A Framework of Societal Values

Any society on earth, even ours, develops over time a framework of values through which individuals "see life" and judge its worth.

Here is one such framework for valuing life or lifestyles: A Framework of Societal Values as developed bu Dr. Ruby Payne, a social researcher.

Understanding one's values help the individual to position themselves in life, to consider other values and points-of-view of those with whom they share an existence. Which is important, since in any social context, the whole is far, far more important than just the sum of its parts.

The framework linked above helps understand those points-of-view from one's position in the framework in terms of three main Socioeconomic Classifications: Poverty, Middle-class & Wealth.

If Ruby Payne's "research" culminates in boiling down entire social classes into stereotypes, she doesn't deserve her Ph.D.

Lafayette said:

Any society on earth, even ours, develops over time a framework of values through which individuals "see life" and judge its worth.

Here is one such framework for valuing life or lifestyles: A Framework of Societal Values as developed bu Dr. Ruby Payne, a social researcher.

Understanding one's values help the individual to position themselves in life, to consider other values and points-of-view of those with whom they share an existence. Which is important, since in any social context, the whole is far, far more important than just the sum of its parts.

The framework linked above helps understand those points-of-view from one's position in the framework in terms of three main Socioeconomic Classifications: Poverty, Middle-class & Wealth.

Click to expand...

Interesting matrix.

gavinfielder said:

If Ruby Payne's "research" culminates in boiling down entire social classes into stereotypes, she doesn't deserve her Ph.D.

Click to expand...

I have often found a surprising amount of truth in stereotypes and even prejudices that one ignores at one's peril.

Interesting matrix.
Sad to see the words for the three main socioeconomic classifications. I am a fan of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and it seems to me that in today's OECD countries money is of minimal importance. We all have enough, perhaps provided by government, for our physiological needs. And our safety needs, despite current fears which are very unlikely. Those are the only two that really require money. The needs for Love/Belonging, Esteem, and Self-Actualization seem more personal and introspective.
We need to get away from the idea that money, beyond a certain point and that point is rather low, is unimportant. As Dylan said, money doesn't talk, it swears.
I have never had lots of money by OECD standards but certainly enough that it was never an issue. Years ago I read an article about how so many people today are living lifestyles of international travel, a high sense of style, and other "Wealth" qualities yet otherwise lived a rather "improverished" lifestyle with minimal spending on food, shelter, clothing, etc.

gavinfielder said:

If Ruby Payne's "research" culminates in boiling down entire social classes into stereotypes, she doesn't deserve her Ph.D.

Click to expand...

About stereotypes from WikiP:

In social psychology, a stereotype is a thought that can be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things. These thoughts or beliefs may or may not accurately reflect reality. However, this is only a fundamental psychological definition of a stereotype. Within psychology and spanning across other disciplines, there are different conceptualizations and theories of stereotyping that provide their own expanded definition. Some of these definitions share commonalities, though each one may also harbor unique aspects that may contradict the others.

Click to expand...

Frankly,to me, they seem very well typified of the different classes.

Think what you will, because the "stereotypes" also have a use in understanding different patterns of human behaviours.

They obviously do not correspond with yours. Too bad, moving right along ...

Eric7216 said:

I am a fan of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and it seems to me that in today's OECD countries money is of minimal importance. We all have enough, perhaps provided by government, for our physiological needs..

Click to expand...

About Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

I as well find them useful in describing how we progress in life naturally to a level beyond which, either we do not see the need acutely, or it simply does not suit our personality. The choice is intensely personal.

But in those bottom two-levels, it is not a matter or choice but more so of survival. (Since they describe fundamental needs of subsistence.) In that respect, they support and justify Social Democratic notions of fairness in Income Distribution.

Which is why America's rampant Income Disparity is unacceptable in a country that believes supposedly in "fair-play". How a nation can tolerate 15% of its population below the Poverty Threshold is beyond rationalization. Especially of the disrespectful kind, like, "Well that's the way the cookie crumbles".

As if the poor, born poor, had no rights other than that of a Poor Existence. As if humans never evolved beyond caveman status. Or, as if "luck" were the primary determinant of one's lifestyle. It's important, but the chances of winning the lottery is too small for us to consider it a serious guaranty of a viable existence.

Far more important, and the reason we pay taxes, is to assure that the minimum level of subsistence, of protection of person and home, of the ability to move about in relative safety, all are guaranteed by the states as "Acceptable Minima".

