Egyptian, Tunisian and Yemeni protesters all say that inequality is one of the main reasons they’re protesting.
However, the U.S. actually has much greater inequality than in any of those countries.
Specifically, the “Gini Coefficient” – the figure economists use to measure inequality – is higher in the U.S.
Gini Coefficients are like golf – the lower the score, the better (i.e. the more equality).
According to the CIA World Fact Book, the U.S. is ranked as the 42nd most unequal country in the world, with a Gini Coefficient of 45.
In contrast:
- Tunisia is ranked the 62nd most unequal country, with a Gini Coefficient of 40.
- Yemen is ranked 76th most unequal, with a Gini Coefficient of 37.7.
- And Egypt is ranked as the 90th most unequal country, with a Gini Coefficient of around 34.4.
And inequality in the U.S. has soared in the last couple of years, since the Gini Coefficient was last calculated, so it is undoubtedly currently much higher.
So why are Egyptians rioting, while the Americans are complacent?
8 comments:
Because our middle class is bigger than the entire populations of any of those countries.
Couldn't the coefficients have soared for these other countries since the last time it was calculated as well?
And wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that our most impoverished people are still better off than a majority of people in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen?
Unitard: Income inequality has been rising in America since the 60s and is at Great Depression-era levels. A Gini Coefficient as high as the United States' indicates that there is almost no middle class in this country. The data shows, essentially, that America has a class of super filthy rich who have been doing exceptionally well for themselves and an enormous class of working poor and not-poor-only-because-they're-in-debt-up-to-their-eyeballs.
Rach: Yes, Americans are better off on almost all levels compared to Tunisians and on most counts compared to Yemeni and Egyptians. But that's not the discussion.
The Gini Coefficient measures inequality, which is a relative measure by definition - so it's not looking at how a poor Tunisian lives vs a poor American - is is looking at how much of a difference there is between a rich Tunisian and a poor Tunisian or rich/poor American.
If relative statistics aren't your bag, then take this as an example:
The median salary for an American worker has not gone up, adjusted for inflation, since the mid-1970's. That means we haven't seen a raise in over 30 years. Yet in that same span of time, more "wealth" was created than in all of the 20th century before it.
Where did it go?
Almost no middle class? I don't buy it. Shrinking, sure. Or is it?
"The notion that the middle class is shrinking is controversial because the economic boundaries that define the middle class vary. Households that earn between $25,000 and $75,000 represent approximately the middle half of the income distribution tables provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Over the past two decades, the number of households in those brackets decreased by 3.9%, from 48.2% to 44.3%. During the same time period, the number of households with incomes below $25,000 decreased 3.5%, from 28.7% to 25.2%, while the number of households with incomes above $75,000 increased over 7%, from 23.2% to 30.4%"
Again, relative and subjective. Hard to see, the truth is.
As far as Gini goes, I think there are too many variables and too much ambiguity to take this form of measure seriously. It doesn't take culture or history or type of government or population into account. I don't think anyone can argue that inequality in our country is ridiculous and growing, but I don't think we can be compared to other countries this way.
From my perspective, it seems arrogant and generally shitty to say you (or certain groups of Americans) deserve more, or even that certain groups deserve less, even though there are a slew of other countries and millions of other people who have it a whole lot worse than you do. ('You' being any American).
I get the relativity intended; I just don't think it's a very useful statistic for that argument. Is it trying to say that America sucks more than Kazakhstan or that capitalism or democracy are bigger bastards than socialism or authoritarianism? I don't think you can confidently draw the conclusion that Americans should be rioting like in Egypt and Tunisia based on the fact that our society is more unequal than theirs. It seems a shallow conclusion based on very limited data.
Now, I'm not saying I don't want a raise or think I should have a better job, but I think it makes sense that the Egyptians and Tunisians, who have dealt with real and serious oppression of basic rights and dictatorships for my entire existence, are rioting in the streets demanding change while I sit calmly at my desk, pleased to earn less than the average American female (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_Joe#Income).
I can tell you why the Egyptians are rioting and Americans are complacent: because we really just don't have it that bad.
All very good points. In my macroecon classes back in the day, there was a lot of talk about the worth of Gini for those very reasons.
My problem with looking just at income as you did above is that the figures present a skewed vision of most Americans' financial reality. It doesn't factor in high costs of individuals' debt payments, health care costs, education spending and other costs that eat away at Americans' ability to live the American Dream today and that were not as much of an issue for the actual middle class pre-1970.
Those costs and a lack of real wage increase were the impetus for the debt crisis which caused the crash of 2008 and nearly ruined us. Essentially, too many lower class and functionally poor people were financing a middle class lifestyles through scam mortgages and credit cards. Big business & the Bush administration made it easy for the banks and the financial sector to profit off this situation and a vicious cycle ensued until the financial industry overheated in 2008 and we all lost that 30% of our net worth that wasn't really there in the first place. The banks got their 30% back, of course.
Here is an article from Business Insider that goes over some other statistics about the decline in the middle class. Well worth a glance.
http://www.businessinsider.com/22-statistics-that-prove-the-middle-class-is-being-systematically-wiped-out-of-existence-in-america-2010-7?slop=1#slideshow-start
Rach: I think you read into my post something other than what was intended. I never meant to imply that Americans should or will take to the streets over income inequality but your point about corruption and autocratic rule as additional important grievances in middle east protests which are all but absent in America is an important one.
While reading protesters across the middle east citing "income inequality" as one of their greatest concerns, I thought it would be an interesting data point to present income inequality in our own country for some perspective.
High-five, Rach!
Willis, you're preaching to the choir. Those statistics are clearly geared towards alarming people who were probably already alarmed. It's clear the obvious solution that the authors are pointing at, but redistribution of wealth is the one thing that simply can't be asked of America. Not now. Maybe after a few more years of suffering, when what's happening right now can fully be put into perspective.
We're too fat and rich to revolt, so somebody will have to think of a better idea to unfuckle us.
Post a Comment