The article says: for predicting whether a population has or will have a more unhealthy populace, more suicides, more crime, and just more of garden variety social problems it can't really be beat. This is an obviousness. Income distributions follow Power Laws (Pareto principle), which are characterised by a long tail. In this case the tail is formed by the lowest income individuals. The more skewed the distribution is, the longer the tail, and the larger the proportion of individuals which are poor.-- Brasov 16:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK. And?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Synapsis snap? Poverty as an unbeatable a predictor of crime, suicide and social problems... the discovery of the century, indeed. Another highly intelligent article here.-- Brasov 17:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
It talks about race to the bottom as-in lowest wages, but it is usually meant that governments compete in having the "best business environment", and that this could include relaxing moral requirements.
To be honest i have the feeling that governments like employment because citizens are like it's employees; gotta keep them employed. I think that _could_ be fair but even if race-to-the-bottom was stemmed, I feel that the actual relationship to work is _way_ underdiscussed in comparison.220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Wealth and political inequality section
The data in this section is quite old now, does anyone know of more up-to-date sources that can be added? Otherwise, these are quite literally 10 year old talking points. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)