
The Great Divergence: A visual guide to income inequality. - timr
http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/fs/0//entry/2266173/
======
Alex63
Shouldn't some of these charts show overall growth of the economy, too? One of
the charts addresses this a little (14x growth vs. 4x growth). Shouldn't
inflation be factored in, too? It seems like they are trying to make the
divergence in incomes appear to be a win for the upper quintiles, at the
expense of the lower, when in fact all quintiles have improved in real terms.

~~~
timr
The numbers are expressed as a percent share of total income. Inflation is
implicitly taken into account by the calculation.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Inflation _and growth_ are implicitly taken out of the equation. This can lead
to a misleading impression. A smaller relative slice of a much, much larger
pie can still be a much larger piece of pie in absolute terms. The poor are
not getting poorer, the rich are just getting richer faster.

Also, the choice of timeline is very suspicious. Pegging the start of the
graphs at the end of the Great Depression / WWII skews the graph, as does
omitting the context of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

This is more about chart-junk supporting a pre-conceived narrative than
anything else.

~~~
timr
_"A smaller relative slice of a much, much larger pie can still be a much
larger piece of pie in absolute terms. The poor are not getting poorer, the
rich are just getting richer faster."_

I don't see where the article claims otherwise.

That said, the point is pedantic: if the share of income in a group gets
smaller over time, their purchasing power goes down correspondingly as well.
The overall size of the pie matters only to economists.

 _"Also, the choice of timeline is very suspicious. Pegging the start of the
graphs at the end of the Great Depression / WWII skews the graph, as does
omitting the context of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This is more about
chart-junk supporting a pre-conceived narrative than anything else."_

And not including the civil war skews the graph as well. Or the depression of
1893. You can always find an argument like that to justify not believing
something that you choose not to believe. Calling it "chart junk" is just
exaggeration.

~~~
InclinedPlane
_"If the share of income in a group gets smaller over time, their purchasing
power goes down correspondingly as well."_

What do you mean by that? I don't see that supported by any evidence
whatsoever. If a particular quintile has a smaller share of total income and
yet are able to buy exactly the same products, exactly the same services, and
exactly the same housing with their income then how is their purchasing power
diminished?

Indeed, in actuality people are able to buy better products and services for
their money. The "poor" today have cable TV, computers, and cellphones.

~~~
timr
_"I don't see that supported by any evidence whatsoever. If a particular
quintile has a smaller share of total income and yet are able to buy exactly
the same products, exactly the same services, and exactly the same housing
with their income then how is their purchasing power diminished?"_

Except, they can't, on any objective basis. You're overlooking inflation when
it's inconvenient to your argument, and using it as a bludgeon when it is.
Price declines in consumer electronics are meaningless when the cost of energy
and food and housing and education goes up steadily over time, often at rates
higher than inflation.

Following your logic to it's end, it'll be fine and dandy if the richest 1%
accumulates 99.99% of the wealth and the poor can't afford buy vegetables or
homes, just as long as the last .01% of wealth lets them buy televisions (or
whatever mass-produced gee-gaw is cheaply produced in 2050).

~~~
Alex63
Some interesting ideas here, and in the parent comment. I'll admit to being
fairly naive when it comes to economics. With that in mind, when I started
this thread I was thinking about whether it mattered that the discretionary
income of those in the upper quintiles was growing faster than those in the
lower quintiles, as long as all quintiles _have discretionary income_. I agree
that being able to buy a TV is not the same thing as being able to
house/clothe/feed your family. In light of this discussion, I'm now thinking
it would be helpful if the charts showed how poverty (which I will define to
mean unable to house/clothe/feed your family) has increased/decreased during
the same period.

------
hugh3
This graph sure could use a bunch more lines. Why are they hiding the top 20%,
top 40%, top 60% etc lines in favour of having a big solid slab of grey?

------
mnemonicsloth
<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

_Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon._

Wealth distribution is one of the longest-running political arguments there
is. The current trend goes back to 1979. Not Hacker News.

------
shawndumas
Two points:

One; most of the people in the lower income brackets are just passing through,
instead of being stuck there for life. (There are undoubtedly individuals who,
for one reason or another, have not moved up over the years, but transforming
these exceptions into the rule is rhetoric.)

Two; "What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that
they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When
you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long." --Thomas
Sowell

