"an astounding 60 percent of a person’s income is determined merely by where she was born"

[pampango]

(and an additional 20 percent is dictated by how rich her parents were). He also makes interesting international comparisons. The typical person in the top 5 percent of the Indian population, for example, makes the same as or less than the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American population. That’s right: America’s poorest are, on average, richer than India’s richest — extravagant Mumbai mansions notwithstanding.

It is no wonder then, Milanovic says, that so many from the third world risk life and limb to sneak into the first. A recent World Bank survey suggested that “countries that have done economically poorly would, if free migration were allowed, remain perhaps without half or more of their populations.” Mass-migration attempts are met with sealed borders in the developed world, which then results in the deaths of thousands of anonymous indigents journeying to promised lands only to be swallowed up by the Mediterranean or charred in the Arizona desert.

The first essay is a primer on how economists think about income inequality within a country — in particular, how it is measured, and how it is related to a country’s overall economic health. At a very basic, agrarian level of development, Milanovic explains, people’s incomes are relatively equal; everyone is living at or close to subsistence level. But as more advanced technologies become available and enable workers to differentiate their skills, a gulf between rich and poor becomes possible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/books/review/Rampell-t.html?_r=1

THE HAVES AND THE HAVE-NOTS
A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality

[SharonAnn]

1. YOu mean Mitchell, South Dakota determined most of my income? Who knew?

It has the World's Only Corn Palace, but sheesh.

[dkf]

2. It determined that you are waaaaay richer than most people in the world.