Talk:Income distribution/Archive 1

Archive 1

International Income distribution Indexes

There is a need to have tables that compare income distribution in different countries; maybe the jini Index might be applied.--201.107.252.29 20:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting

I'm merging the non-country-specific parts of this article with income inequality metrics, because there was so little content here, and there is no particular reason to maintain that distinction. If someone wants to move that article to this title, to give it a more general scope that would also be fine, though economic inequality also serves that function.

The US-specific information didn't really belong under the general heading "income distribution", but the main articles on income distribution in the US are accessible from the redirect target. -- Beland 20:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You should establish a consensus prior to creating a redirect out an article. Instead, you should do a merge if one is required.Smallman12q (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This article has a lot of grammar mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.151.128 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The income distribution in the US is compared to developing nations. Shouldn't a more global perspective be adopted? And shouldn't the point be to compare the US to other developed nations?

And what exactly is the point of air conditioning in an article about income distribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.214.156 (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. "20,000 had a heated swimming pool"? Out of how many? This seems like it would be an insignificant number of an entire population. It also seems like it is meant to push the idea that the poor are doing fine in America, and is tacitly pushing a POV. Should we also include the number of poor who don't have a heated swimming pool? Just ridiculous, and should be deleted.--Genobeeno (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't read this chart

The chart seems to indicate something other than what the text says. Text reads that the top two quintiles make more than the bottom 60% combined, yet the chart seems to indicate it is actually that the top 2% make roughly the same amount as the bottom 40%. This is pretty shoddy, for such an important subject. I don't get the chart anwyay, it needs to be reworked. 173.27.100.92 (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)bjones

I agree the chart has problems. I think that more research should be done to identify quintiles, not the five near quintiles, plus the sixth category for the creme de la creme. However, I do think what the top 1 or 2 percent makes is worth pointing out, separately. Perhaps that could be a note following the chart. Basically, the top quintile makes more than everyone else below. However, I had read recently that the top 1 percent spent 20 percent of GDP. But perhaps that is mixing apples and oranges. Jstewart58 (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)jstewart58

Merger proposal

I started to expand the page but then realized just about every topic I could think of to add was already in the Economic inequality article.

As an alternative maybe some of the text/sections from Economic inequality could be moved to this article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Abandoned merger attempt. No interest and No reason the article has to compete with Economic inequality article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Income distribution as probability distribution

It could be interesting to add an explanation about the probability distribution of incomes. Some links can be found here. --Erel Segal (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Leigh's comment on this article

Dr. Leigh has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I suggest that this article be merged with 'economic inequality'.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Leigh has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Pottenger, Mike & Leigh, Andrew, 2013. "Long Run Trends in Australian Executive Remuneration: BHP 1887-2012," IZA Discussion Papers 7486, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Canegrati's comment on this article

Dr. Canegrati has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The page is very poorly desribed. The first sentence of the page is wrong, since not necessarely income distribution refers to the nation's total GDP but can also be referred to smaller samples (e.g. small group of subgroups of people, local entities, business areas and so on). The paragraph "measurement" should list in brief the main system of measurement.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Canegrati has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Emanuele, Canegrati, 2007. "A Single-Mindedness model with n generations," MPRA Paper 2548, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Income distribution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824021048/http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/katz/papers/akk-polarization-nber-txt.pdf to http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/katz/papers/akk-polarization-nber-txt.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Is poverty decreasing?

We could use some more eyes on this: Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#poverty. Also, there is the question of whether the proposed misconception should be added to an article on poverty. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Weekly payroll documentation to employee not given

“States (Tx) require that employers provide each worker with documentation every pay period detailing their hours worked, wages earned & deductions based on their 10___ filled out by employee & on file with employer.”

What are penalties to the employer, for NOT supplying the the detail above to an employee, since the started in August? The person I am referring to has asked them repeatedly for this every week to only receive once be email. The employee does not have a printer to print it for her records. They have said that they will mail “it”. Has NOT happened.

What is employees recourse on this issue? Will employee be fined, if so approximately how much? Sarra3030 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"How to Improve Income Inequality" section does not accurately represent its source.

In the cited article, https://www.sparknotes.com/economics/micro/incomedistribution/section2/, the author states:

"Some argue that unemployment benefits provide a deterrent to finding "real work," since it is easier to stay unemployed and receive benefits. It is difficult to find a solution to this dilemma: it seems unjust to deny unemployed workers their benefits, since without the benefits the unemployed would have no means for survival, but it is equally difficult to find jobs for every single unemployed worker who is receiving benefits."

However, on this page, this has become:

"However, the unemployment benefits do not motivate unemployed people to find the job, because they have no obligations and get money for nothing."

The original SparkNotes article is presenting this perspective as an opinion skeptical of welfare programs and unemployment benefits, whereas on the Wikipedia page this perspective presents itself, in my opinion, as a fact. I believe that rewriting this subsection of "How to Improve Income Inequality" to reflect a more neutral perspective and to more accurately reflect the source material is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haifisch021 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)