No nation need do without them, and most "developed nations" have such guarantees.

But the nation that maintains for such a long period of time as the US, that 15% of the population should pass their existence below the Poverty Threshold is no amongst the most advanced. And in the US, that sort of existence is indeed "long-term".

See History of Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate:

Lafayette said:

Any society on earth, even ours, develops over time a framework of values through which individuals "see life" and judge its worth.

Here is one such framework for valuing life or lifestyles: A Framework of Societal Values as developed bu Dr. Ruby Payne, a social researcher.

Understanding one's values help the individual to position themselves in life, to consider other values and points-of-view of those with whom they share an existence. Which is important, since in any social context, the whole is far, far more important than just the sum of its parts.

The framework linked above helps understand those points-of-view from one's position in the framework in terms of three main Socioeconomic Classifications: Poverty, Middle-class & Wealth.

Click to expand...

While there is nothing really... wrong... with the conclusions illustrated by that chart I am not sure this is exclusively an economics conversation.

If I recall this right, it is all based on a book she wrote 'A Framework for Understanding Poverty' Dr. Ruby Payne - 1995.

So we should be talking about sociology, and the book itself ended up with quite a bit of critical analysis from various groups. Usually, for the same reason.

Payne appeals to right leaning social ideologies as the underline message in her book is "If the poor are poor simply because they do not know how to behave as if they were not poor, then the middle class and the wealthy should not be taxed to provide public assistance, public health, public schooling, or a public sphere in which the poor might participate."

That is a dangerous standard as it means the whole point behind that graph is to solidify the notion that all classes should remain concrete, her message is we should do little to nothing to help those in any class see upward mobility because of a perceived aptitude by this "Dr." that someone of one class will not see things as another class does. It is literally a call for economic and social segregation based on the standards of the graph (greatly expanded upon in her book.) As an example... born to being poor, you have to remain poor for the duration with no assistance from anyone including the basic of services we all enjoy. Like a public education system.

It is asinine thinking, she is literally arguing for an uneducated poor segment of our society that ends up lost both economically and socially in every possible regard.

The graph is one thing, and in terms of identity there is little wrong in looking it over. However, the implications of the thinking about remaining in class is more dangerous than how Hitler looked at classifications of society. Fascism is out the window on this one, now we are talking about something out of a science fiction movie on how we isolate social and economic classes.

gavinfielder said:

If Ruby Payne's "research" culminates in boiling down entire social classes into stereotypes, she doesn't deserve her Ph.D.

Click to expand...

Those "stereotypes" are very important general differences in perception and seem to be fairly accurate. There are key (fundamental?) differences presented in how one, depending on social (rather than economic?) class, sees time, education and destiny. Our "safety net" does absolutely nothing to alter these fundamental differences, so the "live for today" attitude remains unaltered, thus (plans for?) tomorrow remain unchanged - the "safety net" certainly seems like full support for doing the same thing over and over yet anticipating a different result. Upward mobility depends on making personal behavioral (attitude?) changes not just being given some more spare change.

OrphanSlug said:

While there is nothing really... wrong... with the conclusions illustrated by that chart I am not sure this is exclusively an economics conversation.

If I recall this right, it is all based on a book she wrote 'A Framework for Understanding Poverty' Dr. Ruby Payne - 1995.

So we should be talking about sociology, and the book itself ended up with quite a bit of critical analysis from various groups. Usually, for the same reason.

Payne appeals to right leaning social ideologies as the underline message in her book is "If the poor are poor simply because they do not know how to behave as if they were not poor, then the middle class and the wealthy should not be taxed to provide public assistance, public health, public schooling, or a public sphere in which the poor might participate."

That is a dangerous standard as it means the whole point behind that graph is to solidify the notion that all classes should remain concrete, her message is we should do little to nothing to help those in any class see upward mobility because of a perceived aptitude by this "Dr." that someone of one class will not see things as another class does. It is literally a call for economic and social segregation based on the standards of the graph (greatly expanded upon in her book.) As an example... born to being poor, you have to remain poor for the duration with no assistance from anyone including the basic of services we all enjoy. Like a public education system.

It is asinine thinking, she is literally arguing for an uneducated poor segment of our society that ends up lost both economically and socially in every possible regard.

