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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 50 days |
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. |
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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 29, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that
income inequality increased in the
United States in 2005 with the top 1% of earners having roughly the same share of income as in 1928? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I put the link source in there, so no clue why it was deleted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Income_inequality_in_the_United_States&oldid=prev&diff=936531901
CBO reported that for the 1979-2007 period, after-tax income (adjusted for inflation) of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19%, just under 40% for the next 60% and 18% for the bottom fifth.The share of after-tax income received by the top 1% more than doubled from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007. The share received by the other 19 percent of households in the highest quintile edged up from 35% to 36%. [1] [2] The major cause was an increase in investment income. Capital gains accounted for 80% of the increase in market income for the households in the top 20% (2000–2007). Over the 1991–2000 period capital gains accounted for 45% of market income for the top 20%.
References
@ MrOllie: What's your problem with Kausik, B. N. (February 19, 2022). "Income Inequality, Cause and Cure". arXiv:2201.10726 [econ, q-fin].?
It seems like a reasonable scholarly discussion of an alternative and worth mentioning. Accordingly, I'm reverting your deletion of the comment that cites this source. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 01:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Avatar317:
— I've read your edit comment characterizing the World Inequality Database as an "advocacy organization" while removing graphics based on data from
this WID web page. However, from reading
WID's self-description and
Wikipedia's own WID article, the WID doesn't seem to be an advocacy organization. It seems to be a bona fide data gathering organization that is considered reliable:
— I favor the WID database in this instance because it provides specific categorized data from 1962 through 2021, whereas most other charts encountered in this area of Wikipedia don't go back nearly as far or aren't as current.
References
Sources relying on, or favorably citing, WID—on Google search limited to site:*.gov alone:
The WID is relied upon by numerous official agencies.
This U.S. Senate transcript of co-director Gabriel Zucman supports how government respects the WID to the point where the Senate allows Zucman to testify before the Joint Economic Committee. (Zucman explains, "One of our goals is to contribute to the creation of comprehensive, standardized, and internationally comparable inequality statistics that capture all forms of income contributing to GDP.") It's not "advocacy" when the data in fact supports the obvious proposition that wealth is increasingly concentrated. You
User:Avatar317 haven't provided any evidence showing how the co-directors' supposed "advocacy" (testifying before a Senate committee?) affects the reliability of the data that inspired the supposed "advocacy" in the first place. Without concrete evidence, the "advocacy" characterization smacks of a conspiracy theory.
Please reconsider your stance. —
RCraig09 (
talk)
16:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 50 days |
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. |
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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 29, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that
income inequality increased in the
United States in 2005 with the top 1% of earners having roughly the same share of income as in 1928? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I put the link source in there, so no clue why it was deleted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Income_inequality_in_the_United_States&oldid=prev&diff=936531901
CBO reported that for the 1979-2007 period, after-tax income (adjusted for inflation) of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19%, just under 40% for the next 60% and 18% for the bottom fifth.The share of after-tax income received by the top 1% more than doubled from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007. The share received by the other 19 percent of households in the highest quintile edged up from 35% to 36%. [1] [2] The major cause was an increase in investment income. Capital gains accounted for 80% of the increase in market income for the households in the top 20% (2000–2007). Over the 1991–2000 period capital gains accounted for 45% of market income for the top 20%.
References
@ MrOllie: What's your problem with Kausik, B. N. (February 19, 2022). "Income Inequality, Cause and Cure". arXiv:2201.10726 [econ, q-fin].?
It seems like a reasonable scholarly discussion of an alternative and worth mentioning. Accordingly, I'm reverting your deletion of the comment that cites this source. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 01:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Avatar317:
— I've read your edit comment characterizing the World Inequality Database as an "advocacy organization" while removing graphics based on data from
this WID web page. However, from reading
WID's self-description and
Wikipedia's own WID article, the WID doesn't seem to be an advocacy organization. It seems to be a bona fide data gathering organization that is considered reliable:
— I favor the WID database in this instance because it provides specific categorized data from 1962 through 2021, whereas most other charts encountered in this area of Wikipedia don't go back nearly as far or aren't as current.
References
Sources relying on, or favorably citing, WID—on Google search limited to site:*.gov alone:
The WID is relied upon by numerous official agencies.
This U.S. Senate transcript of co-director Gabriel Zucman supports how government respects the WID to the point where the Senate allows Zucman to testify before the Joint Economic Committee. (Zucman explains, "One of our goals is to contribute to the creation of comprehensive, standardized, and internationally comparable inequality statistics that capture all forms of income contributing to GDP.") It's not "advocacy" when the data in fact supports the obvious proposition that wealth is increasingly concentrated. You
User:Avatar317 haven't provided any evidence showing how the co-directors' supposed "advocacy" (testifying before a Senate committee?) affects the reliability of the data that inspired the supposed "advocacy" in the first place. Without concrete evidence, the "advocacy" characterization smacks of a conspiracy theory.
Please reconsider your stance. —
RCraig09 (
talk)
16:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)