
Income Inequality: Empirical View - hecubus
http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/income-inequality/
======
vixen99
Why the focus on inequality as if this is the core problem as against issues
relating to the absolute quality of people's lives?

~~~
fulafel
People's happiness depends more on the relative quality of their lives
compared to others, not absolute quality. It's a basic property of humanity.

~~~
logicchains
>People's happiness depends more on the relative quality of their lives
compared to others. It's a basic property of humanity.

This used to be called "envy", and seen as a vice to be avoided.
Interestingly, the description of it as a "basic property" of humanity is in a
way similar to symbolic interpretations of the Christian notion of "original
sin" (Christians/theologians please correct me if I'm wrong).

~~~
asgard1024
> This used to be called "envy", and seen as a vice to be avoided.

There are two sides to the coin. What you call "envy" has a very good
(evolutionary) reason for its existence.

Take a look at ultimatum game
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game)).
If people didn't have capacity to deny unfair splits, even though they seem
irrational, then they would be worse off.

I posit that denying unfair splits in ultimatum game is _envy_. Think about
it, envy is the reason to do it - the other party doesn't deserve the bigger
split, so let's kill it for both! The similar game can be for instance used as
a model of worker's strike against a capitalist.

(I think in fact most people consider envy a vice only where it's extreme or
there are other circumstances that make it unfair. But in general it's just an
expression of longing for fairness.)

~~~
logicchains
>What you call "envy" has a very good (evolutionary) reason for its existence

An evolutionary reason isn't _necessarily_ a good reason, unless the
definition of good is "helping propagate one's genes". Evolution doesn't
select for "living a happy/contented life".

~~~
asgard1024
You're correct (that's why on second thought I put "evolutionary" in parens),
but I also argue that ability to deny bad offers (or revolt or whatever are
the various forms this takes) is a good trait for people to have. Otherwise
you are getting uncomfortably close to a Brave New World of always obedient
individuals.

~~~
logicchains
>but I also argue that ability to deny bad offers (or revolt or whatever are
the various forms this takes) is a good trait for people to have

This trait is only a subset of what's normally considered "envy". Not all of
envy has an apparent use like that. E.g. if Joe feels bad because Neighbour
Bob's house is 1030 square feet while Joe's house is only 1020 square feet,
this doesn't really help anything, it just makes Joe unnecessarily miserable.

~~~
asgard1024
It's not really a subset, it's more like an intersection.

But to your example - I will be long time happy with social (in)equality
before we get to 1% differences in income. I think in your example Joe
absolutely deserves the unhappiness he has.

Meanwhile in reality, when I suggest that maybe there should be a limit of
personal income/wealth like around 100x the average (which is amount of money
I can't imagine reasonable person would know how to spend), I get shooed as
crazy pinko full of envy. Yet, is that really envy, or is it just longing for
fairness as in the ultimatum game example?

------
whiddershins
The chart at the bottom seems misleading.

And I don't understand the justification for doing the chart by every $5,000
and then doing huge brackets at the end.

Why shouldn't income distribute logarithmically instead of linearly?

