From distance you can't see incomes of most, black line looks like crack on floor.
Then we get to the right looking like small stain sharply rising to ceiling.
Wall grows in height & length.
I add graphic which has 99.89% of painted wall remaining - my estimated level of UK inequality.
Ask economist under oath: Inequality worsening is mathematical certainty: If wealth/income at higher percentiles grows at a faster rate than lower percentiles (which is empirically true), then the absolute gap between them must increase exponentially over time. No metric can change this reality - Gini coefficient 'stability' simply means the metric is obscuring exponential divergence. This is not debatable mathematics.
Do you accept this, or will you try to misdirect with statistical measures that hide growth rate differentials?
I appreciate how you pass the message that a well-crafted graph asks an important question! When I work with STEM professionals I see how they mainly use graphs only to tell but not to ask. I think it’s important to do both.
Looking forward to the conversation today and such amazing visualizations of measuring inequality. Fascinating to see how things have changed
My twitter/ X version of Pen's Parade:
Imagine massive wall as chart of UK population.
Income on y & x people ordered by income.
From distance you can't see incomes of most, black line looks like crack on floor.
Then we get to the right looking like small stain sharply rising to ceiling.
Wall grows in height & length.
I add graphic which has 99.89% of painted wall remaining - my estimated level of UK inequality.
Ask economist under oath: Inequality worsening is mathematical certainty: If wealth/income at higher percentiles grows at a faster rate than lower percentiles (which is empirically true), then the absolute gap between them must increase exponentially over time. No metric can change this reality - Gini coefficient 'stability' simply means the metric is obscuring exponential divergence. This is not debatable mathematics.
Do you accept this, or will you try to misdirect with statistical measures that hide growth rate differentials?
I appreciate how you pass the message that a well-crafted graph asks an important question! When I work with STEM professionals I see how they mainly use graphs only to tell but not to ask. I think it’s important to do both.