This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Could you add some info about the connection between wealth inequality and crime? One good example is Lyle and Erik Menendez who killed their parents to get their inheritance. Can you add a link under "See also" for them? Stars4change ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
many dimensions are missing from this article - wealth is also tied to lower tax rates on wealth and political influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.16.3.247 ( talk) 23:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I would love to see some discussion of class mobility. Some are born into the bottom quintile, but end up in the top quintile. My uncle says "Poor people have poor ways." By that he means that people who grow up poor, have life habits that increase the probability that they stay poor. A. Luxury vices (cigarettes and alcohol) B. False investments (The Lottery, and gambling in general Dashro ( talk) 14:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The following was written by an individual who was concerned that the writer or writers of the article "Wealth inequality in the United States" might harbor some bias in favor of redressing such inequality. This commentator does not dispute the facts presented, but appears to dislike the original author(s) semantical choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.228.83 ( talk) 03:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking for somewhere that shows the difference (inequality?) in wealth between genders. Perhaps this isn't the right page, though the title (other than the political usage to which it gets used) might imply that such data belongs here. However, I don't see it anywhere on Wikipedia. 84.93.173.54 ( talk) 01:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a section on the causes of inequality, but not on the effects. This would be valuable information. 72.187.99.79 ( talk) 17:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
just a non-professional question, for the 2nd graphic the effects of the crisis would be extreme important or? Over 15 Percent of the population are receiving "food stamps" I know today there are no stamps, you get a digit card, and you get money on that account, maybe once or twice or even up to 4 times a month. It is not much, but for the really poorest americans it is,
September 2012 47,710,283 people in 22,973,657 households were receiving 6,407,019,993 US-$, 134.29$ each person and 278.89$ each household. It was the last month in the Fiscal Year 2012, which as a whole gave support to an (average) of 46,609,072 people in 22,329,713 households and did cost 74,620,790,688 US-$ (almost 75 billion) for an monthly average of 133.42$ or 278.48$ in a household. The disaster assistance which earlier was listed there is now seperated, but this is like Medicare/Medicaid one of the few larger budget items which really help. I don't know what you pay for food in the states and it will be very different from southwest California to the northwest parts of Washington compared with the Eastcost and Maine as the most northern part of the "Lower 48" I Think, but I heard it is cheaper than German average, Berlin is very cheap but south Germany (economic is much better there) is a bit more expensive, skandinavia is horrible expensive with ~13 US-$ for a pack of cigaretts and strict alcohol regulations, thats why scandinavians on travel to a football game or just for fun are so often drunken, here the booze is sooo cheap, 24/7 available for everyone.
The round graphic with bottom 40 per cent and so... this changed a lot during the crisis or? I mean for a short time, when the shares and stocks went down even the 0,1 % of the richest people in the world lost very big amounts. But soon the stocks recovered in most cases on the back of the normal population, because the Goverments all around the world gave financial guarantees with the taxes, money reserves and so on they had from 100 per cent of the population.
It is a big tragedy, and I hope Obama 2.0 will boost the US economy, this will help us all. The new income tax is a nice thing, but won't be enough, but he is also cutting military budget for the 2nd year in the row, if you add inflation it could be "real" 10 per cent. But at least the "2013 Military Pay Scale Chart - Effective January 1st, 2013 (Updated 01/07/2013)" was increased, like every year since at least 2006. Since the soldiers in most cases are no academics, it is good that they get a bit more money in times where I think even the congress and most politicians, state and local employees have to accept a wage freeze. But the army is now just reducing the number of active troops, we hope many of which who leave are old men and the others find another work, staying in the Reserve and maybe can join the army at a later time.
