## 20 graphs showing inequality in the USA

Below are 20 graphs from The Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality showing inequality, and in the main increasing inequality, in the United States. **Clicking on any graph will take you to a page at the ****Stanford**** ****Center**** that explains the graph and gives sources.** The 20 graphs are: Wage Inequality, CEO Pay, Wealth Inequality, Education Wage Premium, Gender Pay Gaps, Occupational Sex Segregation, Racial Gaps in Education, Racial Discrimination, Poverty, Residential Segregation, Health Insurance, Intragenerational Income Mobility, Bad Jobs, Discouraged Workers, Homelessness, Intergenerational Income Mobility, Deregulation of the Labor Market, Job Losses, Immigrants and Inequality, and Productivity and Real Income.

**Intragenerational Income Mobility**

**Intergenerational Income Mobility**

Useful and interesting.

In my search of the web for information on the Tinbergen Norm the definitions always look like the following:

“Tinbergen became known for his ‘Tinbergen Norm’, which states that if the difference between the lowest and highest income in a company exceeds a rate of 1:5, that will not help the company and may indeed be counterproductive.”

I am totally at a loss as to what this appalling English/meaningless mathematics is intended to mean. Maybe it’s a clumsy translation from Dutch. Can anyone help? Also I am unable to find Tinbergen’s original paper/book with this work in it. Can you tell me it’s title,etc.? It doesn’t matter if it is Dutch as I have plenty of Dutch friends.

If you are unable to help me I’d be grateful if you could refer me to someone who may be able to.

Allen believe me i thought I was the only one,all my effort to get a mathematical or a heuristic proof has proved futile….it nearly got me paranoid.please do not hesitate to contact me of any recent development.thanks.

Leaving aside redundant words, the mathematics simply says that if the the ratio of lowest to highest incomes exceeds 1:5 (i.e if the highest income divided by the lowest is greater than 5) this is likely to be counterproductive. I don’t think this is a mathematical theory, it is an empirical norm or rule of thumb: what is found in good practice, though implied by the lowest income being sufficient (meaning the highest is reaching the region of diminishing returns). Interestingly, there is a corresponding rule of thumb in management about not directly supervising more than six people, and one in psychology about the number of numerical digits it is possible to remember – hence the human practice of breaking telephone numbers into memorable sections.

This may be relevant: http://www.coleurope.eu/website/research/academic-chairs/jan-tinbergen-chair-european-economics.

“Jan TINBERGEN was awarded the first Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel in 1969, which he shared with Ragnar Frisch for having developed and applied dynamic models for the analysis of economic processes. Jan Tinbergen became known for his ‘Tinbergen rule’ which states that, in order to achieve a certain number of policy targets, it is necessary to control an equal number of policy instruments.”

So were income to enable one to have more than five fingers in different pies, one would be unable to control them all effectively? And mathematically, would one need to when [from memory] a five-dimensional hypergeometric function enables one to simulate any differentiable function?