Talk:Wealth inequality in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RAND study[edit]

Regarding this revert, @Avatar317: here are some secondary sources covering the RAND report:

  1. https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/ (sans paywal)
  2. https://www.marketplace.org/2020/12/08/new-rand-study-quantifies-cost-of-rising-us-inequality/
  3. https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-study-uncovers-massive-income-shift-to-the-top-1
  4. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1nb5f92v (peer reviewed, see footnote 28 on p. 237)
  5. https://www.davidpublisher.com/index.php/Home/Article/index?id=47333.html (peer reviewed, see footnote 7 on p. 505)

I am happy to rewrite the three sentences out of Wikipedia's WP:VOICE to make it clear they are summarizing the report instead of reflecting secondary peer reviewed sources. Is that acceptable?

I'm also curious as to whether you would have any issues with including the wealth inequality informatiion in https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality (About CPBB)? Sandizer (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar317 states that the RAND study is a primary source but it isn't. The source is a reliable secondary source and as stated here [1]: This research was funded by the Fair Work Center and conducted by RAND Education and Labor. This working paper is under review with a scholarly journal; although most RAND working papers are not subject to formal peer-review, this work has in fact completed RAND’s full research quality assurance and peer-review process. (emphasis included on the RAND page). I don't see any good reason not to include this so I've restored the edit. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 20:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so now that I've had a chance to look at the 5 secondary sources, you are right, the sourcing for this is fine, RAND is cited in the secondary sources.
BUT - this study and all secondary sources linked above describe this as an INCOME inequality issue NOT a WEALTH inequality issue, and therefore irrelevant to THIS article. We have an article named Income inequality in the United States so this content could go there.
For the CBPP source Sandizer linked in the last sentence: unless you can find secondary sources, "The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) is a progressive American think tank" so that is NOT a Reliable Source in itself. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The $50 trillion and other cumulative results refer to wealth, not income. Sandizer (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From your Time source above: "A staggering $50 trillion. That is how much the upward redistribution of income has cost American workers over the past several decades." ---Avatar317(talk) 00:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wealth is NOT income. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the MarketPlace.org source: "“Trends in Income From 1975 to 2018” (name of the RAND report) looked at inequality in two ways: income distribution over a 45-year period and income growth in relation to broader economic growth, " ---Avatar317(talk) 00:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being pedantic. It's WP:CK common knowledge that income is the source of wealth, and it seems absurd to talk about a $50 trillion difference over generations as income instead of the mathematically equivalent wealth difference, but if you insist that the passage be moved then I would rather not argue about it. But why are you also removing the Picchi and World Inequality Report summaries? Sandizer (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with what you call "common knowledge" is that "common knowledge" is often "common misconception" or "common misunderstanding" as you are demonstrating here. When low-income people gain income, they generally spend ALL of that new income (adding to short term economic growth) and save NOTHING, which means that they accumulate ZERO wealth. When higher-income people make more money (like reduced tax that would have been transferred to low-income earners) they SAVE some portion of it, which adds to their wealth. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, but I think it's an overgeneralization to say low-income earners won't save with more pay just because they haven't been able to with less. Sandizer (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I realized that I should have also included in my paragraph above this better explanation: the data shows that as you go up the income ladder, households save greater PERCENTAGES of their incomes. ---Avatar317(talk) 20:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Economics of Social Justice and Injustice[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tyoung02 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by RJDenmark (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Happiness Report[edit]

If we are to cite the report, I suggest we use the actual report as the reference [2]. But the original report itself cites only income inequality for the most part. There is only one mention of wealth inequality in policy implications, and the quote in the article from the report's author does not mention wealth equality at all. JonSnow64 (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the material to Economic inequality and updated it for that article. It seems better suited there.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I would still suggest using the original UN report as the reference. JonSnow64 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States&oldid=1210780428"