U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-22-2018, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Sweet Home Chicago!
5,844 posts, read 4,524,699 times
Reputation: 7472

Advertisements

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/
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-22-2018, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Brackenwood
6,322 posts, read 2,525,337 times
Reputation: 13730
Quote:
Originally Posted by My Kind Of Town View Post
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."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2018, 02:18 PM
 
223 posts, read 197,020 times
Reputation: 687
Default Is that why my house has incr in value $100.000

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!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2018, 05:52 PM
 
1,671 posts, read 1,107,425 times
Reputation: 1005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2018, 04:31 AM
 
Location: Brackenwood
6,322 posts, read 2,525,337 times
Reputation: 13730
Quote:
Originally Posted by My Kind Of Town View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2018, 06:44 AM
 
1,671 posts, read 1,107,425 times
Reputation: 1005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey View Post
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
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2018, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Brackenwood
6,322 posts, read 2,525,337 times
Reputation: 13730
Quote:
Originally Posted by My Kind Of Town View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2018, 11:03 AM
 
1,671 posts, read 1,107,425 times
Reputation: 1005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey View Post
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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2018, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Arvada, CO
13,707 posts, read 26,371,458 times
Reputation: 13867
Re: the 1970-2010 chart, is it not to be assumed that many of those middle-class households simply fled to the suburbs?
__________________
Moderator for Los Angeles, The Inland Empire, and the Washington state forums.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2018, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Brackenwood
6,322 posts, read 2,525,337 times
Reputation: 13730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count David View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top