By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is This a Parody? California Teachers Union video

Mr Khan on 06 December 2012
Kasz216 said:

Another big increase in gini-coefficent by the way is another social factor that is REALLY interesting but nobody every pays attention to because it doesn't fit any fun political narratives... and would make you look sexist if taken out of context.

That is... Women in the workplace. The increasing of women in the workplace actually raises the gini-coefficent.

Why? As it turns out, rich people are highly likely to marry each other.  As income and wealth among gender evens out and careers even out. The Gini Coefficent will get higher as more rich couples form to marry super rich couples.

Instead of say... Don Draper marrying his secretary Meagan... you End up with Rich Doctor Bill Cosby marries Clair the Lawyer.

Which means his "Meagan" instead ends up with a guy who works at the local supermarket.


Not that women in the workplace is a bad thing. Quite the opposite. It's just the "Base" gini-coefficent value has changed due to demographics. Even if somehow everyone always made the same wage from now on. Gini Coefficient would rise, simply due to marriages.


Actually a lot of research seems to show that the reason upword mobility is staying stangant recently is because of this.  It's a lot easier to work your way to the top, but it's a lot harder to marry your way to the top.

So you think the data would show something less severe if it was assessed on an individual rather than household basis?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
killerzX on 06 December 2012
SamuelRSmith said:

ha, i just put this video in the OP, and saw you posted this to. its a pretty good debunking of the outright lies that the Kalifornia teachers union told.

but the union says they swear it wasnt to be viewed by the students it was meant for the teachers to be informed. So i dont know whats more sad. them lying of that i can actually believe that their teachers have such a juvenile level of intelect that they need a video like this for them to be able to understand something.



Kasz216 on 06 December 2012
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:

Another big increase in gini-coefficent by the way is another social factor that is REALLY interesting but nobody every pays attention to because it doesn't fit any fun political narratives... and would make you look sexist if taken out of context.

That is... Women in the workplace. The increasing of women in the workplace actually raises the gini-coefficent.

Why? As it turns out, rich people are highly likely to marry each other.  As income and wealth among gender evens out and careers even out. The Gini Coefficent will get higher as more rich couples form to marry super rich couples.

Instead of say... Don Draper marrying his secretary Meagan... you End up with Rich Doctor Bill Cosby marries Clair the Lawyer.

Which means his "Meagan" instead ends up with a guy who works at the local supermarket.


Not that women in the workplace is a bad thing. Quite the opposite. It's just the "Base" gini-coefficent value has changed due to demographics. Even if somehow everyone always made the same wage from now on. Gini Coefficient would rise, simply due to marriages.


Actually a lot of research seems to show that the reason upword mobility is staying stangant recently is because of this.  It's a lot easier to work your way to the top, but it's a lot harder to marry your way to the top.

So you think the data would show something less severe if it was assessed on an individual rather than household basis?

Yes and no.... it's easier I think to just show the data.

 

As you can see Individual Gini Coefficent is highest and most severe looking... but hasn't actually grown.

In fact it's shrunk since 1994.

Which would suggest that it's not that the individual rich are getting richer.... but demographic changes that are raising the gini coeffient.

 

Of course, the super rich could still be getting more super rich.  It's just that it wouldn't be at the expense of the poor or middle class, who are actually doing better "on average" but at the expense of the regular rich and upper middle class.

 

This is something that wouldn't be in the gini-coefficent data.  Instead you would need to do a Ginicoefficent for the top 50% or even top 25%.

 

If such a thing is happening... what would be worrying wouldn't be the poor, or the middle class so much as the fact that the bridge to being in the lets say .01% was suddenly impossible.  

 

Of course, financial disasters like 2008 should theoretically beat down the super rich pretty hard, when they aren't bailed out. 



mrstickball on 06 December 2012
Normando said:
As Chark said, it's a simplified, fanciful version so that's it's easier for people (children I imagine) to understand.

It's hard to argue with the fact that the top 5% of the population has 61.9% of the money while the bottom 60% has 4.2%. Of course while more and more of the wealth has shifted upwards over the last 50-60 years tax rates on that money have gone down. Add that to the increase in outsourcing by companies and you have a system where the upper class has more money, pays less in taxes, and invests less in this country. Hence our current state.

 


Of course, you're forgetting the part where the non-upper class pays even less than they did before. Also, you're forgetting why inequality is higher than it was - the makeup of households is significantly different than it was 20 years ago, as we go away from the nuclear family, which had much lower inequality.

 

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.