The graph is one thing, and in terms of identity there is little wrong in looking it over. However, the implications of the thinking about remaining in class is more dangerous than how Hitler looked at classifications of society. Fascism is out the window on this one, now we are talking about something out of a science fiction movie on how we isolate social and economic classes.

Click to expand...

The classes will remain unchanged mainly because of how an individual sees time, education and destiny are not likely to be changed by income redistribution (the "safety net") alone.

ttwtt78640 said:

The classes will remain unchanged mainly because of how an individual sees time, education and destiny are not likely to be changed by income redistribution (the "safety net") alone.

Click to expand...

That could be very true. It is a tough argument that public services and social safety nets on their own forces upward mobility economically or socially, but they do create various avenues that in concert with an individual's aptitude can handle faults we see.

The issue here is Dr. Ruby Payne is suggesting that via frameworks and identity, there should be nothing offered irregardless of an individual's aptitude for a different outcome. The literal conclusion that if you cannot do it on your own without even a basic education to advance upward through social and economic classes you cannot do it at all. That is segregation, in the purest form. And in a way the strongest argument from the far right on continuance of forced economic classes. Protect wealth, employ the middle class, isolate the poor.

A strong argument can be made that in the right context a public education system (as just one example) allows society to pass to youth irregardless of social and economic class a set of skills and methods for learning. If not just for our own sake of social and economic interactions, but also the ability to see those with aptitude take those skills and end up adding something meaningful to our society and our economy as they themselves move upward through the classes. Besides, a major fault with Payne's thinking is that nothing socially is learned from an education. Environment trumps education potential, we know that is not accurate. Just about everything learned from social class or even one's own individual upbringing can be replaced with other education. It may be a bit controversial, but you can educate to just about any conclusion assuming the individual has the aptitude for the lessons offered. Under a public education system those tend to be looked for, under Payne's plans those are purposefully ignored.

But probably the best argument against Payne's social and economic isolation efforts is her complete ignorance on what created a Middle Class in the first place.

Under strict capitalism or socialism (neither of which we have anyway) any middle class is an economic distortion, similar story when it comes to governance on complete anarchy or the most strict totalitarianism where there is no middle class at all. Whatever the trend is with a middle class (in the case of the US in arguable decline) we have various distortions forcing its existence. So when we have a framework offered for what those views typically are based on key subjects it is all an economic distortion with a social impact. That is sociology 101.

Our issue here is still the same. Do we take this information and really learn from it, or do we use it as a means to segregate society into concrete social and economic classes? History and various academia suggest the former as a means for a better society overall, Payne suggests the latter and I find that extremely dangerous thinking (historically backed.)

OrphanSlug said:

That could be very true. It is a tough argument that public services and social safety nets on their own forces upward mobility economically or socially, but they do create various avenues that in concert with an individual's aptitude can handle faults we see.

The issue here is Dr. Ruby Payne is suggesting that via frameworks and identity, there should be nothing offered irregardless of an individual's aptitude for a different outcome. The literal conclusion that if you cannot do it on your own without even a basic education to advance upward through social and economic classes you cannot do it at all. That is segregation, in the purest form. And in a way the strongest argument from the far right on continuance of forced economic classes. Protect wealth, employ the middle class, isolate the poor.

A strong argument can be made that in the right context a public education system (as just one example) allows society to pass to youth irregardless of social and economic class a set of skills and methods for learning. If not just for our own sake of social and economic interactions, but also the ability to see those with aptitude take those skills and end up adding something meaningful to our society and our economy as they themselves move upward through the classes. Besides, a major fault with Payne's thinking is that nothing socially is learned from an education. Environment trumps education potential, we know that is not accurate. Just about everything learned from social class or even one's own individual upbringing can be replaced with other education. It may be a bit controversial, but you can educate to just about any conclusion assuming the individual has the aptitude for the lessons offered. Under a public education system those tend to be looked for, under Payne's plans those are purposefully ignored.

But probably the best argument against Payne's social and economic isolation efforts is her complete ignorance on what created a Middle Class in the first place.

Under strict capitalism or socialism (neither of which we have anyway) any middle class is an economic distortion, similar story when it comes to governance on complete anarchy or the most strict totalitarianism where there is no middle class at all. Whatever the trend is with a middle class (in the case of the US in arguable decline) we have various distortions forcing its existence. So when we have a framework offered for what those views typically are based on key subjects it is all an economic distortion with a social impact. That is sociology 101.