Just don't let buy China the companies, the buy first the smaller ones, and they pay much, but they have enough "green paper", if they want only 1 small tech they buy the whole company for billions, and if it don't run than and is making deficits they have to pay they close it quite quick or look for one of these companies that buys such companies and dissolve them with the most profit. If they start this in the U.S. its bad, they also buy everything with resources in Africa they can, to a much better Dollar prize anyone else can offer. Kilon22 ( talk) 18:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this should be added to this article: "over 25 years, the total wealth gap between white and African-American families nearly tripled, increasing from $85,000 in 1984 to $236,500 in 2009." - http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf EllenCT ( talk) 05:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
See also: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/yes-us-wealth-inequality-is-terrible-by-global-standards/273908/ EllenCT ( talk) 07:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice public Domain Video here: [1] Victor Grigas ( talk) 19:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
This site points out that this article does not even once mention the ages of individuals. Also of interest and touched on in the link are the effects of household size, i.e. issues such as assortative mating and cohabitation versus marriage and their effects on wealth inequality,-- 2610:E0:A040:7EFD:754C:155B:1B77:F0BC ( talk) 15:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd love to see you add that the Bible says in Proverbs 11:1 that "A false balance is abomination..." which means a false balance of anything in our lives, but especially wealth and work among all humans. Probably because if all people were "rich" that would help us all progress faster in all ways, like finding cures to diseases because every person would have the ability to share their experiments worldwide on the Internet until the pieces of the puzzle come together to equal a cure, etc. Stars4change ( talk) 17:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
In its simplest form wealth is dependent on income minus expenses over time. There needs to be some discussion of consumption here, as expenses greatly influence wealth.
Suissecam (
talk) 17:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Money is a good servant but a bad master. It's one of those things in life that if you don't try to control it, it can control you. Musicwriter ( talk) 04:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't use pie charts for data with variable bin widths! That's a really poor visualization. The amounts of wealth and amounts of people are both unequally spaced. A histogram would work, similar to /info/en/?search=File:Travel_time_histogram_total_n_Stata.png, or maybe show bars of the cumulative percentages side-by-side. 71.167.64.138 ( talk) 17:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I was going to add a section about women and child wealth inequality and was wondering if this source was okay.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1988.tb00564.x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope Demont17 ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I came to this article wanting to get the facts on the loaded "Wealth Inequality" term I've heard from a lot of left-leaning sources. Here's the specific article that sent me searching, which cites a chart from "The Nation", described in its wp article as the "flagship of the left":
[ [2]]
"Wealth inequality" is a loaded term by itself, since it suggests that "wealth equality" would be the norm. I don't object to the existence of the phrase, or an article about it, but given that the phrase is frequently used in a political context, the article should make the political undertones explicit.
Statements like "The lack of savings removes the poor any opportunity to accumulate wealth and better their conditions" are clearly untrue, since no poor person could ever become wealthy if they had no opportunities at all. They reflect the "this is unfair" undertone that permeates the article.
Mathematical statements like "Currently, the richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States.[2] while the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt.[10]", even if true, must be presented with care. The implication in such a statement is to wonder why the richest 1% don't hold 1% of the wealth, which is a mathematical impossibility. Even small standard deviations in wealth (that is, mostly flat income distributions) leave the top 1% of a distribution with significantly more than 1%.
This article is phrased neutrally, but its selection of terms and facts supports a political position without ever acknowledging the controversy inherent in the issue. Lunkwill ( talk) 18:55, 12 April 2010
Perhaps a bit loaded, to the extent that left-leaning pundits have adopted the term, but that doesn't automatically qualify the page for a NPOV violation. The phrase exists, and users are entitled to find out what it means. I propose making it explicit: state that the phrase has political connotations, and that people who favor a more uniform distribution of wealth regard it as a social problem. It's hard to avoid NPOV issues when the topic is, itself, a point of view (editing the page on "libertarianism" must be a ton of fun.) Statements of theories or conclusions should be prefaced with "Advocates of more uniform wealth distribution contend that ..." 68.173.53.167 ( talk) 10:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I also came to this article for a more neutral overview of the topic, but find it written with a hyper-opinionated bias towards certain viewpoints. Sentences like this: "There are many causes, including years of home ownership, household income, unemployment, and education but inheritance might be the most important", smack of people writing their opinions as facts (or phrased as almost-facts). Add in images like this [ [3]] and, while factual, make the article an argument from emotions. That image is practically a propaganda image, and even has the politically-active organization's/movement's logo still on it! ComServant ( talk) 08:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I concur that, even after 10 years from the first critique, the article is heavily biased and that its political undertones should be made explicit. One needs not distorting logic and statistics, for example, to illustrate uneven wealth distribution in the US compared to most European Union countries. Most prominent sources of distortion: (a) the underlying assumption that wealth distribution should be flat (which never happened anywhere in history and is most likely impossible) and (b) the lack of clarification that most if not all the wealth statistics shown here concern Net Worth, i.e. after debt. -- 95.246.143.216 ( talk) 06:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This paragraph is poorly worded and unclear. Suggest direct quotes or better paraphrasing.
