Income inequality USA vs western EU

Forgot pic.

Attached: TheDude-1.jpg (394x406, 41K)

That's not my point.
The chart only shows wages difference between burger flippers and some high paid jobs. Only shows how EU cucks are underpaid on better jobs while everyone subsidizes burgerflippers -- i.e. communism 2.0

The second thing is, it doesn't include (((shareholders))) meaning it doesn't include people who don't work for a living -- i.e. passive income. So all the jews, roachschilds, EU aristocrats, etc. they all have WAY WAY higher income, than you'd think from this chart.

Well, I spotted the 1%. Nice try about the data, show something, if not, then words mean nothing. I thought your private education would have taught you about supporting your claims with data.

Attached: gini.png (1920x1080, 152K)

WORLD INEQUALITY REPORT 2018 for your interest.

Nigger look at wealth inequality rather than income inequality.
Income is only for one year, it isn't constant, wealth is a far better instrument to measure true inequality than income. I'm not part of the 1% by a longshot, I'll be in debt 60k after my master's degree in finance and prospects of salary as a starting professional after my degree are not higher than 45k before tax annually if I don't get into trading.

Sauce? If not then what you say is gibberish.

Venezuela is the country that reduced income inequality the most.

Income inequality mean shit , in the us middle class burgers can buy houses in republican states.
While even higher middle class can't buy shit in western europe this days or latin america welfare states.

Inequality is irrelevant unless it is caused by force or political titles creating artificial wealth through taxes and printing money.
What does matter is supply of things and the us is doing a much better work than welfare states in that , the average middle class burger can buy cars , houses and things like that way more than the average european.

And the few places in the us were that is no longer possible are those that want to be europe 2.0 like california or new york.

Attached: 1564016939585.jpg (683x720, 148K)

Your source is a fucking garbage so is this thread, nigger.

They didn't teach how to research info in your highschool? Also, learn a bit of statistics and data analysis, your "data"don't mean what you think.

Sorry, I am OP but from my phone now. I am the only one in this thread to post any data so maybe you should be the one to post any data of your own...

Here you go fag

researchgate.net/publication/318797728_Wealth_Inequality_in_the_Netherlands_c_1950-2015_The_Paradox_of_a_Northern_European_Welfare_State/link/5a2fa58d0f7e9bfe81705cfb/download

It is inherently a bad thing

Pic related is small, lower-mid middle class hotel room in America.

Attached: Marriott.jpg (3000x2080, 543K)

Kek. They really should remove banks from that list. After 2008, they shouldn't be allowed to be called best performing anything. Give it 10-20 more years, and maybe we'll let them back on.

>income inequality

>According to the Global Rich List, a website that brings awareness to worldwide income disparities, an income of $32,400 a year will allow you to make the cut. $32,400 amounts to roughly:

>28,614 euros
>2.307 million Indian rupees
>218,532 Chinese yuan

>So if you’re an accountant, a registered nurse or even an elementary school teacher, congratulations. The average wage for any of these careers falls well within the top 1 percent worldwide.
investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp

Spain, have you woken up from your delusional dream? I mean look at all that income inequality.

Regulated vs UN regulated

Attached: MW-GD574_CPICha_20180212131601_NS.png (1200x1714, 195K)

1- lack of constant and solid data for trend analysis in this paper, although still interesting enough.
2- as you say wealth is much more stable therefore it is hard to redistribute that wealth without going full authoritarian gov.
3- income inequality would be nice if you used it to reshuffle the wealth distribution however it shows that the wealthiest (1%) are still getting favored by this income inequality therefore disallowing the wealth inequality change.

Mmmmmmmm comparing 1%worldwide vs 1% in your country or within countries of your same development level. Nice try, keep searching data.

>Lack of constant and solid data for trend analysis

You could say the same about your paper too. Literally all economic data is almost all the time non-stationary if you don't adjust it to either a logarithmic scale or make it into growth rates.

I'm not saying wealth inequality is bad or income inequality is bad, take the argument to the extreme, would it really be good for people of there was no inequality whatsoever? I think the answer is in the negative.

