Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EllenCT (talk | contribs) at 00:52, 19 May 2014 (→Focused question: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	Income inequality in the United States was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 7, 2007 Good article nominee Listed November 12, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
	A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 29, 2007.
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Income inequality in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 50 days

Statistical Reliability and Philosophy

Much of this article is dominated by data supplied by Thomas Pikkety and Emanuel Saez. I wrote a short paragraph of Alan Reynold's critique of their statistical techniques that I am satisfied to see has survived for the most part. If one actually reads these papers, specifically Pikkety/Saez, he/she will see that the papers are loaded with footnotes about data, taxes, and what is and is not included as "income." The data is derived from federal tax returns, and to put a chart at the beginning that shows data from the 1910s and 1920s as reliable measures of inequality is ridiculous. A tiny fraction of Americans even paid income taxes during those days, and the numbers simply can't be compared with more recent data from the post 1980s period. The chart needs to be removed or there needs to be a more extensive explanation of how these studies determine the numbers they use for gini calculations and distributions somewhere in this article. Every time I try to add a detailed explanation it is removed, which in my opinion presses the limits of academic dishonesty. I am not removing all the numbers here that I find to be extremely flawed and misleading, especially with charts that magnify the mistakes, I simply want the data clarification somewhere in this article. Furthermore, there is a comment under the "most recent data" tab that says the top 1%'s average tax rate declined by 37% from 1992-2007. This is questionable and contradicted directly by the CBO's numbers: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/effective_rates_0.pdf I also wrote a long explanation of the classical liberal argument for completely removing the government's role in having any influence on relative income shares in the market. This was shortened to a mere two sentences on Friedrich Hayek. I have written the explanation many times and it is continually removed. There is plenty of information on here about why government should be concerned with inequality, so I don't see why the opposing argument of why it shouldn't be concerned should be taken down time and again. Please stop removing these explanations, the sources are cited and although someone may not agree with them they should stand in comparison to differing philosophical ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.108.13 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you please use a Wikimedia name? It can be a nom de plume; in Wikimedia projects, I'm DavidMCEddy, which is not my real name. I'm writing this over 3 months after your comment above. If you had a Wikimedia name, I'd have much greater confidence that these comments would reach you.

You say you've written things and seen them removed several times. I haven't followed this article carefully, so I can't comment on that, except to suggest that I could help you get some resolution for that problem -- if only by creating a separate article that included a discussion of the issues you've described and had them removed allegedly without comment. Again, it's easier to revert anonymous changes. If you make changes using a Wikimedia name that are repeatedly reverted without adequate explanation, we can appeal to a veteran editor like User:Banaticus, who "occasionally abuse reports", etc.

One option could be to create a separate article to discuss all the issues you want about Piketty and Saez, etc., then include a link in this article to the other. I just learned yesterday that a plot I had produced and had in this article for some time was deleted. I'm not sure when it was deleted, and I may never learn why. I'm not happy about that. However, I now have over 1,000 edits in Wikimedia projects, and those kinds of reversions are rare in my experience. If I write something strange without citing a good source, I can expect to get it reverted. However, I've learned not to do that -- and to discuss edits that might be controversial on talk pages like this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that my name was mentioned. So, it looks like the person who started this section had some material removed? Anyone know what material they wanted to see posted? Banaticus (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe they are complaining about this edit with which I agree, and would recommend Friedrich Hayek#Social and political philosophy for a clearer understanding of Hayek, whose words are often twisted by the "all taxation is theft" proponents of modern astroturfed libertarianism. Hayek was not just a successful proponent of an assured minimum income above poverty levels, but also of an airtight social safety net, either of which would result in greater de facto income equality than anyone in the English-speaking world is already living under today. EllenCT (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

1/4/2014 jbrown111@my.apsu.edu

I like the chart that shows the income gap from 1970 to present, But I would like to see the value of the dollar charted with that. If someone has the capability I would like to see that accomplished, as that data will prove useful into determining what the average materiality of the nation was at those years to get a good idea of the true trend this nations prosperity is heading towards.::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.136.11 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States. " doesn't seem to be supported by its citations, or is so poorly worded as to not be true. Even in the citation it says that Turkey, Chile, Mexico are higher. Perhaps they meant "highest out of English speaking developed countries" but certainly the wording does not read like that at all. I will leave fixing that to more knowledgable people, as I'm not even sure what they meant but that jumped out at me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baevar (talk • contribs) 04:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps whoever wrote it considered Mexico, Chile, and Turkey as third world countries, not worthy of consideration? I'm not sure why we'd even consider "English speaking" countries as a classification. Is Canada, which is officially French and English, French or English? Then what about other countries that have multiple official languages? Do we ignore Belgium and Switzerland? What about countries in the former soviet block that have more than one official language? It's just nonsense. Mattnad (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

misleading graph

was created by a now banned editor who Redrawn with round numbers from this chart from the article . the original chart is far more accurate and shows growth was double when taxes were 28% compared to 38%. also, the chart only factors in the last 60 years, imagine what kind of chart could be drawn using the entire history of US job growth including the years before the income tax. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's some original research right there. Volunteer Marek  06:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's completely consistent with all the peer reviewed secondary sources when drawn according to the low resolution curve. EllenCT (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Governance