According to Jedediah Purdy, a researcher at the Duke School of Law, the inequality of wealth in the United States has constantly opened the eyes of the many problems and shortcomings of its financial system over at least the last fifty years of the debate. For years, people believed that distributive justice would produce a sustainable level of wealth inequality. It was also thought that a certain state would be able to effectively diminish the amount of inequality that would occur. Something that was for the most part not expected is the fact that the inequality levels created by the growing markets would lessen the power of that state and prevent the majority of the political community from actually being able to deliver on its plans of distributive justice, however it has just lately come to attention of the mass majority.
EarthCitizen-741963852 ( talk) 03:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Avatar, would it resolve your issue if the table started with 1989, rather than 2016? Farcaster ( talk) 12:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
President Donald Trump passed a major tax bill in the previous session of Congress that was overwhelmingly targeted at reducing the tax burden on people who own businesses. The theory behind it is that by making it more lucrative to own businesses, you will spur more business investment, which ultimately creates jobs and raises wages. But as you can see in these charts, we’ve already been doing that for the past generation — and overall growth has been generally slow, with wages rising just a tiny bit faster than inflation.
The top 1 percent of the US wealth distribution has increased its net worth by 650 percent since 1989, while the bottom 50 percent saw its wealth grow by a much more modest 170 percent during the same period. ... You’ll see that the bottom half of the income distribution had a huge share of its wealth tied up in real estate while owning essentially no shares of corporate stock.and a quote from the NPR source:
That means the stock market rally can only directly benefit around half of all Americans — and substantially fewer than it would have a decade ago, when nearly two-thirds of families owned stock.
This article doesn't appear to be neutral in any way when there is an article that discusses a controversial topic there must be a criticism page examples: /info/en/?search=Capitalism#Criticism /info/en/?search=Liberalism#Criticism_and_support /info/en/?search=Socialism#Criticism /info/en/?search=Fascism#Criticism also while I was putting those links in the socialism the criticism section was 3 sentences long while the capitalism criticisms were 6 sections long anyway.
this is purely a problem that Wikipedia needs to fix the ideas of socialism communism and left-wing ideology are getting in easily while right economic PHRASES like corporatocracy have literal warnings that they are wrong at the top Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral please respect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.205.125 ( talk) 19:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HammersB.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Livingstonshare.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding
this revert @
Avatar317: this source
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/20/business/oxfam-billionaires-davos/index.html states: The combined fortunes of the world's 26 richest individuals reached $1.4 trillion last year — the same amount as the total wealth of the 3.8 billion poorest people. Most of these mega-wealthy are American, according to the Forbes list of billionaires used by Oxfam.
. I think this is a pretty interesting data point, it is supported by an independent RS and is directly related to the topic of the article. Unfortunately this source refers to the 2019 edition of the Oxfam report and we now have the 2021 data that has been recently published. The top 10 richest men are all American except one and are the same as the ones in the 2019 list. Either we stick to the original edit above (is it really synth?) or we can just include the older 2019 data (hasn't changed that much) with the source referencing directly that they are mostly Americans. If you see some other problem please let me know in advance so we can edit this once and for all. Thanks {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk 21:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2022 and 5 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RyleeWadd02, Mrcst6, Tyler Shaffer, EmilyGirven03, Natdespot1824 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jialeijiang ( talk) 00:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 February 2023 and 21 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TKAST1, TRHST6, Favour34 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jialeijiang ( talk) 16:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, @ Avatar317: here are some secondary sources covering the RAND report:
I am happy to rewrite the three sentences out of Wikipedia's WP:VOICE to make it clear they are summarizing the report instead of reflecting secondary peer reviewed sources. Is that acceptable?
