I should have said real per person income instead of growth rate,
but they are in the same ball park:
I subsequently found, in a followup email,
that although the gini factor shows inequality
in the USA to becoming greater, the effect
over the last 40 years (gini up by a factor
of 1.17) is small in comparison to the
inflation-adjusted GDP per person (up by a
factor of 3.3) and inflation-adjusted per person
income (up by a factor of about 2.5).
So, taking the least figure, while the gini
increased by 17%, the income increased by
about 250%, or greater than ten times the
increase in gamma. So we're all doing much better.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
Time: 2012-12-17, 20:13:12
Subject: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/17/2012 1:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
But if the gini coefficient can actually change the growth rate, artificially
the gini coefficient by increased taxation of the rich (redistributing the
hurts the growth rate, so we all get poorer.
A Reaganomics myth. It wasn't true in the 1950's and it isn't true now.
Where's your data.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at