, WaPo.
posted by marienbad at 2:01 AM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by marienbad at 2:01 AM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
I thought that in the US, the richest 400K had more than the bottom 50%?
The graphs are about income inequalities, not wealth inequality.
Yes, this is confusing and I don't think they disambiguated this well at all.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:07 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
The graphs are about income inequalities, not wealth inequality.
Yes, this is confusing and I don't think they disambiguated this well at all.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:07 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
Way to confuse the issue, WaPo.
It's almost like they did that on purpose
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:11 AM on May 21, 2015 [22 favorites]
It's almost like they did that on purpose
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:11 AM on May 21, 2015 [22 favorites]
I too perceived things as worse than they are according to these graphs. But, two issues are missing from the discussion, (1) taxes paid as a percentage of all taxes from all sources, and (2) contributions made in productivity, innovation, or otherwise. The CEO that created the ability for me to read and post this on a pocket sized computer and similar wonders of our modern life deserve every penny from my perspective and should not be discouraged from creating the next innovation or encouraged to take their abilities elsewhere. Ideally inequality can be offset by opportunity. But, that takes hard work that some can't do or won't do. It's not as simple as saying everyone at the top should be paid less and everyone at the bottom should be paid more. I don't have an answer but it is a worthy discussion.
posted by imthebadgerdamnit at 2:11 AM on May 21, 2015
posted by imthebadgerdamnit at 2:11 AM on May 21, 2015
The graphs are about income inequalities, not wealth inequality.
And that is a tactic commonly used to hide the degree and nature of inequality. The Washinton Post: bad at graphics or disingenuous?
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:11 AM on May 21, 2015 [27 favorites]
And that is a tactic commonly used to hide the degree and nature of inequality. The Washinton Post: bad at graphics or disingenuous?
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:11 AM on May 21, 2015 [27 favorites]
It really feels like the point of the site is to tut-tut people, who are legitimately concerned about massive wealth inequality, by saying that income inequality isn't as bad as the "worst" looking graph on any of those pictures. The message I got is, "Be glad you live in the pyramid society and not the one shaped like a broom." And that almost sounds like a threat.
posted by graymouser at 2:41 AM on May 21, 2015 [26 favorites]
posted by graymouser at 2:41 AM on May 21, 2015 [26 favorites]
I thought question 5 was nit picky, "how the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay has changed since 1965" Answers A and E both had an upward trend but there was more volatility in recent years in answer A. I reckon playing with the moving average would have made the trend line similar for both answers.
posted by Narrative_Historian at 3:19 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Narrative_Historian at 3:19 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
4/7
Congratulations! You are average.
Oh, OK. Thanks.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 3:32 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Congratulations! You are average.
Oh, OK. Thanks.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 3:32 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
The CEO that created the ability for me to read and post this on a pocket sized computer and similar wonders of our modern life
Yes, that's what CEOs do. Create abilities and invent things. They're not glorified middle managers at all.
posted by Dysk at 3:54 AM on May 21, 2015 [37 favorites]
Yes, that's what CEOs do. Create abilities and invent things. They're not glorified middle managers at all.
posted by Dysk at 3:54 AM on May 21, 2015 [37 favorites]
It really feels like the point of the site is to tut-tut people, who are legitimately concerned about massive wealth inequality, by saying that income inequality isn't as bad as the "worst" looking graph on any of those pictures. The message I got is, "Be glad you live in the pyramid society and not the one shaped like a broom." And that almost sounds like a threat.
So I once graphed Gregory King's 1688 description of incomes in England - and that was very broom-like. It put things in perspective for me.
As for income vs wealth: it's not deceptive, they are two different issues. I get annoyed when people report on wealth differences but want to make a point about income.
As for the graphs: I did very poorly. I'm blaming my tiny mobile screen and general pessimism :)
posted by jb at 4:14 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
So I once graphed Gregory King's 1688 description of incomes in England - and that was very broom-like. It put things in perspective for me.
As for income vs wealth: it's not deceptive, they are two different issues. I get annoyed when people report on wealth differences but want to make a point about income.
As for the graphs: I did very poorly. I'm blaming my tiny mobile screen and general pessimism :)
posted by jb at 4:14 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
I thought question 5 was nit picky, "how the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay has changed since 1965" Answers A and E both had an upward trend but there was more volatility in recent years in answer A. I reckon playing with the moving average would have made the trend line similar for both answers.
I got that one wrong, too, and for the same reason, but in retrospect a key aspect of the correct graph is that the explosion in CEO pay has not been an inevitable and nearly-constant trend since 1965 but rather one that didn't take hold until somewhere around the Reagan years. So graph A is actually more damning in that regard.
posted by nobody at 4:15 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
I got that one wrong, too, and for the same reason, but in retrospect a key aspect of the correct graph is that the explosion in CEO pay has not been an inevitable and nearly-constant trend since 1965 but rather one that didn't take hold until somewhere around the Reagan years. So graph A is actually more damning in that regard.
posted by nobody at 4:15 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
That wealth inequality is so drastic is a compelling argument for a radically flat income distribution, imo. Anything else is just continually worsening the wealth inequality.
posted by Dysk at 4:19 AM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 4:19 AM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
If we could inversely correlate wealth and income somehow, doubleplusgood!
posted by Dysk at 4:28 AM on May 21, 2015
posted by Dysk at 4:28 AM on May 21, 2015
The explosion in CEO pay is also tied to the increased focus on stock comp which also ties it to equity returns.
Wealth and income are totally different things from an equality perspective. A relatively egalitarian society will still have meaningful wealth concentration.
posted by JPD at 4:37 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Wealth and income are totally different things from an equality perspective. A relatively egalitarian society will still have meaningful wealth concentration.
posted by JPD at 4:37 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
A relatively egalitarian society will still have meaningful wealth concentration.
How is this possible in an egalitarian society (at least beyond a generation)? Every time wealth gets transferred to someone, that's income. If we're equalising income, there is no way for wealth to concentrate by being transferred to people. So once the existing rich die, their wealth gets transferred to other people through inheritance, that's income, we tax it to equalise that person's income to some extent, wealth is now less concentrated than before.
posted by Dysk at 4:40 AM on May 21, 2015
How is this possible in an egalitarian society (at least beyond a generation)? Every time wealth gets transferred to someone, that's income. If we're equalising income, there is no way for wealth to concentrate by being transferred to people. So once the existing rich die, their wealth gets transferred to other people through inheritance, that's income, we tax it to equalise that person's income to some extent, wealth is now less concentrated than before.
posted by Dysk at 4:40 AM on May 21, 2015
How is 5/7 a solid B-/C+? If I graded on that scale there would be rioting students with torches and pitchforks outside my office.
