Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The inequality income metric should be independent of the aggregate level of income. This may be stated as: = where α is a positive real number. Population independence Similarly, the income inequality metric should not depend on whether an economy has a large or small population.
Income inequality rose from 1913 to peaks in 1926 (1928 Gini 48.9, 1936 Gini 45.5) and 1941 (Gini 43.1), after which war-time measures of the Roosevelt administration began to equalize the income distribution. [20] Social Security was enacted in 1935.
States and territories are sorted by the share of the lowest quintile in aggregate household income, i.e. the share of household income of 20% of the poorest households in the total household income. Due to different methodologies by which the United States Census Bureau and the EPI have calculated their results, the data should not be compared.
Illustration from a 1916 advertisement for a vocational school in the back of a US magazine. Education has been seen as a key to socioeconomic mobility, and the advertisement appealed to Americans' belief in the possibility of self-betterment as well as threatening the consequences of downward mobility in the great income inequality existing during the Industrial Revolution.
The curve is a graph showing the proportion of overall income or wealth assumed by the bottom x% of the people, although this is not rigorously true for a finite population (see below). It is often used to represent income distribution, where it shows for the bottom x% of households, what percentage (y%) of the total
The Italian statistician Corrado Gini developed the Gini coefficient and published it in his 1912 paper Variabilità e mutabilità (English: variability and mutability). [16] [17] Building on the work of American economist Max Lorenz, Gini proposed using the difference between the hypothetical straight line depicting perfect equality and the actual line depicting people's incomes as a measure ...
For =, (no aversion to inequality), the marginal social welfare from income is invariant to income, i.e. marginal increases in income produce as much social welfare whether they go to a poor or rich individual. In this case, the welfare equivalent equally distributed income is equal to mean income, and the Atkinson index is zero.
While pre-tax income is the primary driver of income inequality, the less progressive tax code further increased the share of after-tax income going to the highest income groups. For example, had these tax changes not occurred, the after-tax income share of the top 0.1% would have been approximately 4.5% in 2000 instead of the 7.3% actual figure.