Income Distribution by Country

You may like socialism or not, but there is much to be said about the findings in these graphics.

Scientifically there is a definite connection between wealth distribution and crime levels. Perhaps crime level vs equality would make an interesting graphic as well.

Also, the notion that more equal nations are poor is false. The lightest colored nations are all top rated in consumer buying power (i.e. tax adjusted as someone mentioned.) If anything, this illustrates that equality is good for buying power.

Gini coefficient is obtained by dividing the area above the Loren curve (purple shade) by the area below the 45 degree line called Line of Equal Distribution (that is, sum of purple and olive colored regions).

sorry
typing error in first submission
It should have read let the purple area=A...aprt from that my fist message stands

Greg earlier questioned your method of calculating the GINI Coeffiecient. He is correct.Let the purple are =A and the green area =B.The Gini Coefficient is then A divided by A+B
Total Equality means A =0 and Gini Coefficient =0
Total inequality means B=0 and Gini oefficient = 1

You know, I hate to feed trolls, but let me respond really quickly to some of the comments left here by those seeking to politicize science.
1) - You're politicizing science. Bad. Bad boy/girl. Drop it. No biscuit. Bad.
2) - Even if I agreed with your particular political cant, I wouldn't agree with the idea of saying that a scientific tool is 'useful' or 'not useful', 'good' or 'bad' based upon how closely the results of using the tool resemble the political doctrine espoused by your leaning. That's just not good science.
3) This infographic isn't good or bad in and of itself; it just explains facts that economists around the world agree on, and explains (in brief) the method those economists used to agree with each other.
4) Those economists (like any scientist) had to look past their own personal political agenda to see where the data took them. why can't you?
Okay, I'm done.

Wow, no wonder the average American is so poor right now, your leaders have all your money! Haha not like anyone wants those worthless dollars right now. Maybe the we will let you in the EU one day and you can use our Euro. Put some sane financial regulations back in place and raise taxes and you can kiss your deficit good-bye. Oh we can socialize your medicine too so its free for all!

Not hard to see that even distribution is correlated highly to socialism. Great idea. redistribute the income and all is good. Not!

"You ever notice though that in those situations everyone is “equal” except for those in power - they are exceptionally equal!"

Sweden is one of the most democratic and free countries in the world.

MmmmHmmm,

You forgot to include capitalism (since you introduced political econ)which, in its perfect state is free and equal, much like socialism/Marxism in its perfect state. Those states are theoretical only and will never be achieved because of human fallability.

It's important to keep in mind that inequality of wealth isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, in Namibia it might mean that there's no economy while a dictator owns takes everything, but in the US it's more like a fraction of the population has done very well for itself. Even the "poor" in the US are pretty well off, having food and housing, and almost always quite a few luxuries (TVs, cars, stereos, etc).

http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm

Well Im certainly glad that we can depend on politicians to make sure that we are all kept equal! You know we can all count on socialists, Marxists and communists when it comes to enforcing equality! You ever notice though that in those situations everyone is "equal" except for those in power - they are exceptionally equal! I guess they wouldn't count when doing the math - huh?

I would be nice to see from where the data was pulled (not that I'm skeptical about the conclusions this chart draws, but more that I think it helps with credibility)

Greg: Yes, it is.

In particular, it's always a number between 0 and 100, which the faulty definition in the picture does not satisfy.

It means they have less rich people not more money for the small guy.

Dont forget though that the polarization of income is sometimes a byproduct of growth. That is, countries going through growth periods often have a greater polarization of income. Take a look at the Kuznets Curve if you want to learn more about this.

the kuznets curve has been consistently academically discredited

how about average wealth or standard of living. if for example everyone in a country earned $5 a year then they would look pretty good in terms of wealth distribution but still, $5 a year.

Isn't the Gini calculated by taking the purple area and dividing it by the sum of the purple and brown area?

Excellent chart, very nice to look at and highly informative. However, could you explain how you calculate the worldwide average Gini coefficient (it says the US is above it). Is it weighed by population or total wealth of each country, or is it the unweighed average between all countries?

Also, there's a type in the "What does it mean?" section in the bottom right hand corner: It should say "comparatively" instead of "comparitavely".

I Like this site.

Well Done !

The graphic shows that Namibia's Gini coefficient is 45, but the table on the left says it's 70,7... Isn't 45 USA's Gini coefficient ? That would make sense !

I think the Gini number for Namibia should be 70.7, not 45?

Also, the picture of Namibia says "45," same as the U.S. In the box it says Namibia is 70.7.

I'm just curious if this measure of income takes into account taxes and benefits from taxes.

Shouldn't the Gini number on the graphic of Namibia be 70.1, not 45?

"US has above average uneven income distribution"... How did you compute the average? Based on the number of countries? Or weighted average based on a particular country's population? (So the more populated a country is than the more weight it's gini coefficient will have.)

(Maybe the US is above average in both calculations?)

Guys - just a little mishap here: In the Namibia shape, you have a big '45' like in the U.S. instead of a big '70.7' like I believe you meant it to be.
Keep up the good work!
Carolna