Sigh, yet another way in which those elite kids have it better than I do. (He said, with his tongue firmly in cheek.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 4:47 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sigh, yet another way in which those elite kids have it better than I do. (He said, with his tongue firmly in cheek.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 4:47 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
The use of income as the measure of inequality is entirely deliberate, and is part and parcel of the class warfare of the liberal elite (which consists of the actual rich and lot of people making $125k a year) against the overwhelmingly conservative class of managers, entrepreneurs and professionals making incomes which are higher but insufficient to permit accumulation of real wealth. And they have succeeded, assuring that Bill Gates and Bill Gates' dentist pay the same income tax rate and that the dentist pays a thousand times more taxes as a percentage of his wealth as does his patient.
posted by MattD at 4:51 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by MattD at 4:51 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oh, you.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 5:09 AM on May 21, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 5:09 AM on May 21, 2015 [7 favorites]
What an appallingly badly done article. Yeah, phunniemee The top 20% did pretty good over this time period is just too ironically bad and made me wince. I found it impossible to parse Question 1 accurately. Tiny graphs, poorly labeled, thick pars, what a misuse of the power of graphing. No discussion of methodology. WP should be embarrassed.
Also, I just really hate articles about how You're Doing It Wrong, You Don't Understand X, etc. The Web is full of that crap and it's almost always an indicator of a genuinely crappy article.
posted by theora55 at 5:09 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
Also, I just really hate articles about how You're Doing It Wrong, You Don't Understand X, etc. The Web is full of that crap and it's almost always an indicator of a genuinely crappy article.
posted by theora55 at 5:09 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
How is this possible in an egalitarian society (at least beyond a generation)? Every time wealth gets transferred to someone, that's income. If we're equalising income, there is no way for wealth to concentrate by being transferred to people. So once the existing rich die, their wealth gets transferred to other people through inheritance, that's income, we tax it to equalise that person's income to some extent, wealth is now less concentrated than before.
the compounding effect of capital returns overwhelms almost any tax rate short of 100%. Especially when there are good reasons not to tax unrealized capital gains.
posted by JPD at 5:10 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
the compounding effect of capital returns overwhelms almost any tax rate short of 100%. Especially when there are good reasons not to tax unrealized capital gains.
posted by JPD at 5:10 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
I felt like this quiz was really testing my ability to see stats in picture form rather than my knowledge of stats. Meaning that if they had given the questions in verbal form, I probably would have picked more correct choices, but I just didn't recognize easily what I knew in pictorial form.
posted by eternalstranger at 5:11 AM on May 21, 2015
posted by eternalstranger at 5:11 AM on May 21, 2015
My students would tell you that you can't interpret graphs with unlabeled axes.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:12 AM on May 21, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 5:12 AM on May 21, 2015 [16 favorites]
the compounding effect of capital returns overwhelms almost any tax rate short of 100%. Especially when there are good reasons not to tax unrealized capital gains.
Ah, when you designate some forms of income as not income, right.
posted by Dysk at 5:14 AM on May 21, 2015 [7 favorites]
Ah, when you designate some forms of income as not income, right.
posted by Dysk at 5:14 AM on May 21, 2015 [7 favorites]
the gajillionaires do wage class warfare, but mostly against people like me, and not against anyone below me. also the gajillionaires are liberals in the american sense
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:15 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:15 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ah, when you designate some forms of income as not income, right.
You understand there is a good reason for that don't you? If I start a business and the government comes on my steps every year and says "you have to give us cash for the amount the value of your company increased this year beyond what you earned as income" that means I by necessity need to grow my business more slowly. Its taxing investment.
posted by JPD at 5:18 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
You understand there is a good reason for that don't you? If I start a business and the government comes on my steps every year and says "you have to give us cash for the amount the value of your company increased this year beyond what you earned as income" that means I by necessity need to grow my business more slowly. Its taxing investment.
posted by JPD at 5:18 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
FWIW, I'm very familiar with this paper.
These seem to be primarily concerned with income. I wonder what the difference would be if they visualized wealth yt instead?
No difference.
And that is a tactic commonly used to hide the degree and nature of inequality.
But not here, since data on wealth inequality is much harder to come by.
Meaning that if they had given the questions in verbal form, I probably would have picked more correct choices
They did similar surveys in verbal form. Same results.
The use of income as the measure of inequality is entirely deliberate, and is part and parcel of the class warfare of the liberal elite
Wrong again. See above.
In general, other questions they asked are variants of: Is your society getting more or less economically unequal?
How much do doctors make? Lawyers? CEOs?
Among people who own two houses: Are you in the top or bottom half of the income distribution in your country?
While you can pick nits with any one tactic, the totality of the evidence is that people have no idea about inequality.
The grosses example is that in the Philipines, people thought doctors made 100k a year, when in reality it was about 5k.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:43 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
These seem to be primarily concerned with income. I wonder what the difference would be if they visualized wealth yt instead?
No difference.
And that is a tactic commonly used to hide the degree and nature of inequality.
But not here, since data on wealth inequality is much harder to come by.
Meaning that if they had given the questions in verbal form, I probably would have picked more correct choices
They did similar surveys in verbal form. Same results.
The use of income as the measure of inequality is entirely deliberate, and is part and parcel of the class warfare of the liberal elite
Wrong again. See above.
In general, other questions they asked are variants of: Is your society getting more or less economically unequal?
How much do doctors make? Lawyers? CEOs?
Among people who own two houses: Are you in the top or bottom half of the income distribution in your country?
While you can pick nits with any one tactic, the totality of the evidence is that people have no idea about inequality.
The grosses example is that in the Philipines, people thought doctors made 100k a year, when in reality it was about 5k.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:43 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's nice to know it's not as dire as it usually sounds!
beware, class war is the point of this article.
It's only meant to diffuse discussion of inequality. Amusing that the Washington Post is uninterested enough in this issue that the writers were forced to reference a Mother Jones article.
You may notice that Mother Jones presents this information differently.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
posted by eustatic at 5:44 AM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
beware, class war is the point of this article.
It's only meant to diffuse discussion of inequality. Amusing that the Washington Post is uninterested enough in this issue that the writers were forced to reference a Mother Jones article.
You may notice that Mother Jones presents this information differently.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
posted by eustatic at 5:44 AM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
I only got 2 right. I'm still looking at #2 where the correct answer was C, that the top 20% make 51% of the income. There's NO WAY that 5th bar is equal in height to the other four bars; not even close. Am I missing something or do the graph and answer not correlate at all?
posted by freecellwizard at 5:51 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by freecellwizard at 5:51 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
You understand there is a good reason for that don't you? If I start a business and the government comes on my steps every year and says "you have to give us cash for the amount the value of your company increased this year beyond what you earned as income" that means I by necessity need to grow my business more slowly. Its taxing investment.
