Inequality Measurments Difficult : Progessive Agenda Understand This

This is politics as usual for the progressive socialist democrats - decrying one class is being held down by another is 'class warfare' and used as a tool by the democrats as a wedge issue for the next elections.

That the inequality between classes and genders is actually hard to accurately measure is all the better for democrats, as is makes it easier to disguise the true intent of their agenda for pitting one group against another for gathering votes.

Getting votes for election is a science that has been honed by democrats to such a sharpe edge that most individual citizens are left dazzled and confused as to what they should do. Democrat rely on the average citizens not paying attention to situations and circumstances happening around them. Most democrat voters have always relied on what the party members are telling them as the truth. Little wonder they are easily motivated to vote democrat. 

Republicans efforts, on the other hand, to get votes for their campaigns pails by comparison, as they rely on the publics ability to make rational decisions concerning their own well being. This of course is a losing strategy as the last two elections for president have shown. In the face of absolute failures of all aspects of the democrats agendas, the voter still voted for more failure.

Will this next election be different, hope spring eternal that the catastrophic failures now are so huge that they will be enough to convince even the most dedicated democrat voter to take notice and either vote Republican or just stay home. Our countries survival depends on their decision. Time will tell.

What Is the Best Way to Measure Inequality?
Source: Sita Nataraj Slavov and Benjamin Ho, "Measuring Inequality: One Size Does Not Fit All," American Enterprise Institute, April 28, 2014.

May 2, 2014

In-kind benefits should be included when measuring inequality, argue economist Sita Nataraj Slavov and Benjamin Ho of the American Enterprise Institute.

Income inequality has been the topic du jour, and recent studies have purported to show increased income inequality and income stagnation for the average household. Are these studies accurate?

• Traditionally, inequality has been calculated by comparing Americans' annual cash income.
• Annual cash income has, in fact, stagnated, while inequality has risen.
• However, this is not the most accurate way to measure income disparities.

Instead, income should include the value of in-kind benefits, and it should be measured over the course of a lifetime, not just one year.

• By adding in in-kind benefits (such as health insurance and health care), incomes in the lower and middle quintiles have actually grown, and the growth of inequality is reduced.
• Furthermore, measuring income inequality over a lifetime rather than over the course of a year allows analysts to take into account a person's income fluctuations -- a low-income student, for example, may become a highly-paid executive years later.
• Annual income inequality measurements, the authors explain, tend to exaggerate inequality.

This new measurement would be an improvement, but it is still not the most comprehensive way to depict disparities. Opportunity is a broader measurement and would be a better indicator of well-being.