gini

But this example may help you to understand why many people have a visceral distaste for high Gini indexes.

Then the author notes that low Gini coefficients tend to be considered a good thing for happiness.

Also, the gini coefficient for landownership, by value, is actually higher than income virtually everywhere.

In US states, using data from wikipedia, I find a 70% correlation between gini coefficients and homicide rates.

The Gini coefficient of CA and TX are extremely similar [1]- CA is ranked #44 in the US, and TX is ranked #43.

The Gini coefficient explains why the top 20% earn 51.3% of the income.

You can argue about details of the methodology (for instance the many problems of the Gini coefficient), but I think it is fair to say that the trend is there.

Look at the Gini coefficient for wealth held in each currency.

The Gini coefficient has a lot wrong with it.

Fix the Gini coefficient[1] and this will be fixed.

But the author decides that actually low Gini coefficients (combined with Denmark's shocking ethnic homogeneity) are actually a bad thing, so Danes have even less excuse to be happy.

A one-time methodology change in the methodology of the census bureau's Current Population Survey (in 1992) is responsible for roughly a third of Picketty's claimed increase in the Gini coefficient.

If I take as one of my basic ethical principles "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." then a high Gini index is patently unfair.

Also what's your opinion on the Vala/Gini toolchain?