Kiryas Joel, New York has the lowest per capita income of any location with over 10,000 population in the US.
Posts tagged with economic inequality
by Isabel Sawhill, Scott Winship, and Kerry Searle Grannis
SWG define the US middle class as 3 times the poverty level. That’s
Middle age they take to begin at 40.
You can also see the 40% who do not make it to the middle class in Catherine Mulbrandon’s picture:
SWG find “rungs” on the ladder to prosperity, such that within their dataset,
(The weakest link is from basic reading & maths skills + social & emotional skills → to high school graduation + non-criminality. The strongest link is from acceptable pre-reading & pre-maths + school-appropriate behaviour → to basic reading & maths + social-emotional skills.)
That is a Markov or AR(1) at each step, but changing 2×2 matrices (pass-through probabilities) each time.
The poor outcomes for low-birthweight black poor youths are then understood, within the paper, as the composite effect of passing through the several gates.
For example low birth weight, poor parents of the wrong race starts the child off in the disadvantaged category. 40% of those are off track when school starts. Then 55% of (not just the
0-disadvantaged ∩ 1-disadvantaged, but all of the) stage-1-disadvantaged continue to advance to the next stage on the losing track.
In this way the eventual low success-rate of the adults from poor families is seen as the product of a succession of gates.
In matrix terms each 2×2 matrix “shuffles beads from gate to gate”. For example the first matrix is
and the product (composite) of the first two is this matrix product:
In the product matrix the red entry is the fraction of babies born disadvantaged (
0-loser) who end up
2-disadvantaged after 2 matrices
M₁bull;M₂ have been applied—entering middle childhood.
If you wanted to compute the overall numbers from the bar chart at the top you would need also a starting vector
X₀ saying how many babies start off already at a disadvantage. (The fraction who don’t start off disadvanaged is not a free parameter.)
Incomes of the top .01%, 1915–2008 in France and United States
from the interactive The Top Incomes Database —
Reading about the early meanings of the phrase “middle class” it clearly refers to:
…someone with so much capital that they could rival nobles….. professionals, managers, and senior civil servants.
and not to “the broad shoulders" holding up society, which should properly be called "the working class".
In other words, not “normal” or “typical” people at all (typical being $21k/year)—the “middle class” could accurately refer in the U.S. only to those making over $100k/year. I.e., “possessing
(Source: The New York Times)
The logic of Marshallian S&D curves are wonderful in several respects:
Here’s a great way to misapply the Marshallian logic and arouse my ire:
That’s not what the theory says. We use the jargon willingness to pay or reserve price to talk theoretically about the maximum someone would counterfactually give up for something—and equate this (by rational consistency hypotheses) to how much utility they derive from obtaining it. (The experiments I mentioned above literally created a reserve price—a redeemable coupon for $13 if you get the paper at
P*, so we as non-omniscient lab-gods know that you actually assign a personal dollar value on the
good—and know what it is. So the fact that those experiments worked doesn’t prove the extra assumptions about the way people’s consent, pleasure, engagement, and desires interface with an opportunity for economic exchange.) Laura’s measured willingness to pay does not say how badly she wants something relative to Gemma. Why? Because maybe Gemma is poor and Laura is rich.
The problem is, I’m not sure the kind of tired I am can be fixed by a vacation.
In the real world, rich people engage in retail therapy at prices that would pay for a poor person’s housing and food for months.
"[Shopping at] Banana Republic brought me to tears" getrichslowly.org/blog/2010/08/1…
@isomorphisms pants as in jeans or dress pants? To answer your question, yes.
@isomorphisms Best money to go after many of my retail friends would say.
Maybe it makes them feel good, or they do it as a way to socialise (if you don’t consider yourself rich but you’re reading this on a computer: do you socialise at bars or restaurants or just outside on the street? Why?), or maybe they’re bored. Whatever.
Clearly we can’t give Gemma £100 and give Laura £100,000 and conclude that Laura wanted the dress more because she paid more for it. It might be reasonable if both were in the same place with the same financial resources.
The mathematics behind the S&D graph aren’t that complicated. (It does require thought—but not years’ worth of thought—to understand the Marshallian model.) But still, I think because of the transition from English → maths → English, and the jargon words interposed with normal words, the overall rhetorical effect is to cover the obvious fact of inequality whilst redirecting attention to “optimal” (another jargon word budging in on the default namespace!) allocation.
The hypothesis of logarithmic utility per individual has been around since the 1700’s at least. (Implying €1000 means more to a poor person than to a rich person.) And yet people still use this fallacious reasoning that markets allocate goods to those who “want it the most”.
Sorry: willingness to pay is a function of both desire and of ability to pay.
"600 million Chinese living on $600/year, and they need to get those people to $2000/year"
"America is a democracy of common possession"
Nor would there be such an emphasis on mass culture. I guess the internet really has changed things.
God Bless the Child played by Eric Dolphy