Hacker News Reader

Comment by qwerta | Hacker News Reader

This type of statistics is useless, it does not include army of unemployed people.

That statistic is compiled by the census bureau, and last I checked, unemployed people are part of the census and likely part of the statistic, especially since it can indicate when one person has all the income.

What I find odd is the article mentions 0.0 as the 'one person has all the income', where the wikipedia article on the Gini coefficient says 'A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values (for example where only one person has all the income).'

It does appear that he got that backwards.

Fine, I'll bite.

How do you figure "it does not include army of unemployed people"? Census data should reflect members of the population regardless of employment status.

From a quick read of the census website linked, it appears that what unemployment data there is comes from the 2000 Census, whereas income data is much more current and numerous. That's rather concerning. It's also the case that unemployment numbers are always underreported, something which gets worse during periods of extended unemployment. The government bases its estimates primarily on unemployment benefits filings. People who are unemployed beyond the period of available benefits don't get counted. So, the unemployed are somewhat factored into the study, but it doesn't seem like a very clear picture of the situation. That's my prima facie judgement at least.

There are many people who are not in census: illegal immigrants, homeless..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com