Gini ratio

[Zscoundrel]

I think that Samuel Clemmons said it best, ". . . There are Lies, Damn 
lies, and Statistics . . ."

It would actually take days to really give you a decent analysis, but as 
a statistics junky and an analyst I will share some of my concerns.  I 
am bothered by MANY of the assumptions they make in the process of 
filtering the data to arrive at their conclusions.  Also, I have been 
following the economy since Nixon, and I don't really remember hearing 
about this before, but I assume that is due to the complexity of the 
data and the difficult  nature of the calculations.  

One of the things I look at is how they portray the data.  The year to 
year percentage change chart is almost useless as an indicator the way 
they portray it.  The data is not really linear (hell, it doesn't even 
really have any trend) but they use a line chart to represent the data 
because that matches the other charts.  This tells me that the authors 
are more concerned with looking good than clearly communicating the data.  

It makes me wonder about what other short cuts they have taken that 
don't show.

jeff wrote:

> [I'm continuing this thread here in hopes of remaining on the main 
> topic.  See "Re: US IT jobs going overseas creating 'IT Rust Belt'."]
>
> The main point of my post was the Gini ratio.  The Gini ratio slices 
> through all the economics b.s. giving a very useful perspective. 
> Economics seems a lot like psychology: it can explain a lot of things 
> but predicts poorly.  Its a myth that you need to have a deep 
> understanding of economics to understand why people are losing jobs.  
> It seems to me an interdisciplinary approach is far more valuable.  
> People who try to explain our present economic situation in this 
> country with just economic theory and no history, psychology, or 
> political science are clueless.  In my opinion economics is useful, 
> but not by itself.
>
> Can anyone challenge my information on the Gini ratio?  I'm not here 
> to win an argument.  I'm here to learn.  I'm also here to spread 
> dissenting ideas to independent thinkers.  Bill Gates is probably the 
> most benign fascist.
>
> I do use Linux ... have been using it since 1998.  I've enjoyed 
> watching it squash fascism and promote equality.  Linux and free 
> software are helping level the playing field between rich and poor.  
> Without free software we would all be less rich.
>
> I'll mention this one more time: Someone challenge my info on the Gini 
> ratio if you can!
>
>
>
> [repost:]
>
> There is one really easy way to measure the result of their actions 
> called the Gini ratio.  With this metric (I'm pretty sure this is an 
> international metric) you can assess the damage caused in a society by 
> the rich.  Be sure to take a look at the graph on this web page to get 
> an idea of the damage done by reagonomics.
>
> http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/inequality.htm
> ---------------------------
> There is a measure of income inequality called the Gini index or Gini 
> ratio. "The Gini ratio (or index of income concentration) is a 
> statistical measure of income equality ranging from 0 to 1. A measure 
> of 1 indicates perfect inequality; i.e., one person has all the income 
> and the rest have none. A measure of 0 indicates perfect equality; 
> i.e. all people having equal shares of income."-from 
> http://blue.census.gov/hhes/income/defs/alldef.html. (Also, see 
> http://www.iadb.org/exr/IDB/stories/1998/eng/e1198i.htm.) The Gini 
> ratios for the U.S. are available at: 
> http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f04.html (See table at bottom.)
>
>
>
>