Talk:Economic inequality

Lede seems very wordy and pedantic. Should the definition of economic inequality be summarized?

I was thinking about paraphrasing to the following:

Economic inequality is the gap between the rich and poor, usually measuring the differences in income, wealth or consumption.

And then adding the rest of the lede:

Each of these can be measured between two or more nations, within a single nation, or between and within sub-populations (such as within a low-income group, within a high-income group and between them, within an age group and between inter-generational groups, within a gender group and between them etc, either from one or from multiple nations).[2], yada, yada, yada.

2601:C2:0:73B9:E9D3:3BC8:3C31:1C26 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

According to Branko Milanović global inequality is now decreasing.

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/959251468176687085/pdf/wps6259.pdf

https://x.com/BrankoMilan/status/1743715516135379039 176.99.223.62 (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Currently the lead states: there is a near-universal belief that complete economic equality (Gini of zero) would be undesirable and unachievable (emphasis added). I believe that this is both verifiably false and that it misrepresents the content of the article. To correct this problem, I recently revised the language of the lead to summarize the key message section on Socialism, citing an SEP article on Marx. (Note that I made an error in my edit summary, incorrectly stating that the claim failed verification; that's my bad, the cited source is just parochial). I was reverted by Avatar317, who stated in their edit summary that Karl Marx's writings are NON-mainstream economics. Sure, but my edit made clear that I was placing this debate in the context of political philosophy, which is certainly a mainstream academic domain within which economic inequality is discussed, and in that domain the socialist view that economic inequality can and should be eliminated is certainly a mainstream perspective among others. I will note as well that the goal of a maximally egalitarian distribution of resources has also been endorsed by major non-socialist philosophers like Ronald Dworkin. Suffice it to say, I think that something like the language I sought to add should be restored in the interest of NPOV, i.e.

The optimum amount of economic inequality is a widely debated topic in political philosophy. While some social theorists have argued for the creation of a classless society in which all people are social and economic equals, others believe that complete economic equality would be either undesirable or unachievable.

Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

You seem to base your desired text on your opinion withOUT any sources supporting that statement, other than random cherry-picked ones like the Dworkin one you list.

The source which supports the last lead statement is an OVERVIEW of the subject: "Abstract: Increasing economic inequality in recent years has triggered an outpouring of analysis and reflection on the causes and consequences of these changes. Several commentators have argued that inequality does not merit all the attention it has been receiving noting that the focus on inequality can divert attention from the real problem, which is poverty. This article reviews the arguments for and against this position, highlighting the effects of economic inequality on economic growth and efficiency, politics and democracy, individual behaviors that result in poor health outcomes and social disruption, social cohesion, and environmental degradation. Poverty is, of course, a very important social issue but this review of the arguments about inequality shows that economic inequality in itself is also an important social ill that should be addressed."

Re-reading the abstract, and comparing to the "Effects" section in our article, the last lead paragraph includes: "Research has generally linked economic inequality to political and social instability, including revolution, democratic breakdown and civil conflict. Research suggests that greater inequality hinders economic growth and macroeconomic stability, and that inequality of land and human capital reduce growth more than inequality of income." but lacks a statement talking about EI's SOCIAL and INDIVIDUAL level effects; we could add a sentence covering that, summarizing those elements in the "Effects" section. (social cohesion, health, etc.)

But the statement you are viewing as "parochial" is a paraphrase of the LAST SENTENCES of the source's conclusion It is important to note that virtually no-one believes complete equality in the distribution of income and wealth is a desirable state of affairs. There is no clear agreement that an optimal level of inequality would be achieved at some given value for the Gini coefficient but there does appear to be widespread agreement that a value of zero would be unsuitable as well as impossible to achieve.

Our last lead paragraph explains FIRST all the problems with EI, and LASTLY points out that no-one thinks it should be zero, as this author who did a survey of the field in 2017 makes a special point to make.

Sure, maybe Marx thought it should be zero, OVER 150 YEARS AGO, and some modern fringe "thinkers", but the scholars who study how economies actually work have an almost universal agreement otherwise. (though they don't know what "optimum" level is, and we state that.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:12, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems we're stuck at the level of intuition swapping. I'll post over at NPOVN to see if a wider sampling of the community can help move the conversation forward. Generalrelative (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2026 (UTC)