Illinois is headed for disaster and I don't want to be here for it (Chicago: school, taxi)

[flamadiddle]

fwiw, 2017 overall tax burden by state. If a Democrat is elected Governor, I expect Illinois to give NY a run for the money for the #1 spot.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-wit...-burden/20494/

[Bitey]

Originally Posted by My Kind Of Town

Again, this is a national trend. It’s not just a Chicago thing.

Again, measuring "income inequality" using a theoretically infinite says nothing about income distribution relative to the median. You're looking at an apple and saying "well here's an orange."

[christianstad]

in 3 years?

I live in Chicago and not even in that great of a neighborhood. Young professionals moving in all the time. Property rents and sells fast!

[My Kind Of Town]

Originally Posted by Bitey

Again, measuring "income inequality" using a theoretically infinite says nothing about income distribution relative to the median. You're looking at an apple and saying "well here's an orange."

I have no idea what you’re talking about but the charts I linked clearly show the wealth and annual income gains for upper class households are far exceeding the rates of the median and lower class households. In other words, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer (due to inflationary pressures). This is reflected in the graphic you posted for the Chicago metro area and consistent with all major metros in the US over the past 4+ decades. As I stated, this is a national trend, not a Chicago-specific trend as you previously stated.

[Bitey]

Originally Posted by My Kind Of Town

I have no idea what you’re talking about but the charts I linked clearly show the wealth and annual income gains for upper class households are far exceeding the rates of the median and lower class households. In other words, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer (due to inflationary pressures). This is reflected in the graphic you posted for the Chicago metro area and consistent with all major metros in the US over the past 4+ decades. As I stated, this is a national trend, not a Chicago-specific trend as you previously stated.

No it does not mean "the rich got richer while the poor got poorer." Because income is not a finite value, income distribution is not a zero-sum equation where one party must necessarily lose for another to gain. it's possible for BOTH extremes to become richer even if income inequality is expanding. What's more, the simplistic "the rich got richer while the poor got poorer" only tries to explain trends at the extremes and doesn't say anything about what happened to the those closer to the median.

[My Kind Of Town]

Originally Posted by Bitey

No it does not mean "the rich got richer while the poor got poorer." Because income is not a finite value, income distribution is not a zero-sum equation where one party must necessarily lose for another to gain. it's possible for BOTH extremes to become richer even if income inequality is expanding. What's more, the simplistic "the rich got richer while the poor got poorer" only tries to explain trends at the extremes and doesn't say anything about what happened to the those closer to the median.

Actually it does mean that and the charts speak for themselves. I have no idea what you are arguing at this point but there is no denying the increasing wealth and income divide between social classes ocuuring within this country. And yes, this is a very concerning trend.

https://www.google.com/amp/foxbusine...in-america.amp

https://www.thebalance.com/income-in...merica-3306190

[Bitey]

Originally Posted by My Kind Of Town

Actually it does mean that and the charts speak for themselves. I have no idea what you are arguing at this point but there is no denying the increasing wealth and income divide between social classes ocuuring within this country. And yes, this is a very concerning trend.

https://www.google.com/amp/foxbusine...in-america.amp

https://www.thebalance.com/income-in...merica-3306190

The reason why I'm arguing is because I'm trying to explain rudimentary statistical concepts to you to further explain why "growing income inequality" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means and why focusing on trends at the extremes paints an incomplete picture of income distribution trends. But fear not, for I am done arguing as it looks like trying to explain these things to you is a lost cause.

[My Kind Of Town]

Originally Posted by Bitey

The reason why I'm arguing is because I'm trying to explain rudimentary statistical concepts to you to further explain why "growing income inequality" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means and why focusing on trends at the extremes paints an incomplete picture of income distribution trends. But fear not, for I am done arguing as it looks like trying to explain these things to you is a lost cause.

What does it mean then? The statistical data set used in each of those charts is the same in 1970 as in 2010. It is comparing apples to apples. That’s the point.

Can you post examples of charts that paint a “complete” picture of income distribution trends?

[Count David]

Re: the 1970-2010 chart, is it not to be assumed that many of those middle-class households simply fled to the suburbs?

[Bitey]

Originally Posted by Count David

Re: the 1970-2010 chart, is it not to be assumed that many of those middle-class households simply fled to the suburbs?

There were 700,000 more people within the city limits in 1970 so it's safe to assume many of them left for suburbia. Obviously it would be too simplistic to attribute all of the disappearing gray to suburban flight, but it was definitely a contributing factor.