America is Downton Abbey?

[Sava]

Do they use swords or pistols?

Swords.

Firearms are for pussies.

[Sava]

income inequality is not a real thing.

That guy is to economics what BK is to history.

[The Mad Monk]

It says "individuals" right in the graph title, so it's not "household".

[regexcellent]

Scott Sumner is a prominent professor of economics and has a PhD from the best school of economics in the country. That is unusually high praise for BK.

[DinoDoc]

Swords.

Firearms are for pussies.

[Sava]

Scott Sumner is a prominent professor of economics and has a PhD from the best school of economics in the country.

Big deal. That doesn't make him "not a ******".

Pro-tip: The things he says makes him retarded!

And strange for a conservative to be proud of a college professor and his illustrious credentials.

[Sava]

DD

[pchang]

This is dumb because the gini coefficient is a stupid and meaningless measure because income inequality is not a real thing.

Also, America is not Downton Abbey because we don't spend 90% of our time being helped into formal dinnerwear.

And in the same article he says he is in favor of public policies that would lead to greater economic equality....
Hmmm.

[Hauldren Collider]

That show sucks.

[100% Wolf]

That guy is to economics what BK is to history.

Regexcellent's summary of his views as "income inequality is not a real thing" was misleading. He's not denying that economic inequality does exist, he's just pointing out problems with using "income inequality" to measure it.

[100% Wolf]

OK, not as high as I thought but twice as high as HC claims.



Especially when you include the cost of buying a home and the cost of health care it was far, far, far more sffordable in the 1950's. Hell, I want to know how HC's graph includes duel incomes because I'm willing to bet it isn't a graph of just single income households so that single income earners actually went down even though total income may have gone up because you have more people working more hours in each family.

I never "claimed" anything. I merely posted a graph that shows information that would be very hard to reconcile with your utopian vision of the 1950s as a time when your typical average joe could earn $50,000 (in 2012 dollars) a year while his wife stayed home and baked cookies. And you conveniently pretend that all single income households in the 50s must have had male income earners. And pretend that CPI doesn't include housing and medical care costs.

[Dinner]

I would give her the gift of my dick.

[regexcellent]

And in the same article he says he is in favor of public policies that would lead to greater economic equality....
Hmmm.

So? The point was that the Gini coefficient is misleading because income inequality can exist without actual economic inequality. I have no problem in principle with increasing economic equality.

[pchang]

No. The point is that you said it doesn't really exist.

[regexcellent]

I never said economic equality doesn't exist. Income inequality is a bull**** measure of economic equality, hence, "is not a real thing." Being inequal in income has no bearing on actually being inequal.