Once you sell the company, those proceeds are income. The 'increase in value' of your company is not income until you turn it into income.
posted by Dysk at 5:58 AM on May 21, 2015
Once you sell the company, those proceeds are income. The 'increase in value' of your company is not income until you turn it into income.
posted by Dysk at 5:58 AM on May 21, 2015
The shape of Income Inequality is basically Uncle Money Bags giving the finger to most of us, gleefully.
posted by juiceCake at 6:08 AM on May 21, 2015
posted by juiceCake at 6:08 AM on May 21, 2015
The CEO that created the ability for me to read and post this on a pocket sized computer and similar wonders of our modern life.
What about the teacher who created your ability to read in general?
posted by codacorolla at 6:09 AM on May 21, 2015 [24 favorites]
What about the teacher who created your ability to read in general?
posted by codacorolla at 6:09 AM on May 21, 2015 [24 favorites]
But not here, since data on wealth inequality is much harder to come by.
That is frustrating, given how powerful differences in wealth are. I have a number of friends and acquaintances who, for example, own houses on really favorable terms -- they were given a family house, they were given a 20 percent downpayment, their "mortgage" was borrowed from a family member at very low interest and will later be forgiven, or something similar -- which puts their finances in a radically different position than the person next to them who is earning the same salary but doesn't have family money to draw on.
I'm glad that income inequality has been getting more attention, even though clearly most people don't understand the broader patterns, much less the implications of the various proposals; I just wish there was a similar attention to wealth.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:13 AM on May 21, 2015 [7 favorites]
That is frustrating, given how powerful differences in wealth are. I have a number of friends and acquaintances who, for example, own houses on really favorable terms -- they were given a family house, they were given a 20 percent downpayment, their "mortgage" was borrowed from a family member at very low interest and will later be forgiven, or something similar -- which puts their finances in a radically different position than the person next to them who is earning the same salary but doesn't have family money to draw on.
I'm glad that income inequality has been getting more attention, even though clearly most people don't understand the broader patterns, much less the implications of the various proposals; I just wish there was a similar attention to wealth.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:13 AM on May 21, 2015 [7 favorites]
Interesting how we've come to think of who the company belongs to - the "you" in "your company." Why is that the CEO (the employee at the top) and not all of the employees?
One of the interesting things about Silicon Valley in the late 1990s was the way startups used stock to change notions of ownership, giving employees a significant amount of stock on top of salary. The CEO had more control than the rest of us, but the company belonged to all of us in a nontrivial way, as did the potential upside.
Which is all to say, using stock as a compensation tool for CEOs but not other employees is a choice, not an inevitability.
(PS - Hi, I'm one of the many people who created the ability for [you] to read and post this on a pocket sized computer and similar wonders of our modern life and we were not all CEOs, thanks.)
posted by heisenberg at 6:14 AM on May 21, 2015 [11 favorites]
One of the interesting things about Silicon Valley in the late 1990s was the way startups used stock to change notions of ownership, giving employees a significant amount of stock on top of salary. The CEO had more control than the rest of us, but the company belonged to all of us in a nontrivial way, as did the potential upside.
Which is all to say, using stock as a compensation tool for CEOs but not other employees is a choice, not an inevitability.
(PS - Hi, I'm one of the many people who created the ability for [you] to read and post this on a pocket sized computer and similar wonders of our modern life and we were not all CEOs, thanks.)
posted by heisenberg at 6:14 AM on May 21, 2015 [11 favorites]
(For reference, the 'you' and 'your company' in my previous comment refers very much to a non-traded private company with a single owner.)
posted by Dysk at 6:20 AM on May 21, 2015
posted by Dysk at 6:20 AM on May 21, 2015
Ideally inequality can be offset by opportunity. But, that takes hard work that some can't do or won't do.
All those poor people just need to work harder.
posted by Fleebnork at 6:26 AM on May 21, 2015 [6 favorites]
All those poor people just need to work harder.
posted by Fleebnork at 6:26 AM on May 21, 2015 [6 favorites]
Unless I'm misunderstanding something about the graph, the "correct" graph in question #2 is an outright fabrication.
#2 reads: "These diagrams show the American population divided equally into five groups by income level. The bars show the percent of total income that each group gets in a given year. Bigger bars mean a bigger slice of the overall income pie. Which one best describes the U.S.?"
I picked graph A. They claim the answer is graph C because "The top 20% of Americans captured 51% of before-tax household income in 2010", however graph C shows the top 20% earning considerably less than 51%!
I used a photo editor to measure the bars exactly, and their supposedly correct graph actually shows the following percentages:
Top: 42%
4th: 25%
3rd: 17%
2nd: 10%
Bottom: 6%
So, yeah, no longer trust any of this.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 6:44 AM on May 21, 2015 [22 favorites]
#2 reads: "These diagrams show the American population divided equally into five groups by income level. The bars show the percent of total income that each group gets in a given year. Bigger bars mean a bigger slice of the overall income pie. Which one best describes the U.S.?"
I picked graph A. They claim the answer is graph C because "The top 20% of Americans captured 51% of before-tax household income in 2010", however graph C shows the top 20% earning considerably less than 51%!
I used a photo editor to measure the bars exactly, and their supposedly correct graph actually shows the following percentages:
Top: 42%
4th: 25%
3rd: 17%
2nd: 10%
Bottom: 6%
So, yeah, no longer trust any of this.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 6:44 AM on May 21, 2015 [22 favorites]
The use of income as the measure of inequality is entirely deliberate, and is part and parcel of the class warfare of the liberal elite (which consists of the actual rich and lot of people making $125k a year) against the overwhelmingly conservative class of managers, entrepreneurs and professionals making incomes which are higher but insufficient to permit accumulation of real wealth.
Yep -- that's why the liberal elite has been so hard at work trying to eliminate the estate tax. So the liberals can protect their Scrooge McDuck-like heaps of wealth from the government's hand, laughing all the while at the poor hard-working saps who, despite making $200K a year their whole life, have nothing left for their children but a handful of change and a signed picture of Jack Kemp.
posted by escabeche at 6:45 AM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yep -- that's why the liberal elite has been so hard at work trying to eliminate the estate tax. So the liberals can protect their Scrooge McDuck-like heaps of wealth from the government's hand, laughing all the while at the poor hard-working saps who, despite making $200K a year their whole life, have nothing left for their children but a handful of change and a signed picture of Jack Kemp.
posted by escabeche at 6:45 AM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
For reference, the correct percentages (from the source they cite) are:
Top: 52%
4th: 20%
3rd: 14%
2nd: 10%
Bottom: 5%
posted by Salvor Hardin at 6:47 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Top: 52%
4th: 20%
3rd: 14%
2nd: 10%
Bottom: 5%
posted by Salvor Hardin at 6:47 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yep -- that's why the liberal elite has been so hard at work trying to eliminate the estate tax. So the liberals can protect their Scrooge McDuck-like heaps of wealth from the government's hand, laughing all the while at the poor hard-working saps who, despite making $200K a year their whole life, have nothing left for their children but a handful of change and a signed picture of Jack Kemp.
