Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #86266 > unrolled thread

Equality Class 11 Notes Pdf Download

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Equality Class 11 Notes Pdf Download Danielle Beauford <beauforddanielle6@gmail.com> - 2024-01-05 19:31 -0800

#86266 — Equality Class 11 Notes Pdf Download

The Grand Bargain Friends of Gender Group published new guidance notes on how to promote gender equality through localisation, participation, cash and voucher assistance and humanitarian needs assessments. 


In a democratic country, like India, all adults irrespective of what religion they belong to, how much education they have had, what caste they are, or whether they are rich or poor are allowed to vote. This is called universal adult franchise and is an essential aspect of all democracies. The idea of universal adult franchise is based on the idea of equality.



equality class 11 notes pdf download

Download https://t.co/iYjMmfXFkb 






One way to view this counterfactual is through the lens of a Oaxaca-Blinder or similar decomposition that allows us to separate between-group and within-group inequality. The racial equality counterfactual we consider reduces between-race inequality to zero and raises within-race inequality for each race in order to keep overall inequality as it is in the data. By doing so, our counterfactual world can somewhat abstract from concerns about how changes in the wealth distribution may impact aggregate savings, interest rates, or other macroeconomic outcomes.2


Reality differs considerably from this counterfactual. Looking at the population as a whole, White households hold 86.8 percent of overall wealth in the country according to the 2019 SCF, though they account for only 68.1 percent of the households in the survey.3 By comparison, Black and Hispanic households hold only 2.9 and 2.8 percent of wealth, respectively, while accounting for 15.6 percent and 10.9 percent of the US population respectively, reflecting the fact that wealth is disproportionately skewed towards White households. In fact, under racial equality, Black households would hold over 5 times the amount of wealth they currently do, and Hispanic households would hold nearly 4 times as much.


A shift to the racial equality counterfactual would affect households at various points in the wealth distribution differently. Table 1 shows how the average net worth of households of each race would change for each quartile of the wealth distribution. The average Black household in the top quartile of wealth would have over twice the amount of wealth under the racial equality counterfactual than they do currently, and the average Hispanic household in the top quartile would see an 86 percent increase. Meanwhile, White households in the top quartile would give up around 5 percent of their wealth.4


The Gini coefficient is based on the Lorenz curve for household wealth, a function that tells us the fraction of overall wealth in the country owned by the bottom x percent of the population for various values of x. Figure 2 plots the Lorenz curve for net worth using the 2019 wave of the SCF. Under perfect equality, the curve would lie precisely on the 45-degree diagonal (the dashed line), such that the bottom 50 percent of households ranked by wealth would hold 50 percent of overall wealth, etc. Instead, the curve is significantly bowed down, such that the bottom 50 percent of households own just 1.5 percent of overall household wealth.6


The right panels show how this same decomposition looks in the "racial equality" counterfactual. Given our definition of racial equality, we see in the bottom-right panel that the racial composition does not vary across the wealth distribution, and the top-right shows the overall Lorenz curve remains the same, since the wealth distribution is unaltered. However, the decomposition is shifted such that White households hold much less wealth (i.e., the overall blue region is smaller) and minorities hold more wealth in the upper parts of the wealth distribution (i.e., the other regions are more concentrated toward higher wealth levels).


Note: Bars denote difference in Gini contribution for each race in racial equality counterfactual versus actual SCF data in 2019 and are derived by differencing the shaded regions in the top panels of Figure 3. Each bar represents the change in Gini achieved by shifting the distribution of each race's wealth to match the aggregate wealth distribution. Contributions sum to zero by assumption. Source: Authors' calculations using Survey of Consumer Finances.


It is a well-known fact that income inequality has been on the rise in recent decades, and wealth inequality has largely followed a similar pattern (Piketty & Saez, 2003; Saez & Zucman, 2016; Bricker et al, 2016). Indeed, we saw in Figure 1 that the Gini coefficient from the SCF data has risen from .787 in 1989 to .852 in 2019. We can use the decomposition above to also understand how racial disparities interplay with trends in inequality over time.