@Mattnad: what gives you the right to try to insinuate that opinions about a broader summary article apply to more specific detail articles? And why not reply at Talk:Oligarchy#Princeton analysis? EllenCT (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC) @Mattnad: re what do you mean by "oligarchy talk"? Are you referring to the summary of the studies? Are you implying that there are other studies at the same level of reliability with contrary findings? EllenCT (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC) @Mattnad: do you intend to discuss alternatives for the measurement of oligarchy, or do you intend to simply continue to revert without discussion? EllenCT (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You know quite well that there is an active discussion going on at Talk:United States. Just because you decided to cut and paste the same material into several articles does not mean we have to have several, separate discussions.Mattnad (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That discussion has resolved that the material is more appropriate for WP:SUMMARY style articles. This is one of many. My questions to you stand, and are appropriate here. EllenCT (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a related discussion about exceptional primary research. By my read of the discussion here in Talk:United States, it looks like we should wait until there's more agreement among scholars before you go inserting a lot material related to the Princeton paper.Mattnad (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The peer reviewed literature as represented by its reviews has been agreement with the inserted statements for decade. If you had any evidence to the contrary, you had ample time to present it. EllenCT (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Mattnad is correct about getting the Talk:United States discussion resolved. As it covers much of the same ground, and as it has more eyes on it than this subject, I think it will be helpful to see what consensus develops before we engage in more editing here. – S. Rich (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What led you to believe that any of the discussion at Talk:US did not support inclusion of the material in this and other WP:SUMMARY style articles? EllenCT (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If there is some consensus on the United States article, then that consensus can help resolve the questions here. But dual+ threads (oligarchy & US & this article) are proving to be confusing and not conducive to building consensus. Saying that there is no reply to a question here (about a different article) is not justification for editing without establishing consensus here. Perhaps this thread should be restarted with a more concise and focused question. – S. Rich (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC) PS: all articles in WP are written in SUMMARYSTYLE. 04:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Focused question

What are the specific objections to inclusion of the material in ? Is there any reason that the peer reviewed charts do not corroborate the deleted text and congressional testimony? EllenCT (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Will reply in due course (like tomorrow). BTW, "impertinent" was used as the opposite of wikt:pertinent. – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Impertinent is not the opposite of pertinent. EllenCT (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mattnad: is there any reason that the discussion of this material at Talk:United States did not resolve with the recommendation to include it in WP:SUMMARY style sub-articles such as this one? EllenCT (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That was one thread. There are others that deal with weight issues more broadly, as well as the use of the charts that you've recently inserted in many articles. I'll admit that it's hard to keep up with all of your edits across many articles with the same material, but as you've probably noted, there are more than a few editors who question the whether or not it should be here, there, everywhere.Mattnad (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Coming back to my promise to respond, I've reviewed the discussions at Talk:United States#Sources for the exceptional and Talk:United States#Scientific Study that has determined the US is an oligarchy. The overall consensus is against using the material. And, IMO, seeking to tie the charts, the studies, and the Congressional testimony (i.e., Yellen statement) together, either here or in other articles, is improper synthesis. As for the external link "Census Bureau Islands of High Income", it serves to show there are different areas with different incomes, but does not help with the "inequality" topic of this article. E.g., we know from the various sources in the text that there are regions where income is higher/lower than other regions; the sources in the text support that information quite well without the islands. (Also, the EL section has an excess of links (see: WP:LINKFARM.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Srich32977: in what sense of the word "join" are you alleging improper synthesis? Which two or more statements are you alleging are being joined, and which implication are you alleging they are being joined into? EllenCT (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The word "join" is in the policy. I quoted the policy because you were incorrect when you said "it's not synthesis unless the conclusion is stated outright" in response to Volunteer Marek. You brought up A and B. What are the two statements that you want to use? (Perhaps the best place to discuss that question in on the article talkpage that you linked to.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you using the word "join" in the sense of adjacency, or some other sense? EllenCT (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced policy responses section

Various public policy responses are given. Some may disagree with the various proposed policies. Such disagreement should be provided in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to these deletions? If you or User:Mattnad have any objections as to why that material is inappropriate, you have had ample time to state them. EllenCT (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No. I am referring to the section that I tagged as unbalanced. The section has nothing to do with the edits you proposed (and which have been discussed). – S. Rich (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

See the section above EllenCT.Mattnad (talk)

@Srich32977: can you suggest summaries of reliable source(s) which represent the points of view you think are absent from the section you tagged? EllenCT (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of my making specific suggestions. The tag says "Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page." So I hope various editors will come by and work to provide balance. (And I've opened this discussion.) But I think there are two (or more) sides to the various proposals. Certainly in Switzerland the other day there is a difference of opinion about minimum wages. The Swiss voters rejected a proposal to raise the minimum wage. But I do thank you for your encouragement. – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

U.S. highest income inequality ever

The quotation saying that the U.S. has the most income inequality in the history of the world is absurd. That's true if you measure by raw dollar difference between rich and poor, but economists measure this thing by proportional difference. See the Gini Index; the U.S. has a lot of inequality compared to most other Western countries, but much less than most developing countries. Steeletrap (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it true but absurd when many people are working to make it larger in both absolute and relative terms, or just true but imprecise? EllenCT (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• B-Class Economics articles
• Mid-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics