I Dream of GINI. Why so many people vote Democrat. Half of us are below average. OK, maybe only 47%

American Thinker ^ | 10/19/2012 | Randall Hoven

[SeekAndFind]

Imagine you are young and unattached -- unattached from everything: family, friends, country. A Martian takes you up in his spaceship and offers to set you down in one of two countries where you will have to make your way in life. All he tells you is that the average income in Country A is $49,000 and that of Country B is $40,900. You would probably pick A, right? It's 20% richer.

Now, what if your Martian host offered a bit more information? He gives you the distribution of incomes in those same two countries. In fact, he shows you this graph.



It looks like country A is still the preferred choice if you expect to be in the top half of the population. But if you expect to be in the bottom half, Country B looks more attractive.

Now your choice depends. It depends on where you see yourself with respect to the rest of the population. If you think you're above average, you'd pick Country A; if you think you're below average, you'd pick Country B, even though the average income of Country A is 20% higher. (All else equal, of course.)

Now think of yourself as a voter in Country A. Would you vote to continue your own country's economic policies, or would you vote for policies that would make your country more like Country B? Again, if you are in the top half, you'd prefer the status quo, but if in the bottom half, you'd want to be more like Country B (again, all else equal).

In fact, Country A is the U.S., and Country B is Sweden.

[SeekAndFind]

Sweden is not all that representative of Europe and should not be compared to a country the size of the U.S. For one thing, Sweden's population (9 million) is not even 3% that of the U.S. The U.S. has 10 states with larger populations. A better comparison with the U.S. (314 million) would be to France (64 million) or to the European Union as a whole (503 million). Here are those comparisons.



France is fairly representative of the EU as a whole. The top three quintiles are generally better off in the U.S. than in France or the EU. All else equal, one would expect the majority of voters in the U.S., about 60% of them, to want to keep U.S. economic policies as opposed to adopting France's or the EU's.

The key concept here is the possible explanation of why a certain segment of the population would be willing to accept a smaller GDP, meaning a less wealthy nation overall, if that wealth were spread more evenly. We as a country are about 20% to 40% richer than Sweden, France, and the EU. But about 40% to 50% of us would be better off, as individuals, with the economy of one of those other countries (all else equal).

[ClearCase_guy]

Look at the "Obama Phone" lady. She's pretty clearly a couple standard deviations below normal. I'm guessing her IQ is in the low 70s. Pretty safe to say that she would choose Country B -- but I don't imagine she could find Sweden, France, or Europe on a map.

[skeeter]

Forget all the BS about fairness, justice and equality - people vote their own economic interests, period.

Republicans rely on their own industry, democrats rely on the industry of others.

[Nervous Tick]

A novel and cool way of looking at this issue!

Thanks!

[ken in texas]

The “Obama Phone” lady would probably choose A because she prefers that line’s color.

[MrB]

Great... you’re promoting “The Bell Curve”...
What’s next?
The Turner Diaries?
The Origin of Species (by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)

:)

[vortec94]

Averages are misleading by nature. The graphs illustrate that. Must also use “median” as well as the “mean”

[FRForever]

Also be aware that the graph is a factually incorrect depiction of income. Towards the right end, up to about 80% it’s right, but the income curve takes a hockey-stick jump somewhere in the 90’s. At 95% the real curve is off this chart, and at 98% it’s well off the top of your computer screen.

[DrC]

Great analysis. Part of what made American “exceptional” historically was that regardless of their current position in the income distribution, most Americans saw the U.S. as a land of opportunity where hard work could get them into the top half of the income distribution. Consequently, there was not a lot of resentment of the rich or eagerness to redistribute their wealth. Barack Obama has done his level-headed best to sow class envy and to convince people that the government should protect them from the vicissitudes of life, all on grounds of “fairness.”

[Opinionated Blowhard]

This article doesn’t even really tell the true story. You have to look at the income dynamic over time. Its the classic case of the developing Capitalist economy. If your income was $10,0000 per year in 1950, would you rather have it be $20,000 per year in 1970 or $25,000 per year in 1970? The answer is easy.

However, now superimpose this graph over that decision. Would you rather have your income be $20,000 per year if the highest income in the country was $70,000 per year, or would you rather have your income be $25,000 per year if the highest income in the country was $200,000 per year?

[central_va]

Most people move up, to the right. Heck I started at 0 and now I am at the 95th percentile according to this graph. THIS PREMISE IS FALSE, there is MOVEMENT both up and down the scale in the USA. In Sweden not so much probably. The chick hotness factor is more important quality of life issue in Sweden.

[immadashell]

Let's get Soetoro installed as King of Country B. (He'd really like that)

[Buckeye McFrog]

Is that spread between $30-40K REALLY enough to sway that many people?

[mosaicwolf]

It all boils down to two words. Personal insecurity. It is learned early as a child by poor parenting skills then reinforced in the public school system. Most of these people are comfortable as parasites. Once they hit an absolute bottom and must relay on themselves for survival the process reverses. Look at the great depression. That era created a much stronger self reliant individual. Today however, the government policies will eventually kill the host.

[Feckless]

And here is where the DemonRatz “Victim” strategy comes into play. Convince people that the deck is stacked against them because they are ______ (fill in the blank)and they will always be on the losing end.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Also be aware that the graph is a factually incorrect depiction of income. Towards the right end, up to about 80% it’s right, but the income curve takes a hockey-stick jump somewhere in the 90’s.

If you read the article through to the end, the author states that it's an approximation. He also shows the actual IRS data graph, which does have that hockey stick at the end (as it would have to for a power law distribution).

[MrB]

David Kupelian’s “How Evil Works” goes into why this is an effective strategy.

People WANT to be told that their less than optimal situation is not of their own making, and politicians take advantage of this desire to not take responsibility.

[MattinNJ]

Great post. You also have to figure in “guilt”. I know many wealthy individuals that think it is only fair that wealth be redistributed. I always tell them to feel free to send more money in on their own and to leave mine alone but to no avail.

[MattinNJ]

Great post. You also have to figure in “guilt”. I know many wealthy individuals that think it is only fair that wealth be redistributed. I always tell them to feel free to send more money in on their own and to leave mine alone but to no avail.