Income Inequality increased, nice call out on the Wall Street Journal

[Robert Oak]

Over on The Economic Populist is a great post calling out the Wall Street Journal.

For anyone with even a passing familiarity with issues associated with economic inequality, The Wall Street Journal front page story last week was shocking. Its use of bad data was a misuse of this important forum. In effect, the article says that economic inequality was never really a problem, and even if it is we no longer have to worry about it. These conclusions are just plain wrong.

This is in reference to the Wall Street Journal trying to claim income inequality "really isn't a problem"

In some eras, when America did well everyone did well. However, this has been far from true for the past thirty years. Moreover, as a result of the Great Recession we may have to worry more about economic inequality rather than less.

This is written by a Yale Business School senior fellow, so that's someone who believes in business and making buckos...and he's calling them out from economic theory and statistical analysis....not just yelling at them in some class warfare rant.

It's a must read.

The post is Economic Inequality: The Wall Street Journal is Just Wrong

raw link:

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/economic-inequality-wall-street-journal-just-wrong

[Jackpine Radical]

1. So income inequality is increasing. The rich are getting richer, the rest are getting poorer.

What's the problem? Surely this is a trend worthy of celebration by the readership of the WSJ, who are on the winning side of the class war rape.

[Robert Oak]

2. finance people do not like data manipulation

or spin. and, believe this or not, there are many in the world of business who do know executive compensation is out of control and yes they have no problems with people getting filthy rich for the most part...

but it's that super rich by merit vs. whatever you want to call the situation currently.

[SharonAnn]

3. Perhaps "super rich by merit" vs. "super rich by theft"?

[FBaggins]

6. This is somewhat surprising. Can anyone help me with a ?

I would assume that the market tumble would have (temporarily at least) softened some of the inequality as millionaires lost hundreds of thousands of dollars and people with no money in the markets lost nothing (assuming they didn't lost their jobs of course).

I guess it's all in what they consider "income" ???

[Jackpine Radical]

7. "Assuming they didn't lost their jobs"

is probably not a good assumption. Also, many have their retirement funds tied up in the market, so they too were vulnerable to the market dive. I know people in variable retirement plans, where their monthly income is tied to market performance, who had their monthly checks cut by 40%.

[bhikkhu]

4. Isn't this contradictory?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x69852

[Robert Oak]

5. that's the point WSJ is wrong

That's the point of the post, the WSJ is using statistical manipulation to claim income inequality isn't an issue, when a. it is
and b. it's just as bad as it always was.

This is a Yale Senior fellow calling out the WSJ, and his math, stats are correct!