Interesting data on the estate tax - it was never very redistributive.
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/deaths.pdf
posted by JPD at 6:59 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Interesting data on the estate tax - it was never very redistributive.
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/deaths.pdf
posted by JPD at 6:59 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
For question 1 they say the right answer is B: most people on the bottom. I said D: most people in the middle. Which is probably true on a log scale, and a log scale is how I'd bet people perceive incomes psychologically. (If I was making $20K a year and suddenly start making $40K, that's a Big Fucking Deal. If I go from $100K to $120K, I'm happy but it's not quite as big. If I go from $1M to $1.02M, do I even notice?)
posted by madcaptenor at 6:59 AM on May 21, 2015
posted by madcaptenor at 6:59 AM on May 21, 2015
the class warfare of the liberal elite
I'm just going to assume that MattD is one of those socialists who uses the word "liberal" in the European sense, to refer to a type of market-oriented center-right conservative.
The reason that I'm doing this is because if one assumes that MattD is a socialist delivering a left critique of liberalism, this statement of his is kind of true.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 7:18 AM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm just going to assume that MattD is one of those socialists who uses the word "liberal" in the European sense, to refer to a type of market-oriented center-right conservative.
The reason that I'm doing this is because if one assumes that MattD is a socialist delivering a left critique of liberalism, this statement of his is kind of true.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 7:18 AM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
I've e-mailed the authors asking them to explain the bar heights in question 2, graph C.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:27 AM on May 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:27 AM on May 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
Notice how the quintile is once again the friend of the top 1% and above. Ah, the quintile.
posted by Trochanter at 7:46 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 7:46 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
The reason that I'm doing this is because if one assumes that MattD is a socialist delivering a left critique of liberalism, this statement of his is kind of true.
If you actually look at tax policy as implemented by the democrats over the last 20 years he's pretty much spot on. The tax burden in relative terms has declined dramatically les on the cohort that makes 250k-750k than it has for the 750k + crowd. Its also not a surprise that the 250k-750k crowd isn't wealthy enough to be meaningful political donors and tends to skew far more republican in its voting patterns than the 750k+ crowd.
He's not wrong in saying its the haves vs the have-mores. Some of the obama tax proprosals were also targeted this way.
posted by JPD at 7:58 AM on May 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
If you actually look at tax policy as implemented by the democrats over the last 20 years he's pretty much spot on. The tax burden in relative terms has declined dramatically les on the cohort that makes 250k-750k than it has for the 750k + crowd. Its also not a surprise that the 250k-750k crowd isn't wealthy enough to be meaningful political donors and tends to skew far more republican in its voting patterns than the 750k+ crowd.
He's not wrong in saying its the haves vs the have-mores. Some of the obama tax proprosals were also targeted this way.
posted by JPD at 7:58 AM on May 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
For what it's worth, Salvor Hardin, Graph C is the only possible correct response to question 2 on a very base mathematical level (which does make the question silly). Each column represents one fifth of the population, so there are the same number of people represented by each column. Graph A can't be correct because there's no way that the ~64 million people in the lowest quintile can make the same amount as the ~64 million people in the next highest quintile (let alone the same amount as the ~64 million in the middle quintile). Each bar has to be higher than the previous. That's what defines the order of the bars.
Obviously that doesn't change anything about the heights being imprecise, but as far as test-taking goes it was the only viable choice.
posted by nobody at 8:01 AM on May 21, 2015
Obviously that doesn't change anything about the heights being imprecise, but as far as test-taking goes it was the only viable choice.
posted by nobody at 8:01 AM on May 21, 2015
If you actually look at tax policy as implemented by the democrats over the last 20 years he's pretty much spot on.
Even if the rest of your comment is 100% fact, he' only "pretty much spot on" if you conflate "Democrat" with "liberal," which for at least the last 20 years has been laughable.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 8:02 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Even if the rest of your comment is 100% fact, he' only "pretty much spot on" if you conflate "Democrat" with "liberal," which for at least the last 20 years has been laughable.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 8:02 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
The thing that bugs me the most is that a quintile is a very, very large chunk. That's one out of every five people, and you cannot grasp the enormity of the situation based on such broad strokes. It would be a little more helpful, at least, to specify the range that each of those quintiles covers, so we could see just how pointlessly huge the range in that top quintile is.
I could make things look a lot more equal if I made charts showing simply the average American income as one big block. I could get incrementally more realistic by breaking it down into halves or quarters, but people would see through that. Maybe quintiles are the point where it acknowledges inequality for some minimum plausibility without letting on just how ridiculous the reality is.
Show me smaller increments. Show me ten percent increments, then five, and come at it from the other direction, showing it from an income (or, better, wealth) distribution, to show just how small a percentage of the population controls what percentage of wealth in the US.
posted by ernielundquist at 8:02 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
I could make things look a lot more equal if I made charts showing simply the average American income as one big block. I could get incrementally more realistic by breaking it down into halves or quarters, but people would see through that. Maybe quintiles are the point where it acknowledges inequality for some minimum plausibility without letting on just how ridiculous the reality is.
Show me smaller increments. Show me ten percent increments, then five, and come at it from the other direction, showing it from an income (or, better, wealth) distribution, to show just how small a percentage of the population controls what percentage of wealth in the US.
posted by ernielundquist at 8:02 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
The tax burden in relative terms has increased dramatically more on the cohort that makes 250k-750k than it has on the 750k + crowd.
And when you say that in relative terms it has increased dramatically, have their taxes increased, or have the 750k+ just decreased? That makes a difference.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 8:03 AM on May 21, 2015
And when you say that in relative terms it has increased dramatically, have their taxes increased, or have the 750k+ just decreased? That makes a difference.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 8:03 AM on May 21, 2015
The problem is you really need to drill down even below deciles to percentiles to make the point you want to make, and statistically that starts to become difficult
posted by JPD at 8:04 AM on May 21, 2015
posted by JPD at 8:04 AM on May 21, 2015
Well look that's the left party that actually matters.
