Lols at the inclusion of the income inequality v. social mobility headline. For those who read to the bottom of the article, the author acknowledges “The Gini coefficients range from 0.3795 to 0.471, so the points are clustered relatively closely together.” By relatively close, he means so close as to render any conclusions drawn from the data utterly useless. That is to say, the headline you’ve originated (“There is almost no relationship between income inequality and upward mobility among the states”) is strikingly disingenuous.
The unreliability of this study should move the cautious reader to look back to the original study that the article addressed, which looked at the same relationship but among nations instead of states. Importantly, the original study had a much wider range of gini coefficients from which to work, lending statistical significance to its results. And what did it find? The exact opposite conclusion, that a higher concentration of wealth does stifle social mobility.
I’d recommend not editorializing your headlines to mischaracterize the author’s original statements.
But I don’t want to share my pain with NPR. I want to share my happiness. Does that mlake me weird?
Those accusations of vandalism by the TSA don’t surprise me, and are troubling.
White House cronyism is becoming so common that it’s rarely a surprise.
Boo! Hiss! to those who ban home baking. Next, they’ll be doing raids on school and church bake sales for trafficking in illegal goods.
Lols at the inclusion of the income inequality v. social mobility headline. For those who read to the bottom of the article, the author acknowledges “The Gini coefficients range from 0.3795 to 0.471, so the points are clustered relatively closely together.” By relatively close, he means so close as to render any conclusions drawn from the data utterly useless. That is to say, the headline you’ve originated (“There is almost no relationship between income inequality and upward mobility among the states”) is strikingly disingenuous.
The unreliability of this study should move the cautious reader to look back to the original study that the article addressed, which looked at the same relationship but among nations instead of states. Importantly, the original study had a much wider range of gini coefficients from which to work, lending statistical significance to its results. And what did it find? The exact opposite conclusion, that a higher concentration of wealth does stifle social mobility.
I’d recommend not editorializing your headlines to mischaracterize the author’s original statements.