Figure 5 decomposes the change in the Gini coefficient since 1989 into contributions from each racial group. The Gini rises by exactly the same amount in both the true data (solid line, top-left) and the racial equality counterfactual (top-right), but the contributions of each racial group to the increase in inequality differs. Of course, the larger population share of White households leads them to contribute more to inequality growth even in the counterfactual, but the increase is driven disproportionately by this group in the true data. To make the differences between the panels more clear, the bottom panel shows how much extra each race contributes to inequality growth compared to the racial equality counterfactual.8 Since the overall Gini is the same, the bars add to zero, but growth in inequality is clearly driven disproportionately by White households.






The result above pools all White households together, though we know from existing studies that inequality growth is driven in large part by the top tail of the distribution pulling further away from the rest (Piketty & Saez, 2003; Saez & Zucman, 2016; Bricker et al, 2016). As we have shown previously, this tail is largely comprised of White households. As these households pull away, they exacerbate racial wealth gaps, and also raise within-White inequality. As such, the blue bars above contribute an outsized amount to rising inequality. However, the truth is more complex than just that, as Suarez & Thompson (2019) point out. In their paper, they show that even conditional on many observable characteristics, minority households hold lower wealth than their White counterparts, particularly at the top of the wealth distribution. As such, some factors correlated with race are holding back minority households' ability to accumulate wealth and reach the top of the distribution at the same rates as Whites.


In addition to differences in portfolio composition, returns within a specific asset class may differ across households (Fagereng, et al 2020). Quantifying the importance of these differences is difficult in our data, as we do not observe returns directly. Therefore, we focus on housing, which is both an important driver of inequality and also an asset for which we can observe returns based on local house price dynamics and leverage.11 Relative to other broad asset classes, heterogeneity in housing returns may also be less likely to reflect risk preferences or other factors that typically influence portfolio choice, and instead be driven by preferences for neighborhoods, access to labor markets in a given city, or housing supply limitations in the area.


Our results quantifying racial wealth gaps through the lens of a Lorenz curve decomposition and a racial equality counterfactual, complementing existing studies that document pre-existing wealth gaps across racial lines. In particular, our decomposition allows us to compare our world with a counterfactual where overall wealth inequality is the same as reality, but there are no differences in the distribution of wealth holdings across race. By doing so, we can isolate the impact of racial disparities relative to changes in overall inequality, which may impact other features of the economy in general equilibrium.


The decomposition allows us to highlight a few major facts. First, White households hold a much larger share of wealth than their population share, with Black and Hispanic households disproportionately concentrated at low, or even negative net wealth ranges. In fact, shifting the distribution of wealth among White households to match the aggregate distribution would lower inequality by 1/4 of its increase over the past three decades. Second, White households as a whole contribute more to both the level and growth in inequality than they would under a racial equality counterfactual. This reflects the fact that high-wealth households, who are predominantly White, have pulled away from the rest of the distribution over time. The divergence likely reflects a combination of ability to save, access to high-return assets, and other factors mean White households are, on average, more able to accrue and grow their wealth than minorities. One of the most prevalent means of accruing wealth for minority households, homeownership, has become less common among Black households in recent years, allowing the wealth gap to widen.


Haughwout, Andrew, Donghoon Lee, Joelle Scally, and Wilbert van der Klaauw. "Inequality in U.S. Homeownership Rates by Race and Ethnicity." Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, July 8, 2020, -in-us-homeownership-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity.html.


1. Several researchers have highlighted these differences in average net worth and income in the past. Our work complements existing results using the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) and other data sources to quantify inequality and the racial wealth gap (Bricker, et al, 2020; Bhutta, et al, 2020; McIntosh, et al, 2020; Dettling, et al, 2017 Suarez & Thompson, 2019). Return to text


4. Note that a shift to the racial equality counterfactual would also alter wealth rankings, so changes in the mean wealth in a quartile may not correspond to the experience of a specific household without knowledge of exactly how wealth is redistributed to achieve racial equality. Many possible redistributions can lead us from the current distribution to the racial equality counterfactual, and each would imply a different household-level shift in wealth. We do not take a stand on which specific redistributions leads to the counterfactual distribution. The table, nonetheless, provides a broad view of where in the distribution racial wedges are the largest. Return to text

 35fe9a5643

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web