Economically, the US has no "left party".
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 8:05 AM on May 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
Economically, the US has no "left party".
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 8:05 AM on May 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
And when you say that in relative terms it has increased dramatically, have their taxes increased, or have the 750k+ just decreased? That makes a difference.
It really matters whether you get hit with the AMT, if you live in a high tax city and state, etc. The AMT within the top quintile is a very very regressive tax - especially for people without enough wealth to buy a home, or even people like me who think housing in their hometown is overpriced and don't want to commit.
posted by JPD at 8:08 AM on May 21, 2015
It really matters whether you get hit with the AMT, if you live in a high tax city and state, etc. The AMT within the top quintile is a very very regressive tax - especially for people without enough wealth to buy a home, or even people like me who think housing in their hometown is overpriced and don't want to commit.
posted by JPD at 8:08 AM on May 21, 2015
Good thing the researchers surveyed people's beliefs about pre and post tax income and found similar results.
The problem is you really need to drill down even below deciles to percentiles to make the point you want to make, and statistically that starts to become difficult
You really don't. People don't even know what direction inequality is moving, how much doctors make, how much lawyers make, if they are in the top half or bottom half of the income distribution, etc. They are staggeringly wrong about every type of question regarding economic inequality, and with no discernable pattern.
In many countries, more than half the people who owned two homes described themselves as being in the lower half of their income distribution.
In many countries, more than a third of the people surveyed got the poverty rate wrong by more than 10 percentage points.
In poorer countries, where only about a quarter of households own a car, up to 80 percent of car owners places themselves in the bottom half of the income distribution.
In Armenia, 80 percent of the people who owned a second home placed themselves in the bottom half of the income distribution!
In France 6 percent of households receive income support, but 72 percent of those who received income support thought they had more income than 20% of the population.
In Italy,half the people who admitted to going hungry because they couldn't afford it placed themseles in the top half of the income distribution.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:36 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
The problem is you really need to drill down even below deciles to percentiles to make the point you want to make, and statistically that starts to become difficult
You really don't. People don't even know what direction inequality is moving, how much doctors make, how much lawyers make, if they are in the top half or bottom half of the income distribution, etc. They are staggeringly wrong about every type of question regarding economic inequality, and with no discernable pattern.
In many countries, more than half the people who owned two homes described themselves as being in the lower half of their income distribution.
In many countries, more than a third of the people surveyed got the poverty rate wrong by more than 10 percentage points.
In poorer countries, where only about a quarter of households own a car, up to 80 percent of car owners places themselves in the bottom half of the income distribution.
In Armenia, 80 percent of the people who owned a second home placed themselves in the bottom half of the income distribution!
In France 6 percent of households receive income support, but 72 percent of those who received income support thought they had more income than 20% of the population.
In Italy,half the people who admitted to going hungry because they couldn't afford it placed themseles in the top half of the income distribution.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:36 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
He's not wrong in saying its the haves vs the have-mores. Some of the obama tax proprosals were also targeted this way.
Yes, but MattD's portrayal of the situation is hilariously blinkered in its ignoring the class war waged by both groups against the have-nots, and self-serving in that, if I'm not mistaken, MattD belongs to the largely conservative class of managers, entrepreneurs, and professionals which is supposedly being held down by the machinations of a liberal 1% of the 1%.
left and right are by definition relative terms.
I support workfare and an embargo on Cuba. I'm definitely on the left, yep.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:39 AM on May 21, 2015
Yes, but MattD's portrayal of the situation is hilariously blinkered in its ignoring the class war waged by both groups against the have-nots, and self-serving in that, if I'm not mistaken, MattD belongs to the largely conservative class of managers, entrepreneurs, and professionals which is supposedly being held down by the machinations of a liberal 1% of the 1%.
left and right are by definition relative terms.
I support workfare and an embargo on Cuba. I'm definitely on the left, yep.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:39 AM on May 21, 2015
his question wasn't "do people understand inequality"
it was "what sort of granularity do we need to really graphically show the dispersion at the top of the income distribution"
posted by JPD at 8:39 AM on May 21, 2015
it was "what sort of granularity do we need to really graphically show the dispersion at the top of the income distribution"
posted by JPD at 8:39 AM on May 21, 2015
I support workfare and an embargo on Cuba. I'm definitely on the left, yep
a some of the populist left in Europe support zero immigration. so?
posted by JPD at 8:41 AM on May 21, 2015
a some of the populist left in Europe support zero immigration. so?
posted by JPD at 8:41 AM on May 21, 2015
Its also not a surprise that the 250k-750k crowd isn't wealthy enough to be meaningful political donors and tends to skew far more republican in its voting patterns than the 750k+ crowd.
Where are you getting this? Every piece of data I've seen suggests that GOP voting is pretty much monotone increasing with income.
posted by escabeche at 8:45 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Where are you getting this? Every piece of data I've seen suggests that GOP voting is pretty much monotone increasing with income.
posted by escabeche at 8:45 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Obviously that doesn't change anything about the heights being imprecise, but as far as test-taking goes it was the only viable choice.
Yep, I agree - I didn't think hard enough about it to notice that - it is the only mathematically possible answer.
More importantly, the entire purpose of the graph is to illustrate & educate about the relative distribution of income, and the graph distorts exactly that.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 8:49 AM on May 21, 2015
Yep, I agree - I didn't think hard enough about it to notice that - it is the only mathematically possible answer.
More importantly, the entire purpose of the graph is to illustrate & educate about the relative distribution of income, and the graph distorts exactly that.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 8:49 AM on May 21, 2015
his question wasn't "do people understand inequality"
it was "what sort of granularity do we need to really graphically show the dispersion at the top of the income distribution"
No, that actually is the question they are asking. And to do it, they use a variety of surveys, all of which point to the same question: people don't know much about inequality. You can take issue with any one of the tools they use, but the entirety of their evidence is pretty convincing.
The paper is gated, which is unfortunate, and I don't feel comfortable Blasdelbing it, but if you google the title and authors you may find a working paper.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:52 AM on May 21, 2015
it was "what sort of granularity do we need to really graphically show the dispersion at the top of the income distribution"
No, that actually is the question they are asking. And to do it, they use a variety of surveys, all of which point to the same question: people don't know much about inequality. You can take issue with any one of the tools they use, but the entirety of their evidence is pretty convincing.
The paper is gated, which is unfortunate, and I don't feel comfortable Blasdelbing it, but if you google the title and authors you may find a working paper.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:52 AM on May 21, 2015
Way to confuse the issue, WaPo.
