• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

income inequality debate

I didn't know where to post this, but I think it works here. tl;dr --> I bolded some of the points that I found particularly interesting.

Same income, different neighborhood:

In the figure below, each line describes the median neighborhood income for the typical household of a particular race/ethnicity at any given income level. On the x-axis is the household’s own income and on the y-axis is the median income in its neighborhood (specifically, its census tract). The median Black household in the U.S. (the circle on the red line) has an income of roughly $35,000 and typically lives in a neighborhood with a median income of about $38,500. The median White household (the circle on the blue line) has an income of roughly $59,000 and typically lives in a neighborhood with a median income of $54,000. That is, the typical White household is in a neighborhood with a median income 40% higher (or roughly $15,500 higher) than that of the typical Black household.

This difference is perhaps not surprising, given that Black households have lower incomes than White households on average. More striking, however, is that most of the difference remains even when comparing Black and White households with the same income. The average spread between the red and blue lines is about $10,500, meaning that two-thirds of the $15,500 Black-White neighborhood income gap is not accounted for by Black-White differences in household income. Similarly, two-thirds of the $10,000 White-Hispanic difference in neighborhood median incomes remains when comparing households of the same income.

Another implication of this figure is that poor Whites typically live in richer neighborhoods than middle-income Blacks and Hispanics. The average White household with an annual household income of just $25,000 lives in a neighborhood where the median income is $47,000 – higher than in the neighborhoods of the typical middle-income Black and Hispanic households earning $50,000/year.

Patterns of differences in neighborhood racial composition are equally striking. The figure below provides an illustration of the degree of racial segregation even among households with the same incomes. For example, regardless of their income, White households live, on average, in neighborhoods that are 80% White (see the lower-right panel of the figure), while Black and Hispanic households generally live in neighborhoods that are roughly 35%-50% White. The figure makes clear that the racial composition of one’s neighbors depends much more on one’s race than on one’s income. So while racial residential segregation has been decreasing over the past few decades, it still remains high, and very little of it can be explained by racial differences in income levels.

The figures above reflect national trends, but these disparities also vary considerably by place. We looked within metropolitan areas and found wide variation in neighborhood gaps by race and income. The Milwaukee and Newark metros have the largest Black-White neighborhood gaps. On average, White middle-income households in those metros live in neighborhoods where the median income is 1.8 times higher than Black households of similar incomes – and that ratio doesn’t change much at different income levels. Most of the other metro areas with large Black-White neighborhood disparities are in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Likewise, all of the 10 metropolitan areas with the largest White-Hispanic neighborhood income gaps are in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania. The Hartford, CT metropolitan area has the largest White-Hispanic disparity. There, White households making $50,000 typically live in neighborhoods where the median income is 1.7 times higher than Hispanic households making $50,000. These disparities exist in most metropolitan areas, but in a few, there is little or no difference in median neighborhood income between households of different races/ethnicities but the same income. These are largely places with small minority populations and low levels of racial segregation.

What drives these patterns? An extensive existing body of research suggests a number of causes: racial differences in wealth and assets, continued discrimination in the housing market, residential preferences (which are themselves partly a legacy of past racial hostility and discrimination), and the location of affordable and subsidized housing. Each of these has been shown to contribute to patterns of racial segregation, net of income differences.

Should we worry about these patterns? If we are concerned about equality of opportunity, the answer is yes. Considerable evidence, including new evidence from the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program, shows that growing up in a poor neighborhood does lasting harm to children’s opportunity for success. Poor neighborhoods are more likely than middle-class neighborhoods to have lower-quality schools and child-care centers, higher rates of crime and violence, and less access to healthy food. In the MTO study, moving to a neighborhood with a 20 percentage point lower poverty rate led, on average, to 31% higher earnings, a 33% increase in college going, and a substantial decrease in single motherhood.

Consequently, the large racial differences in neighborhood conditions we and others have described mean that Black and Hispanic children face a double disadvantage – not only do their families have, on average, fewer economic resources than White children, but their neighborhoods are more disadvantaged as well. Segregation—particularly the racial disparities in neighborhood economic conditions—is therefore an agent of unequal opportunity.

If you want to see the figures, then check out the link above.
 
Mayweather earned more in 36 minutes than Duncan has earned during his entire career:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/mayweathers-money-no-surprise/vi-AAcrXBT?ocid=iehp

Hillary earns more per hour than America's top 10 highest paid corporate executives:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...ore-than-americas-top-10-ceos/article/2563275

Chelsea only draws $65k/speech at public universities, instead of $275k like her middle-class warrior mom:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...918e42-1e78-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61_story.html
 
Last edited:
Hillary earns more than the executives while she is giving a speech. They earn that amount every hour 40 hours per week.
 
Hillary earns more than the executives while she is giving a speech. They earn that amount every hour 40 hours per week.

The graphic is interactive. You can compare, hourly, daily and weekly. On a daily basis, she earns more than all but one.

That raises another interesting question on income inequality - if Hillary gave one speech next year for $275k, should she pay the same tax rate as someone earning $275k through 2000+ hours of work?
 
hill dog gets what people pay her

I think that's what the call "the market."

It's a weird angle for Republicans to use to attack Hillary, especially considering much of the field is running so they could get similar paydays.
 
I think that's what the call "the market."

It's a weird angle for Republicans to use to attack Hillary, especially considering much of the field is running so they could get similar paydays.

It is not considered "the market" if paying that money for a speech may get the most powerful woman in the country to look favorably on your favorite legislation should she get elected.

Not a whole lot of true market forces involved with politicians.
 
Yeah, that's news to me that the market doesn't include buying influence.
 
It's a market all right. Just not what is referred to as a free market in reference to economics. I am sure there is a market for influence peddling and corruption as well as outright crime. Hell, everything is a market in that sense.
 
So what is actually a free market nowadays? There are no virgins in macroeconomics.
 
It's a market all right. Just not what is referred to as a free market in reference to economics. I am sure there is a market for influence peddling and corruption as well as outright crime. Hell, everything is a market in that sense.

I'm pretty sure it is what's referred to as a free market. There's limited to no regulation which is why this is permitted.
 
It is not considered "the market" if paying that money for a speech may get the most powerful woman in the country to look favorably on your favorite legislation should she get elected.

Not a whole lot of true market forces involved with politicians.

um, the market in this instance is "public speaking appearances" and she's charging what the market will pay.
 
It's like watching watching blind people try to describe color to other blind people.
 
It's like watching watching blind people try to describe color to other blind people.

You could have just gone with "the blind leading the blind."
 
Knowell doesn't know what free market means and Jh might still not know what NSF means

Step it up guys
 
Last edited:
It's like watching watching blind people try to describe color to other blind people.

A decides to pay B in the sum of X amount for the value of B's services. They're permitted to do so in the private sector of a country without government intervention or (much) regulation. That's a free market if I've ever heard of one.

You seem to be pretty libertarian on economics as well do you not subscribe to the theory of let the market regulate itself "freely?"
 
Back
Top