The reason for this growing inequality is not a lack of government interference but rather too much. Central banks that have lowered interest rates since 2011, taxes that went up since the same time that hurt the middle class the most.
Also restrictions on new supply of housing aren't helping the middle class either.

Redistribution isn't the answer and only amplifies the problem, either through income or wealth inequality

there is no point trying to argue with burgers they are completely brainwashed and will defend their masters to death.
you are talking about people who happily cut their sons dicks because some small hats from a middle eastern desert cult told them its good for them.

>Even though I'm actually super fucking rich compared to literally everyone else everywhere, I'm still not satisfied because I'm not the 1% of the 1% of the 1% of the 1%

That’s what happens when you have minimum wage controls.

>our bottom 15% is wealthier than your top 15%

Attached: 2D1AE34B-879B-4B9F-ADC3-B5E5676F215E.png (1110x1092, 46K)

Wealth is built over multiple generations. Get over it. If you're poor, start planning and working hard and teaching your kids right so that before you die you can see your grandkids be born into wealth.
However , you , yourself will never be able to enjoy any of it and should you choose to splurge , you just guaranteed your progeny to a life of poverty.

>assuming wealth must be equal
where does this come from? nothing is equal in nature. why should man be any different?

Most of america works at a taco bell, the ones who actually have a trade like my highly experienced machinist friend can barely feed a wife and 2 kids, there is no escape from this jew slaveship you fucking idiot we have to take the money back

Does this guy not know that purchasing power is relative? You don't compare completely separate countries. It's about the ratio of income inequality.

If you're not trolling, you're probably the dumbest guy I've seen on here for weeks

Attached: jazzmusicstops.jpg (600x800, 52K)

Let alone the fact that you supply the staggering evidence of a single job.

Attached: headache.jpg (640x960, 84K)

why shouldn't people that make more, make more FAG?

Funny joke fail?
Lmao@shills

>I’m too stupid to make money, so gibs me dat

Im in the top 1%, it fucking rules

Fair enough, I was never stating that there should not be some sort of communist authoritarian system. In my fair opinion it is a mixture between intervention and free market that should allow for the best combination of competitivity and social wealth.
The world as you say needs inequality, the problem is how much of it. There is needed in a capitalist system to have some rich enough to generate companies and investments, but if that means that people life miserably then it is not ok.
On top of that I do not agree with the inequality improved by government intervention, this usually happens in regimes were the governing class abuses the citizens but on the other hand a neoliberal system that allows a monopoly would generate inequality as well. A meddle point between them is the way to go.

*there should be some sort of

>this is all fine

Attached: 1542880853036.jpg (1024x780, 120K)

Attached: 1542880835459.jpg (1024x756, 114K)

Attached: 1542880817389.jpg (1024x759, 86K)

Attached: 1542880870288.jpg (1024x749, 97K)

Your argument doesn't say anything about wealth distribution or income distribution, there is a difference between absolute and relative data. You may have the richest companies but that does not imply that the average citizen enjoys from that wealth.

>but but I pay less for services provided by other poorfags and but more every imported good!
Don’t forget that’s after you pay a higher income tax % and a higher sales tax on everything.

Attached: 9FC7F23D-D56C-446C-B871-67540EF7BE54.png (554x401, 19K)

My argument says that because everyone in Europe is poor there's no inequality.

The thing is that either through taxes and then public services or by the lack of taxes and then competitive private prices the problem is the same. To ensure that there is a healthy balance between "rich" and "poor" people. It a matter of balance, if you have higher salaries but higher taxes it could be the same as lower salary but lower taxes. The issue is, do the people have acces to basic human needs like medicine or education? Because those can be supplied by either public or private services, the point is when that access can be achieved by a lot or by just a few. Learn about the economic difference between private and social cost with Pareto optimal point (just so you have the basics).

Instead of bait posts you should start reading a bit about politics and economics and get a formed opinion about this stuff, then maybe you can talk with proper arguments in future discussions.

yet french socialists keep complaining that rich people earn too much

You should really get out of the notion that life is a zero sum game, where if one man benefits another must lose something. It's not true that life is a zero sum game, if that were the case ones life standard could only be improved by lowering that of another, which historically and empirically obviously is not the case.