It's almost like they did that on purpose
Note that WaPo has a new post today about wealth inequality.
posted by odin53 at 8:56 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's almost like they did that on purpose
Note that WaPo has a new post today about wealth inequality.
posted by odin53 at 8:56 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
The problem is you really need to drill down even below deciles to percentiles to make the point you want to make, and statistically that starts to become difficult
Yeah, that's my point. The story of wealth inequality doesn't show its full enormity until you come at it from the other direction, showing the concentration of wealth up there in not even the top percentile but in the top half or top tenth of a percentile.
The top quintile covers a range from under $100K into the billions.
The top percentile isn't that much higher (not finding the precise number right off the bat, but I think it's still sub-$200K).
That's why, to tell the real story, you come at it from the other direction and show the money and the size of the populations that control it. The population is small enough that it's statistically insignificant. It's the sheer volume of wealth that statistically insignificant group controls that is the story that needs to be told.
That story just comes off as a misdirection, almost like they're trying to obfuscate the real inequalities.
posted by ernielundquist at 9:02 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yeah, that's my point. The story of wealth inequality doesn't show its full enormity until you come at it from the other direction, showing the concentration of wealth up there in not even the top percentile but in the top half or top tenth of a percentile.
The top quintile covers a range from under $100K into the billions.
The top percentile isn't that much higher (not finding the precise number right off the bat, but I think it's still sub-$200K).
That's why, to tell the real story, you come at it from the other direction and show the money and the size of the populations that control it. The population is small enough that it's statistically insignificant. It's the sheer volume of wealth that statistically insignificant group controls that is the story that needs to be told.
That story just comes off as a misdirection, almost like they're trying to obfuscate the real inequalities.
posted by ernielundquist at 9:02 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
a some of the populist left in Europe support zero immigration. so?
My point is that the Democrats aren't on the left except in the relative sense. Their policies are much friendlier to women and minorities than the Republicans', which is great, but the party is only less bad than the Republicans when it comes to labor, poverty, killing foreigners, etc., on which issues they are generally pretty happy to compromise. But this is just my opinion and kind of a derail besides.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:05 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
My point is that the Democrats aren't on the left except in the relative sense. Their policies are much friendlier to women and minorities than the Republicans', which is great, but the party is only less bad than the Republicans when it comes to labor, poverty, killing foreigners, etc., on which issues they are generally pretty happy to compromise. But this is just my opinion and kind of a derail besides.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:05 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
The estate tax is actually a good case of policy by political equilibrium, although whether the policy is actually good is another question. The Democrats got a "soak the rich" tax that their most important rich constituents (who fall in the the top 1% of the top 1%) can mostly avoid via trusts, while Republicans were able to get the exemption up high enough to protect their most fervent constituents (the bottom 99% of the top 1%), especially those whose wealth mainly consists of ownership of family businesses that would have be broken up or sold off to fund a sizable estate tax.
posted by MattD at 9:07 AM on May 21, 2015
posted by MattD at 9:07 AM on May 21, 2015
Why do you believe that Democrat's constituents are the very very very rich while the Republican's constituents are only very very rich?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:15 AM on May 21, 2015
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:15 AM on May 21, 2015
he' only "pretty much spot on" if you conflate "Democrat" with "liberal," which for at least the last 20 years has been laughable.
you go to legislation with thearmy political party you have, not the political party you want.
posted by corb at 9:22 AM on May 21, 2015
you go to legislation with the
posted by corb at 9:22 AM on May 21, 2015
The Washinton Post: bad at graphics or disingenuous?
Yes.
posted by aught at 9:29 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yes.
posted by aught at 9:29 AM on May 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
I you're liberal, you don't have an army. Period. Keep scrambling for those social issue crumbs, though.
posted by Trochanter at 9:29 AM on May 21, 2015
posted by Trochanter at 9:29 AM on May 21, 2015
you go to legislation with the army political party you have, not the political party you want.
And that went great!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:35 AM on May 21, 2015
And that went great!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:35 AM on May 21, 2015
The paranoia in this thread is a little misplaced. The basic design of the graphs the WaPo is using comes from the paper "Misperceiving Inequality" by Vladimir Gimpelson and Daniel Treisman (NBER Working Paper No. 21174, http://www.nber.org/papers/w21174 if you have institutional access). They're basing much of their data on the International Social Survey Programme. Neither of these are eeeeevil neoconservative cabals designed to lull us into the false belief that there is, in fact, no social or economic inequality. Indeed, one of their key findings is that people on the lower end of the economic scale frequently overestimate how well they're doing in relative terms. The WaPo piece is not designed to deliver a "surprise, the US is more egalitarian than you thought!" result--for many readers it will deliver the opposite result. It's just that the Metafilter audience is primed to expect the worst, so it participating in the survey will tend to result in a surprise on the upside rather than the downside.
posted by yoink at 9:37 AM on May 21, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by yoink at 9:37 AM on May 21, 2015 [6 favorites]
And that went great!
About as well as the results of our political parties for the last 20 years. :)
posted by corb at 9:52 AM on May 21, 2015
About as well as the results of our political parties for the last 20 years. :)
posted by corb at 9:52 AM on May 21, 2015
So they're just really bad at graphs?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:28 AM on May 21, 2015
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:28 AM on May 21, 2015
I didn't do very well, because my take is only slightly worse than it is, probably just a weak projection. It is only a juvenile tyrannisaurus rex devouring me.
posted by Oyéah at 10:29 AM on May 21, 2015
posted by Oyéah at 10:29 AM on May 21, 2015
Why do you believe that Democrat's constituents are the very very very rich while the Republican's constituents are only very very rich?
Its not that the Democrats constituents are very very very rich and the Republican's constituents are the very very rich, its that the Democrats count on the money from the Very very very rich just as much as the republicans. Because the very very rich just don't donate that much money in the grand scheme of things, so the very very very rich are a protected class politically in a way the very very rich are not.
If you look at the list of 100 biggest donors its pretty evenly split repub dem.
posted by JPD at 10:43 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Its not that the Democrats constituents are very very very rich and the Republican's constituents are the very very rich, its that the Democrats count on the money from the Very very very rich just as much as the republicans. Because the very very rich just don't donate that much money in the grand scheme of things, so the very very very rich are a protected class politically in a way the very very rich are not.
If you look at the list of 100 biggest donors its pretty evenly split repub dem.
posted by JPD at 10:43 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think that yoink's comment is on the money. I would add, however, that the wage increase graph is likely accurate, however not representing the effects of inflation on cost of living understates the importance of those flat lines for the middle and working class.
posted by codacorolla at 10:50 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by codacorolla at 10:50 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
So they're just really bad at graphs?