I'm also curious as to whether you would have any issues with including the wealth inequality informatiion in https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality ( About CPBB)? Sandizer ( talk) 02:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This research was funded by the Fair Work Center and conducted by RAND Education and Labor. This working paper is under review with a scholarly journal; although most RAND working papers are not subject to formal peer-review, this work has in fact completed RAND’s full research quality assurance and peer-review process.(emphasis included on the RAND page). I don't see any good reason not to include this so I've restored the edit. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 20:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Could you add some info about the connection between wealth inequality and crime? One good example is Lyle and Erik Menendez who killed their parents to get their inheritance. Can you add a link under "See also" for them? Stars4change ( talk) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
many dimensions are missing from this article - wealth is also tied to lower tax rates on wealth and political influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.16.3.247 ( talk) 23:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I would love to see some discussion of class mobility. Some are born into the bottom quintile, but end up in the top quintile. My uncle says "Poor people have poor ways." By that he means that people who grow up poor, have life habits that increase the probability that they stay poor. A. Luxury vices (cigarettes and alcohol) B. False investments (The Lottery, and gambling in general Dashro ( talk) 14:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The following was written by an individual who was concerned that the writer or writers of the article "Wealth inequality in the United States" might harbor some bias in favor of redressing such inequality. This commentator does not dispute the facts presented, but appears to dislike the original author(s) semantical choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.228.83 ( talk) 03:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking for somewhere that shows the difference (inequality?) in wealth between genders. Perhaps this isn't the right page, though the title (other than the political usage to which it gets used) might imply that such data belongs here. However, I don't see it anywhere on Wikipedia. 84.93.173.54 ( talk) 01:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a section on the causes of inequality, but not on the effects. This would be valuable information. 72.187.99.79 ( talk) 17:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
just a non-professional question, for the 2nd graphic the effects of the crisis would be extreme important or? Over 15 Percent of the population are receiving "food stamps" I know today there are no stamps, you get a digit card, and you get money on that account, maybe once or twice or even up to 4 times a month. It is not much, but for the really poorest americans it is,
September 2012 47,710,283 people in 22,973,657 households were receiving 6,407,019,993 US-$, 134.29$ each person and 278.89$ each household. It was the last month in the Fiscal Year 2012, which as a whole gave support to an (average) of 46,609,072 people in 22,329,713 households and did cost 74,620,790,688 US-$ (almost 75 billion) for an monthly average of 133.42$ or 278.48$ in a household. The disaster assistance which earlier was listed there is now seperated, but this is like Medicare/Medicaid one of the few larger budget items which really help. I don't know what you pay for food in the states and it will be very different from southwest California to the northwest parts of Washington compared with the Eastcost and Maine as the most northern part of the "Lower 48" I Think, but I heard it is cheaper than German average, Berlin is very cheap but south Germany (economic is much better there) is a bit more expensive, skandinavia is horrible expensive with ~13 US-$ for a pack of cigaretts and strict alcohol regulations, thats why scandinavians on travel to a football game or just for fun are so often drunken, here the booze is sooo cheap, 24/7 available for everyone.
The round graphic with bottom 40 per cent and so... this changed a lot during the crisis or? I mean for a short time, when the shares and stocks went down even the 0,1 % of the richest people in the world lost very big amounts. But soon the stocks recovered in most cases on the back of the normal population, because the Goverments all around the world gave financial guarantees with the taxes, money reserves and so on they had from 100 per cent of the population.
It is a big tragedy, and I hope Obama 2.0 will boost the US economy, this will help us all. The new income tax is a nice thing, but won't be enough, but he is also cutting military budget for the 2nd year in the row, if you add inflation it could be "real" 10 per cent. But at least the "2013 Military Pay Scale Chart - Effective January 1st, 2013 (Updated 01/07/2013)" was increased, like every year since at least 2006. Since the soldiers in most cases are no academics, it is good that they get a bit more money in times where I think even the congress and most politicians, state and local employees have to accept a wage freeze. But the army is now just reducing the number of active troops, we hope many of which who leave are old men and the others find another work, staying in the Reserve and maybe can join the army at a later time.
