[epistasis]

Wow, very interesting that GINI by individual is fairly constant.

However, household GINI is definitely the more relevant figure, as most big economic decisions (where to work, where to live) are made at the household level rather than at the individual level.

[breischl]

But the number of households is strongly influenced by people's personal social decisions such as divorce or living with relatives. Thus the household GINI is strongly influenced by people's personal decisions in addition to their economic circumstances.

More concretely, if I divorce my wife and we become two households does that mean that US economic inequality has increased? I would say not, but the household GINI would say that it has.

[Daishiman]

If social circumstances make for a increase in divorces or a change in the fundamental structure of the family, I don't see why it's not something to take into consideration beyond "personal decisions".

Could it be that conservatives might actually be right about that?

[alexeisadeski3]

The point is that it doesn't tell you anything about "wealth inequality" insofar as the socialists whom push this discussion want it to.

[Daishiman]

Since when is "wealth" inequality a "socialist" thing? It's a matter of such importance that The Economist considers it the most pressing issue in economics of our times.

There is also nothing "socialist" about the publication. And the fact that the stats may be skewed by certain underlying variables (like every other study on Earth, who knew) does not invalidate the findings, although it does invite for further refinement of the data for more conclusive information.

[epistasis]

I would say that yes, US economic inequality has increased, quite concretely! Unless you both have precisely the same income post-divorce, as a couple you were more equal than when single.

[alexeisadeski3]

>>However, household GINI is definitely the more relevant figure...

Not relevant to the point OP made.

Whether or not it's "better," it still impacts the numbers.