>I don't agree with inequality improved by government
Look at the systems that have a higher degree of government intervention; wealth, income and most importantly of all social inequality is greatest in those countries that emphasize "equality" above all and by all means. For people to become more equal in an end result way of thinking, you need some people to be more equal than others in that phrasing, since you need to take from some to give to others. Now that is actually a zero sum game.

Mate, just mentioning inequality in some forms is by no means being well read on economics and politics. I have a degree in economics and econometrics and have done plenty of academic research about the causes of inequality o both wealth and income and the vast majority comes from government regulation that tries to help the middle class but always results in benefiting the upper classes and hurting the middle class in the long run. For example, helping people to buy a house sounds nice, if you believe that house prices will always increase in real terms which is definitely not the case at all. But even if that were the case, you'd help the people who are buying a house now, but hurting the people who want to in the future, since they'll be faced with artificially increased prices on houses because of these subsidies which will hurt the future middle class in the end.

>the 1 %
Cool it with the anti-Semitic remarks

Attached: The 1 pct.jpg (4032x3024, 1.5M)

the irony of spain posting this

Attached: 1549469132594.jpg (1776x1664, 844K)

What the ECB is doing is not at all refusing banks to loan more to people, they try to do the opposite, unlike the fed had in mind in the 1930s which amplified the crisis and made it longer than it should have been.
Also the gold standard played a major role in this catastrophe which isn't a problem today thank god.

Don't forget France is exposed to the Italian bond market by almost 300 billion euros, Germany was heavily tied to Greek and Spanish bonds etc. It's in the Germans and French own interests to keep the euro alive and to continuously extend the maturities on new securities issued for the southern European countries. If they fail, the rest will fail too with even worse consequences.

It is true that sometimes is easy to fall for the falacy that when someone wins another one loses.

About the high government intervention, it is true, I'm not saying equality should be the ultimate goal, that is not what I said. But it should be balanced so people have some sort of standards (or more commonly known as human rights).

I was pointing out that the answer about the top 10 companies is obviously bait and you know it. I was not saying I am an expert but I did economics at the university (4 subjects from my main degree and worked 2 years in a economic research group specialized in social and environmental economics). So I learned a bit about it and looked to objective information about the topic.

Finally about the house issue, it is true that artificially altering the housing prices is dangerous (as altering prices for everything is dangerous) but it is also dangerous to let it set freely because someone can abuse the system and generate a monopoly. Maybe you also should check your biases and dogmatic ideas that the market balances everything perfectly when it runs free.

Ad hominem

Well, yeah... What's your point?

>Proper arguments
I already gave an argument you but you refuse to address it. Do you know why inequality in Afghanistan is lower than in SIngapore?

If nobody in your country produces anything of value, inequality is lower. That's why Europe's inequality is lower than the US.

If you look empirically the vast majority of real monopolies only came to existence because of some government intervention granting one company favours over others.
The housing market has no monopoly and never has had a monopoly. You wouldn't believe how many regulations there are on the new supply of houses and the maximum rent you're allowed to ask on houses, which indirectly restricts the supply of new houses aside from social housing.
You're assuming I'm biased yet I'm only giving you real examples of governments doing things out of good intentions but having a bad result almost always. Where markets fail, there is need for intervention, but you fail to realize that intervention experiences failures as well, even more so than the failures it's trying to solve.

Well, I don't think the EU produces nothing, here some data from the mom industrial production EU vs USA. Surely USA is more stable and higher but EU in that sense is not insignificant.

Attached: united-states-industrial-production.png (730x340, 28K)

I agree with everything except the last part after "even more so than the failures..." more or less failure is not a quantitative answer that I can compare with other sources. Also it could be seen as those companies were influential (or rich) enough that they could get those benefits from the government (and of course get on top of the other companies because it would maximize their benefits compared to the competence). However I appreciate that you support this thread with decent argumentation now that you don't call me nigger or fag any longer (and now that I don't use any longer the easy argument of calling you part of the 1% although it was satirical when I said it)