[smcl]

It's hard to take two numbers in isolation that we don't really use day to day and make any kind of sense of them. It's only when you graph a few countries together[0] that you see:

1. the US is somewhat of an outlier, while Germany is grouped together with other wealthy countries

2. the US' Gini has been steadily growing last few decades - implying inequality is getting worse

3. Germany's Gini is very slightly declining in the last few decades - implying it's staying roughly stable

I don't think higher-than-average is particularly good at all - you're in the neighbourhood of places like Qatar, Iran, DRC and Argentina. In fact the only way you'd use Gini to suggest the US has a ok level of wealth inequality is if you presented two countries Gini coefficients side-by-side to someone who doesn't normally think about Gini, presented them without any other context and said "look, they're kinda close"

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#/media/File:G...

[ch4s3]

What I'm getting at is that Germany isn't some paragon of equality, it's average. The US as I pointed out is skewed by the high number of staggeringly wealthy people and a trend of people moving from the lower to upper levels of what you might call middle class. In the US wealth held by people form 50% of the distribution up to 99% represents about $91T vs $18.2T for the top 0.1% and $4.4T for the bottom 50%. The coefficient really hides the vast middle and upper middle distribution in the US.

Also this obscures the fact that it is far better to be poor or working class in the US than somewhere with a similar Gini coefficient.

[smcl]

> The US as I pointed out is skewed by the high number of staggeringly wealthy people

I think you might want to lookup what Gini tries to measure. You used Gini as a way to suggest the USA isn't so bad, and now you're having to backpedal and say that actually Gini kinda sucks but the USA isn't so bad.

[ch4s3]

> You used Gini as a way to suggest the USA isn't so bad

No, I'm pointing out that at lot was being made of a small difference in a ratio that's really sensitive to marginal differences. I'm noting a marginal difference that makes the US look more different than other OCED nations than it is in fact and more like autocratic developing nations than it is in fact.

I'm also pointing out that it isn't a good measure at all. It's as coarse as GDP and more misleading.

[mmmmmbop]

A graph showing income inequality seems impractical when discussing wealth inequality.

[smcl]

Slip of the tongue (fingers?) when I was typing - the original figures ch4se gave were for income inequality so I stuck with that.

[ch4s3]

Well income is what gini measures and what the comment I was replying to[1] was referencing.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33530819

[mmmmmbop]

Sure, that makes sense. It's just worth noting that the U.S. are not an outlier amongst developed nations when looking at wealth inequality -- which, IMO, is the much more important metric.

[ch4s3]

Yes, that's part of my criticism for gini.