The graphs are fine for the purpose. They're not designed to be readouts on the latest economic data, they're supposed to represent different rough models of income distribution. Rending one's tunic and crying "shame! shame!" because the actual stat is 48% and the graph shows 42% or whatever is utterly missing the point. Most of the questions explicitly signal that there's a fudge factor in the graphs--they are of the form "which of these best represents the income distribution in your country" rather than "which of these is an exact, micrometer-perfect, representation of the very latest statistical results about economic inequality in your country." Basically, if you picked the wrong answer in any of these questions it was because you have an inaccurate picture of the actual statistical situation and not because the graph was the teensiest bit wrong.
posted by yoink at 10:51 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
The graphs are fine for the purpose. They're not designed to be readouts on the latest economic data, they're supposed to represent different rough models of income distribution. Rending one's tunic and crying "shame! shame!" because the actual stat is 48% and the graph shows 42% or whatever is utterly missing the point. Most of the questions explicitly signal that there's a fudge factor in the graphs--they are of the form "which of these best represents the income distribution in your country" rather than "which of these is an exact, micrometer-perfect, representation of the very latest statistical results about economic inequality in your country." Basically, if you picked the wrong answer in any of these questions it was because you have an inaccurate picture of the actual statistical situation and not because the graph was the teensiest bit wrong.
posted by yoink at 10:51 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
as for the preferences of the mega wealthy - defined as the top 1% of the top 1%, or the top 1 basis point - lets look at just number of donors rather than amount as that gets skewed by big single year donations
of the top 32,000 donors for the '14 election cycle donors 15147 gave only the Repubs and 13333 gave only to dems. So ignoring those who split their ticket... so roughly 53/47 Repub. That compares with 57/42 for >100k earners in exit polls from the midterms.
The really crazy thing is that the top .1% were roughly 30% of all money donated to political parties in '14. Even scarier is that 70% of the donations of the top .1% came from the top .03% - so 20% of total donations came from just 10k people.
Source here:
posted by JPD at 11:12 AM on May 21, 2015
of the top 32,000 donors for the '14 election cycle donors 15147 gave only the Repubs and 13333 gave only to dems. So ignoring those who split their ticket... so roughly 53/47 Repub. That compares with 57/42 for >100k earners in exit polls from the midterms.
The really crazy thing is that the top .1% were roughly 30% of all money donated to political parties in '14. Even scarier is that 70% of the donations of the top .1% came from the top .03% - so 20% of total donations came from just 10k people.
Source here:
posted by JPD at 11:12 AM on May 21, 2015
yoink, your creative characterizations of those who are taking issue with the classification of the "shape of inequality" is more than a little ironic.
Nobody said there were any "eeeeevil neoconservative cabals designed to lull us into the false belief that there is, in fact, no social or economic inequality." Similarly, I didn't see anyone rending their tunic or crying "shame! shame!"
How are you accusing other people of being dramatic?
Calling something the "shape of inequality" in America kind of indicates that it is meant to illustrate the problem, but this is not a problem you can approach by looking at quintiles. It's irrelevant whether more people under- or overestimate the inequality. The point is that these graphs do little to illustrate what the real issues are.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:23 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Nobody said there were any "eeeeevil neoconservative cabals designed to lull us into the false belief that there is, in fact, no social or economic inequality." Similarly, I didn't see anyone rending their tunic or crying "shame! shame!"
How are you accusing other people of being dramatic?
Calling something the "shape of inequality" in America kind of indicates that it is meant to illustrate the problem, but this is not a problem you can approach by looking at quintiles. It's irrelevant whether more people under- or overestimate the inequality. The point is that these graphs do little to illustrate what the real issues are.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:23 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's irrelevant whether more people under- or overestimate the inequality. The point is that these graphs do little to illustrate what the real issues are.
You do realize that the study mentioned in the FPP is trying to answer the question: do people perceive inequality accurately?
You also realize that these graphs were used for people all around the world, so they shouldn't be designed to represent whatever some group thinks the issues are in just one of the countries?
Yoink's comment is spot on.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:43 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
You do realize that the study mentioned in the FPP is trying to answer the question: do people perceive inequality accurately?
You also realize that these graphs were used for people all around the world, so they shouldn't be designed to represent whatever some group thinks the issues are in just one of the countries?
Yoink's comment is spot on.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:43 AM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Of course I realize that.
I had no real issue with the original article, as it was illustrative of broad, worldwide economic trends. It's this one in the post, and the characterizations in these comments I'm talking about right here. The article linked here is specifically addressing "the shape of inequality in America." You cannot get an accurate picture of the shape of inequality in America by comparing quintiles. The shape of inequality in the US is the shape of wealth distribution.
Yoink is not factually wrong about the statistics, and it's fine to take issue with objections about the scope of the article, or to believe that nitpicking about the precise numbers misses the point, but those characterizations are absurd, dismissive, and wholly unreasonable.
posted by ernielundquist at 12:34 PM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
I had no real issue with the original article, as it was illustrative of broad, worldwide economic trends. It's this one in the post, and the characterizations in these comments I'm talking about right here. The article linked here is specifically addressing "the shape of inequality in America." You cannot get an accurate picture of the shape of inequality in America by comparing quintiles. The shape of inequality in the US is the shape of wealth distribution.
Yoink is not factually wrong about the statistics, and it's fine to take issue with objections about the scope of the article, or to believe that nitpicking about the precise numbers misses the point, but those characterizations are absurd, dismissive, and wholly unreasonable.
posted by ernielundquist at 12:34 PM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
"Your score: 3 / 7
Well. Could be worse, I guess.
Looks like you've got some boning up to do."
Rude.
posted by psoas at 1:51 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well. Could be worse, I guess.
Looks like you've got some boning up to do."
Rude.
posted by psoas at 1:51 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Rending one's tunic and crying "shame! shame!" because the actual stat is 48% and the graph shows 42% or whatever is utterly missing the point. Most of the questions explicitly signal that there's a fudge factor in the graphs--they are of the form "which of these best represents the income distribution in your country" rather than "which of these is an exact, micrometer-perfect, representation of the very latest statistical results about economic inequality in your country."
Well, in the correct graph in question 2, the top quintile is represented as having a 20% smaller share of the wealth than it actually has (42% instead of 52% of the wealth). So that seems significantly misleading, and not a matter of micrometers.
The explanation of the graph is "These diagrams show the American population divided equally into five groups by income level. The bars show the percent of total income that each group gets in a given year. Bigger bars mean a bigger slice of the overall income pie. Which one best describes the U.S.?"