Just don't let buy China the companies, the buy first the smaller ones, and they pay much, but they have enough "green paper", if they want only 1 small tech they buy the whole company for billions, and if it don't run than and is making deficits they have to pay they close it quite quick or look for one of these companies that buys such companies and dissolve them with the most profit. If they start this in the U.S. its bad, they also buy everything with resources in Africa they can, to a much better Dollar prize anyone else can offer. Kilon22 ( talk) 18:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this should be added to this article: "over 25 years, the total wealth gap between white and African-American families nearly tripled, increasing from $85,000 in 1984 to $236,500 in 2009." - http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf EllenCT ( talk) 05:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
See also: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/yes-us-wealth-inequality-is-terrible-by-global-standards/273908/ EllenCT ( talk) 07:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice public Domain Video here: [1] Victor Grigas ( talk) 19:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
This site points out that this article does not even once mention the ages of individuals. Also of interest and touched on in the link are the effects of household size, i.e. issues such as assortative mating and cohabitation versus marriage and their effects on wealth inequality,-- 2610:E0:A040:7EFD:754C:155B:1B77:F0BC ( talk) 15:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd love to see you add that the Bible says in Proverbs 11:1 that "A false balance is abomination..." which means a false balance of anything in our lives, but especially wealth and work among all humans. Probably because if all people were "rich" that would help us all progress faster in all ways, like finding cures to diseases because every person would have the ability to share their experiments worldwide on the Internet until the pieces of the puzzle come together to equal a cure, etc. Stars4change ( talk) 17:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
In its simplest form wealth is dependent on income minus expenses over time. There needs to be some discussion of consumption here, as expenses greatly influence wealth.
Suissecam (
talk) 17:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Money is a good servant but a bad master. It's one of those things in life that if you don't try to control it, it can control you. Musicwriter ( talk) 04:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't use pie charts for data with variable bin widths! That's a really poor visualization. The amounts of wealth and amounts of people are both unequally spaced. A histogram would work, similar to /info/en/?search=File:Travel_time_histogram_total_n_Stata.png, or maybe show bars of the cumulative percentages side-by-side. 71.167.64.138 ( talk) 17:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I was going to add a section about women and child wealth inequality and was wondering if this source was okay.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1988.tb00564.x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope Demont17 ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I came to this article wanting to get the facts on the loaded "Wealth Inequality" term I've heard from a lot of left-leaning sources. Here's the specific article that sent me searching, which cites a chart from "The Nation", described in its wp article as the "flagship of the left":
[ [2]]
"Wealth inequality" is a loaded term by itself, since it suggests that "wealth equality" would be the norm. I don't object to the existence of the phrase, or an article about it, but given that the phrase is frequently used in a political context, the article should make the political undertones explicit.
Statements like "The lack of savings removes the poor any opportunity to accumulate wealth and better their conditions" are clearly untrue, since no poor person could ever become wealthy if they had no opportunities at all. They reflect the "this is unfair" undertone that permeates the article.
Mathematical statements like "Currently, the richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States.[2] while the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt.[10]", even if true, must be presented with care. The implication in such a statement is to wonder why the richest 1% don't hold 1% of the wealth, which is a mathematical impossibility. Even small standard deviations in wealth (that is, mostly flat income distributions) leave the top 1% of a distribution with significantly more than 1%.
This article is phrased neutrally, but its selection of terms and facts supports a political position without ever acknowledging the controversy inherent in the issue. Lunkwill ( talk) 18:55, 12 April 2010
Perhaps a bit loaded, to the extent that left-leaning pundits have adopted the term, but that doesn't automatically qualify the page for a NPOV violation. The phrase exists, and users are entitled to find out what it means. I propose making it explicit: state that the phrase has political connotations, and that people who favor a more uniform distribution of wealth regard it as a social problem. It's hard to avoid NPOV issues when the topic is, itself, a point of view (editing the page on "libertarianism" must be a ton of fun.) Statements of theories or conclusions should be prefaced with "Advocates of more uniform wealth distribution contend that ..." 68.173.53.167 ( talk) 10:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I also came to this article for a more neutral overview of the topic, but find it written with a hyper-opinionated bias towards certain viewpoints. Sentences like this: "There are many causes, including years of home ownership, household income, unemployment, and education but inheritance might be the most important", smack of people writing their opinions as facts (or phrased as almost-facts). Add in images like this [ [3]] and, while factual, make the article an argument from emotions. That image is practically a propaganda image, and even has the politically-active organization's/movement's logo still on it! ComServant ( talk) 08:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I concur that, even after 10 years from the first critique, the article is heavily biased and that its political undertones should be made explicit. One needs not distorting logic and statistics, for example, to illustrate uneven wealth distribution in the US compared to most European Union countries. Most prominent sources of distortion: (a) the underlying assumption that wealth distribution should be flat (which never happened anywhere in history and is most likely impossible) and (b) the lack of clarification that most if not all the wealth statistics shown here concern Net Worth, i.e. after debt. -- 95.246.143.216 ( talk) 06:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This paragraph is poorly worded and unclear. Suggest direct quotes or better paraphrasing.