Our issue here is still the same. Do we take this information and really learn from it, or do we use it as a means to segregate society into concrete social and economic classes? History and various academia suggest the former as a means for a better society overall, Payne suggests the latter and I find that extremely dangerous thinking (historically backed.)

Click to expand...

The current "safety net" does not mandate more education or contain other requirements to change personal behavior - that seems to indicate that the "safety net" also supports merely locking folks in place unless they (miraculously?) decide to change their behavior on their own.

ttwtt78640 said:

The current "safety net" does not mandate more education or contain other requirements to change personal behavior - that seems to indicate that the "safety net" also supports merely locking folks in place unless they (miraculously?) decide to change their behavior on their own.

Click to expand...

Current "social safety nets" do not encourage or mandate much at all, other than continued use of them. You and I see eye-to-eye on that point. The US itself has a long history of making the continual mistake of using social safety nets as a means to ensure a vote, over the motivation to no longer use them. The problem is we do tend to shoot ourselves in the foot with economic policy especially that places too much strain on our social safety nets.

Current education, no matter how flawed by various politics over the years, does at least encourage the best possible outcome for a given individual. Can't be a mandate on outcome, that might be problematic.

I feel it is important to keep those separated as the intention is not the same between them.

A social safety net is just that, a net to catch those falling out of society usually in economic terms. Something to deal with an individual, or group of, that is no longer participating in the economy and society in a healthy way. However an education is something we would like all to have as a basis to advocate for healthy participation in and economy and society, so that they obtain whatever result based on their own merit and aptitude for it all from a common set of skills and knowledge.

Our issue is still the same, what do we do with the information Payne is suggesting?

I suggest we continue on ways to repair how social safety nets are employed, improve education to match those we compete against as the US is falling behind, and let the chips fall where they may on an individual given that common set of skills and knowledge. Look for the best ways to ensure all income quintiles and "social classes" have healthy participation in this nation.

I worry that Payne is suggesting the opposite, and there is little room for that to lead to a society with any sense of cohesion.

OrphanSlug said:

It is asinine thinking

Click to expand...

If indeed what you say is correct. I did not read the condescension in that chart as you have.

What I see is the various reactions to the environment around them of people who live in those three large categories, and most of them - from my experience - are correct.

Human behaviour is bewildering. And, for me, the science of Economics does not account for more important aspects of socioeconomic behaviour - because it cannot. It is wedded to statistical analyses of economic behaviour. It needs to understand that the world of economics is much larger than just GDP = C + I + G.

It needs to go deeper into the "C" and the "I" and the "G" to understand both simple workings of each; and more importantly when the GDP is not enough to go around. That is, as I never tire of repeating, Income Disparity is by far more important than simply generating aggregate income for a population.

How income generated is shared is more important. It is as the very heart of our economic existence. Which is why - at its basis - it forms the two lower, foundational levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Insufficient income => not enough to eat, no place to find shelter, no toilets, no TV ... no nothing that is central to one's existence.

Do you understand that being poor means a shortening of life-span?

That any economy can generate very high Income that gushes-upwards to Wealth because it is insufficiently taxed is asking for the turmoil that will be ultimately engendered. The US has been through some major riots spawned by unfairness of income earned - around the turn of the 20th century. It did not last long, and died an untimely death in 1913 when Teddy Roosevelt lost the presidential election. He ran as a candidate of the Progressive Party, which, after his defeat, was never heard from again.

And those who believe poverty is justifiable because it is inevitable (since the poor are all Lazy Bastards anyway) is quite beyond the pale, so to hell with them.

Which is way beyond acceptable limits of human decency ...

joG said:

I have often found a surprising amount of truth in stereotypes and even prejudices that one ignores at one's peril.

Click to expand...

REndering a proposition of social identification as "stereotype" is High Silliness.

Just to make the point: Carl Jung, Sigmund Freux, Abraham Maslow and Ivan Pavlov (to name just a few) were stereotypists?

Definition of stereotype: (Sociology) A simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group. As in, The cowboy and Indian are American stereotypes.

OrphanSlug said:

The issue here is Dr. Ruby Payne is suggesting that via frameworks and identity, there should be nothing offered irregardless of an individual's aptitude for a different outcome.

Click to expand...

