Talk:Economic inequality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 3 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shanakiraj (article contribs).

Inequality is decreasing according to Branco Milanovic

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)

How should the lead discuss optimal level of inequality?

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. [1] 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)

Well based on the discussion over there, it seems like most people would be ok with something similar to what they proposed: "The optimal amount of economic inequality is widely debated.", though for accuracy as Maltazarian correctly pointed out, that should be "It is widely debated whether an optimum level of economic inequality exists, and if so, what it would be and whether it is achievable." - or something like that.

(Side comment: I'm ok with your other removals.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

One person suggested that, yes, and another objected. I'd be okay with a reworked version being added back in but I think we need to be careful to actually summarize the section in the body that's being discussed. After thinking this through some more and looking over the literature, it seems to me that there really isn't much that actually sets or defends a specific "optimum". It seems rather that some scholars (often political philosophers) debate how best to conceive of and measure economic inequality––whether in terms of wealth, income, resources, capacities, etc.––with the broad and typically implicit assumption that maximal equality is normative, and others (often economists) stating that while income inequality is problematic when it is too extreme, some level of inequality is probably inevitable and even desirable. This latter argument often seems to ignore the nuance of the former, and in particular the real paradoxes raised by folks like Sen and those he's influenced. Lumping the two discourses together is difficult, but this SEP article makes an admirable attempt: "Normative Economics and Economic Justice". It could potentially serve to help expand the "Perspectives" section in the body, and possibly also construct a decent lead sentence. For a deeper dive into the epistemic problems inherent in measuring inequality, see "Measurement requires compromises: the case of economic inequality". Generalrelative (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)