I’ve been trying to calculate income disparity/inequality using the CIA World Factbook. I’ve been trying to figure out what the incomes are of the bottom 10% of a country by taking the GDP per capita, dividing by 100, and then multiplying by the percent of wealth the bottom 10% has.
So, to take Singapore as an example, I take $52,900, divide that by 100, and then multiply by 1.9. This gives me $1005.10. France, on the other hand, ends up having an income of only $981 for its bottom 10% even though their income inequality rates are nearly half of that of Singapore (which goes to show that redistributionist policies fail).
Is this correct? Thanks.
showing redistributionists that their methods don’t result in less income inequality is barking up the wrong tree. income inequality is a good thing. it means that the more productive people are actually keeping the results of their labor. some people actually are thousands of times more productive than others. income should reflect that in a healthy market.
It’s actually showing that countries with more capitalism and income inequality have wealthier poor people than countries with less capitalism and less income inequality.
Krazy Kaju, your argument is bound to backfire for you are acknowledging that income inequality matters.
I understand the argument. I’ve used it myself (in america poor people are fat) I just think it usually backfires.
If you, Nazgulnarsil, believe I was addressing you, I didn’t mean to, but was instead addressing the pursuit of the op; I’ll edit my post to make it more apparent.
I responded before reading your post.
I’m not saying that income inequality matters, I’m saying that the overall wealth of the rich and poor matter. So by showing that France has less income inequality but that the poor are poorer than in Singapore, which is more capitalistic and has more inequality, I am effectively showing the superiority of anti-redistributionist policies.