According to Jedediah Purdy, a researcher at the Duke School of Law, the inequality of wealth in the United States has constantly opened the eyes of the many problems and shortcomings of its financial system over at least the last fifty years of the debate. For years, people believed that distributive justice would produce a sustainable level of wealth inequality. It was also thought that a certain state would be able to effectively diminish the amount of inequality that would occur. Something that was for the most part not expected is the fact that the inequality levels created by the growing markets would lessen the power of that state and prevent the majority of the political community from actually being able to deliver on its plans of distributive justice, however it has just lately come to attention of the mass majority.
EarthCitizen-741963852 ( talk) 03:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Avatar, would it resolve your issue if the table started with 1989, rather than 2016? Farcaster ( talk) 12:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
President Donald Trump passed a major tax bill in the previous session of Congress that was overwhelmingly targeted at reducing the tax burden on people who own businesses. The theory behind it is that by making it more lucrative to own businesses, you will spur more business investment, which ultimately creates jobs and raises wages. But as you can see in these charts, we’ve already been doing that for the past generation — and overall growth has been generally slow, with wages rising just a tiny bit faster than inflation.
The top 1 percent of the US wealth distribution has increased its net worth by 650 percent since 1989, while the bottom 50 percent saw its wealth grow by a much more modest 170 percent during the same period. ... You’ll see that the bottom half of the income distribution had a huge share of its wealth tied up in real estate while owning essentially no shares of corporate stock.and a quote from the NPR source:
That means the stock market rally can only directly benefit around half of all Americans — and substantially fewer than it would have a decade ago, when nearly two-thirds of families owned stock.
This article doesn't appear to be neutral in any way when there is an article that discusses a controversial topic there must be a criticism page examples: /info/en/?search=Capitalism#Criticism /info/en/?search=Liberalism#Criticism_and_support /info/en/?search=Socialism#Criticism /info/en/?search=Fascism#Criticism also while I was putting those links in the socialism the criticism section was 3 sentences long while the capitalism criticisms were 6 sections long anyway.
this is purely a problem that Wikipedia needs to fix the ideas of socialism communism and left-wing ideology are getting in easily while right economic PHRASES like corporatocracy have literal warnings that they are wrong at the top Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral please respect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.205.125 ( talk) 19:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HammersB.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Livingstonshare.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding
this revert @
Avatar317: this source
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/20/business/oxfam-billionaires-davos/index.html states: The combined fortunes of the world's 26 richest individuals reached $1.4 trillion last year — the same amount as the total wealth of the 3.8 billion poorest people. Most of these mega-wealthy are American, according to the Forbes list of billionaires used by Oxfam.
. I think this is a pretty interesting data point, it is supported by an independent RS and is directly related to the topic of the article. Unfortunately this source refers to the 2019 edition of the Oxfam report and we now have the 2021 data that has been recently published. The top 10 richest men are all American except one and are the same as the ones in the 2019 list. Either we stick to the original edit above (is it really synth?) or we can just include the older 2019 data (hasn't changed that much) with the source referencing directly that they are mostly Americans. If you see some other problem please let me know in advance so we can edit this once and for all. Thanks {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk 21:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2022 and 5 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RyleeWadd02, Mrcst6, Tyler Shaffer, EmilyGirven03, Natdespot1824 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jialeijiang ( talk) 00:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 February 2023 and 21 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TKAST1, TRHST6, Favour34 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jialeijiang ( talk) 16:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, @ Avatar317: here are some secondary sources covering the RAND report:
I am happy to rewrite the three sentences out of Wikipedia's WP:VOICE to make it clear they are summarizing the report instead of reflecting secondary peer reviewed sources. Is that acceptable?
I'm also curious as to whether you would have any issues with including the wealth inequality informatiion in https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality ( About CPBB)? Sandizer ( talk) 02:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This research was funded by the Fair Work Center and conducted by RAND Education and Labor. This working paper is under review with a scholarly journal; although most RAND working papers are not subject to formal peer-review, this work has in fact completed RAND’s full research quality assurance and peer-review process.(emphasis included on the RAND page). I don't see any good reason not to include this so I've restored the edit. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 20:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)