Interesting proposition, but all who study human-behaviour have "tools" they employ to help understanding.

That is all Payne is proposing, and it's a bit of a shame she is not in this forum herself to say so. Shall we condemn her for having made the effort?

Where do you see the harm done by explaining/typifying Societal Behaviour? It is "un-scientific"?

To each science the tools it needs to explain phenomenon that we perhaps do not understand well-enough.

OrphanSlug said:

Our issue here is still the same. Do we take this information and really learn from it, or do we use it as a means to segregate society into concrete social and economic classes? History and various academia suggest the former as a means for a better society overall, Payne suggests the latter and I find that extremely dangerous thinking (historically backed.)

Click to expand...

Or do we beat it to death with a hammer because we don't like one of its insinuations. (It "categorizes" human behaviour).

Psychologists and sociologists have been doing this for at least a century and a half in trying to understand various patterns of human behaviour. So, it is a rather new "science".

Payne was simply offering a means to understand our behaviour in terms of "perception", that is, the way we understand the word around us.

That's all, and if we can benefit from the interpretation, so much the better. Why not,

Unless, of course, one fears the interpretation or it gives a political connotation we do not appreciate; or some other meaning/interpetation with which we feel personally uncomfortable.

In fact, it's like thinking (as regards human behaviour), I don't need a road-map, because I already know the way!

Yeah, right ...

Lafayette said:

Interesting proposition, but all who study human-behaviour have "tools" they employ to help understanding.

That is all Payne is proposing, and it's a bit of a shame she is not in this forum herself to say so. Shall we condemn her for having made the effort?

Where do you see the harm done by explaining/typifying Societal Behaviour? It is "un-scientific"?

To each science the tools it needs to explain phenomenon that we perhaps do not understand well-enough.

Or do we beat it to death with a hammer because we don't like one of its insinuations. (It "categorizes" human behaviour).

Psychologists and sociologists have been doing this for at least a century and a half in trying to understand various patterns of human behaviour. So, it is a rather new "science".

Payne was simply offering a means to understand our behaviour in terms of "perception", that is, the way we understand the word around us.

That's all, and if we can benefit from the interpretation, so much the better. Why not,

Unless, of course, one fears the interpretation or it gives a political connotation we do not appreciate; or some other meaning/interpetation with which we feel personally uncomfortable.

In fact, it's like thinking (as regards human behaviour), I don't need a road-map, because I already know the way!

Yeah, right ...

Click to expand...

What you are seemingly on purpose ignoring is the graph you provided in the OP, was not the beginning nor the end of the study.

So my counter to this is the idea of identifying behavioral traits and attitudes by social class is in itself not a problem, but that is not what Payne is going for here. Read her book to understand what I am talking about. 'A Framework for Understanding Poverty' is all about telling educators, and really anyone that read the book, on how to deal with attitudes from those in poverty. Not everything she says is negative or necessarily a problem, but she does rely on stereotyping people (including minorities.) It then becomes nebulous if the intention was to look at students by ethnicity or on the socioeconomic level she in my opinion oversimplifies.

I consider the idea of looking at socioeconomic classes by traits very important, sociology and economics tells us to do so. My issue is when that effort turns into a political argument, that "blame the victim" mentality that seems to outweigh dealing with the consequences of socioeconomic divisions and lack of cohesion.

It is not about being uncomfortable with her conclusion, it is about being uncomfortable with the idea that one cannot be helped. Payne tends to conclude that even if not specifically said just like that.

Lafayette said:

REndering a proposition of social identification as "stereotype" is High Silliness.

Just to make the point: Carl Jung, Sigmund Freux, Abraham Maslow and Ivan Pavlov (to name just a few) were stereotypists?

Definition of stereotype: (Sociology) A simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group. As in, The cowboy and Indian are American stereotypes.

Click to expand...

Oh, I am sure that classification of groups makes perfect sense sociologically. We did a lot of that in quantitative research. The thing is that the classes are usually only useful, where you know the limitations and the differtiation within the class. Thus you often get first misinterpretation by non professionals, prejudices and/or stereotypes.

joG;1065718078Oh said:

Thus you often get first misinterpretation by non professionals, prejudices and/or stereotypes.

Click to expand...

I suspect even professionals have dictionaries.

The expression was employed purely and simply to be nasty/derogatory.

(There's a lot of such behaviour going on in this forum.)