Since it would be trivial for the authors to graph the actual income distribution rather than a fake one (and one that significantly underestimates income disparity), and it certainly is implied that the correct graph does represent the actual income distribution, I don't understand what motivation they could have for graphing fake data rather than the real data (which is clearly available to them, since they cite the source of it); I can't say if the reason is just sloppiness, or intentional misdirection.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 2:46 PM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, in the correct graph in question 2, the top quintile is represented as having a 20% smaller share of the wealth than it actually has (42% instead of 52% of the wealth). So that seems significantly misleading, and not a matter of micrometers.
The explanation of the graph is "These diagrams show the American population divided equally into five groups by income level. The bars show the percent of total income that each group gets in a given year. Bigger bars mean a bigger slice of the overall income pie. Which one best describes the U.S.?"
Since it would be trivial for the authors to graph the actual income distribution rather than a fake one (and one that significantly underestimates income disparity), and it certainly is implied that the correct graph does represent the actual income distribution, I don't understand what motivation they could have for graphing fake data rather than the real data (which is clearly available to them, since they cite the source of it); I can't say if the reason is just sloppiness, or intentional misdirection.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 2:46 PM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, I got 1/7 right. And I stand by my answers, because I was thinking wealth and not income. Also, i may have missed the cite, but where are they getting and average ceo salary of $179k. Hell, I quit donating to the local npr station because the ceo makes $600k a year which is obscene for public radio, but not terribly out of line with other CEOs in the Dfw area. As well, those income numbers cannot account for stocks and bonuses which make up the vast majority of ceo pay in traded entities.
In other words, I call shenanigans on this whole article and its class warfare bullshit. Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Shenanigans!
posted by dejah420 at 5:04 PM on May 21, 2015
In other words, I call shenanigans on this whole article and its class warfare bullshit. Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Shenanigans!
posted by dejah420 at 5:04 PM on May 21, 2015
My guess is the ceo salary averages out that way from the $1 annual salaries. Those CEOs make their money on bonuses and shares.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:29 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:29 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
anything that doesn't even list what the fucking x-axis even means is rude telling anyone to "bone up" because you could probably manipulate a significant portion of the data to look like any of the goddamn graphs
posted by NoraReed at 11:11 PM on May 21, 2015
posted by NoraReed at 11:11 PM on May 21, 2015
Also, i may have missed the cite, but where are they getting and average ceo salary of $179k.
They got that number from the Bureau of Labor Statistics here.
Note that the BLS statistic is not from the same pool as when people usually talk about CEOs. The BLS number includes 250,000 mostly tiny companies with a handful of employees. Any small family company that is incorporated has a CEO or president. Think of a guy who owns a couple of Subway franchise stores.
Usually when we think of CEOs we talk about just the 4000 publicly traded companies that are on the major stock exchanges. For the case of the companies in the S&P 500, the average CEO salary is closer to $12 million. This is less than 1% of those included in the BLS survey. As usual, even for the category of CEOs we need to talk about the 0.1%.
posted by JackFlash at 12:15 AM on May 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
They got that number from the Bureau of Labor Statistics here.
Note that the BLS statistic is not from the same pool as when people usually talk about CEOs. The BLS number includes 250,000 mostly tiny companies with a handful of employees. Any small family company that is incorporated has a CEO or president. Think of a guy who owns a couple of Subway franchise stores.
Usually when we think of CEOs we talk about just the 4000 publicly traded companies that are on the major stock exchanges. For the case of the companies in the S&P 500, the average CEO salary is closer to $12 million. This is less than 1% of those included in the BLS survey. As usual, even for the category of CEOs we need to talk about the 0.1%.
posted by JackFlash at 12:15 AM on May 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
For example, I run my own business, which is an S-Corp. I am the CEO (as well as everything-else-O). I do not make $179K.
posted by maxwelton at 2:48 AM on May 22, 2015
posted by maxwelton at 2:48 AM on May 22, 2015
That's why its an average...
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:12 AM on May 22, 2015
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:12 AM on May 22, 2015
Well, in the correct graph in question 2, the top quintile is represented as having a 20% smaller share of the wealth than it actually has (42% instead of 52% of the wealth). So that seems significantly misleading, and not a matter of micrometers.
A) It's still--very clearly--the graph that best fits the actual distribution. If you knew the correct numbers (which, very clearly, you did not) you could not possibly choose any of the other graphs offered.
B) They confuse the issue in the pop-up answer by referring to before-tax income--the original study was looking at adusted income after taxes and transfers. So it's actually 48%. But given that the question didn't specify before or after tax (because we're still in the same ballpark either way) that's no excuse for picking the wrong answer. The difference between a graph bar that represents 42% and one that represents 48% is meaningless for the purposes of the study. The difference, indeed, between on that represents 52% and one that represents 42% is meaningless for the purposes of this study.
posted by yoink at 10:06 AM on May 22, 2015
A) It's still--very clearly--the graph that best fits the actual distribution. If you knew the correct numbers (which, very clearly, you did not) you could not possibly choose any of the other graphs offered.
B) They confuse the issue in the pop-up answer by referring to before-tax income--the original study was looking at adusted income after taxes and transfers. So it's actually 48%. But given that the question didn't specify before or after tax (because we're still in the same ballpark either way) that's no excuse for picking the wrong answer. The difference between a graph bar that represents 42% and one that represents 48% is meaningless for the purposes of the study. The difference, indeed, between on that represents 52% and one that represents 42% is meaningless for the purposes of this study.
posted by yoink at 10:06 AM on May 22, 2015
Josh Zumbrun at the Wall Street Journal calls shenanigans.
posted by madcaptenor at 12:22 PM on May 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by madcaptenor at 12:22 PM on May 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
You could do a graph with only one group "all citizens" and income equality would be 100%. Seems to me the useful idiots of the rich are falling down on the job.
Quintiles muddy the water and nothing more. They are evidence in an argument that we are not having.
The quintiles prove that if you remove the top 1%, there's actually an okay system under there.
posted by Trochanter at 12:28 PM on May 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
Quintiles muddy the water and nothing more. They are evidence in an argument that we are not having.
The quintiles prove that if you remove the top 1%, there's actually an okay system under there.
posted by Trochanter at 12:28 PM on May 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
Zumbrun is less than convincing since he only looks at two questions, and of those, only looks at the US.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:57 PM on May 22, 2015
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:57 PM on May 22, 2015
The difference, indeed, between on that represents 52% and one that represents 42% is meaningless for the purposes of this study.
I disagree with you, but even if you're right, that difference seems pretty meaningful for purposes other than the study.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 3:34 PM on May 22, 2015
I disagree with you, but even if you're right, that difference seems pretty meaningful for purposes other than the study.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 3:34 PM on May 22, 2015
« Older danny devitos smug cat face looking out over... | How TV Sex Got Real Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by skewed at 12:10 AM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]