OrphanSlug said:

It is not about being uncomfortable with her conclusion, it is about being uncomfortable with the idea that one cannot be helped. Payne tends to conclude that even if not specifically said just like that.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation, that. Which you have no substantiated. (And I could care less.)

I am impressed by the effort made by Payne in indicating "impression" according to one's class.

And I tend to agree with most of them. Neither do I find the expressions either exalting or derogatory, whichever.

Different strokes for different folks ...

Lafayette said:

Your interpretation, that. Which you have no substantiated. (And I could care less.)

I am impressed by the effort made by Payne in indicating "impression" according to one's class.

And I tend to agree with most of them. Neither do I find the expressions either exalting or derogatory, whichever.

Different strokes for different folks ...

Click to expand...

I referenced the book it came from, happens to be written by the person we are talking about. It is up to you to read her book or assume the graph is some isolated conclusion.

OrphanSlug said:

I referenced the book it came from, happens to be written by the person we are talking about. It is up to you to read her book or assume the graph is some isolated conclusion.

Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant.

Moving right along ...

Lafayette said:

Totally irrelevant.

Moving right along ...

Click to expand...

In your mind it is irrelevant, I think the author/source of both your OP graph and the book it is discussed in more detail in is very relevant.

OrphanSlug said:

So we should be talking about sociology

Click to expand...

Sociology and Economics - it is impossible to disassociate the two. Also Society and Democracy - they both go hand in hand.

In fact, all three, in the makeup of a nation, are intertwined.

Which is why Bernie calls himself not just a Democrat - which is a political tag - but a Social Democrat.

Lafayette said:

Which is why America's rampant Income Disparity is unacceptable in a country that believes supposedly in "fair-play". How a nation can tolerate 15% of its population below the Poverty Threshold is beyond rationalization. Especially of the disrespectful kind, like, "Well that's the way the cookie crumbles".

As if the poor, born poor, had no rights other than that of a Poor Existence. As if humans never evolved beyond caveman status. Or, as if "luck" were the primary determinant of one's lifestyle. It's important, but the chances of winning the lottery is too small for us to consider it a serious guaranty of a viable existence.

No nation need do without them, and most "developed nations" have such guarantees.

But the nation that maintains for such a long period of time as the US, that 15% of the population should pass their existence below the Poverty Threshold is no amongst the most advanced. And in the US, that sort of existence is indeed "long-term".

Click to expand...

One of these days I will try to get through Piketty.
Because I don't think the issue is quite what most people think that it is.
According to the World Factbook, the top 10% in the US got 30.0% of the income and the bottom 10% got 2.0%. And the GINI is c. .47. In France, the top 10% got 25.4%, the bottom 10% got 3.6% and the GINI is .301. Except for the GINI, those figures don't look that much different.

Don't trust poverty rates as those are based on whatever the country wants them based on. It doesn't make much sense that the US, with per capita GDP of $56,000 would have a 14.5% poverty rate while Laos with a $5,088 per capita GDP would have a 22% poverty rate. Things are normally globally priced. A refrigerator made in China probably cost roughly the same in Laos and the US, as would a flight to Paris. Those people in the US poverty rate are not starving. They get c. $22,000 in government aid of various kinds.

I think that the "problem" in the US, with the high GINI, is not due to those superrich but due to the fact that there is not a bell shaped curve of income in the US. On the low end, it goes up sharply. But on the high end, there is a gradual slope(until the sharp increase at the mega rich). Millions make $150,000 to 160,000/yr, or 3 times the average. Over a million make $190,000 to $200,000 a year. We have "normal" people, with normal education, ambition, and work ethic, who make 3-5 times the average. These are bureaucrats, public and private union employees, in addition to small business owners.
I wonder if you get that in Europe-this vast, skewed, spread of "middle" income people. GINI goes up when there are so many people making very good money. These are not mega rich Bill Gates types but people who went to school with you and got lucky with a high paying normal job. Taxing "the rich" or the 1%ers will not improve the GINI as much as heavily taxing these salaried employees making $60,000 to $250,000 a year. But these people don't consider themselves rich, even though they make 5 times other workers. They are not 1%ers. They are fighting tax increases. Obama made permanent the "Bush" tax cuts for these people yet they want more and claim that $200,000 in not a living wage and other nonsense.
Programs to lead to more income equality will have to go after these as well.