How should we visualise inequalities in household wealth?

in steempress •  17 days ago

The Office for National Statistics releases a biennial report on wealth distribution in Great Britain, which visualises household wealth distribution in a number of different ways. In this post I consider some of the strengths and limitations of some of these visualisations, and if it’s desirable, or even possible, to settle on one ‘best type’ of wealth inequality visualisation?

The data discussed below is taken from the fifth wave of the Wealth and Assets Survey covering the period July 2014 to June 2016

The top 10% compared to ‘middle 40%’ and the bottom 50%


Here we learn that the top 10% of households have nearly as much as the other 90% put together, while the poorest 50% have only 10% of the wealth (rough figures)


This way of displaying wealth inequalities lends itself to a pie chart which The Inequality Trust produced for the previous wealth survey (broken down further)….


The pie chart is useful because you can see immediately that the richest 10% of the population have nearly half of the total wealth, or nearly as much as the other 90% put together. The problem is it doesn’t show you clearly how many times richer, a good old basic bar chart is much better for this.

Displaying total household wealth by percentile points


Here we get the really stark contrast… top 1% of households have total wealth of £3,227,500 or more. The poorest 1% of households have negative wealth, so you cannot even make a comparison!

 


The strengths of this type of visualisation are that it’s very easy to see the stark differences between not only the top and the bottom, but also the top and the median, and it’s quite easy to mentally group these into deciles – the bottom ten clearly have almost no wealth, however this ‘mental exercise’ only makes sense for the first 9 deciles, to so for the top ten percentiles would lose site of the massive differences between the very richest and even the average here.

The downsides of this are that the huge wealth of the top 1% makes the scale too large to show meaningful differences lower down, also you can’t really show further data within each group, as you can do with deciles…

Displaying aggregate total wealth by declines, broken down my wealth type





 

This is showing you something different than the above – you take all the wealth of the households in that decile and add it up, and you learn that…

  • The richest 10% of households (the top 2.5 million) have wealth of £5.5 trillion
  • The poorest 10% of households (the bottom 2.5 million) have combined wealth of £5 billion
  • In other words the riches 10% are 1000 times richer than the poorest 10%.
What I like about deciles is that it’s so much easier on the brain – visually it’s just so much easier to make a comparison. This is why it’s possible to add in another layer of data by colour coding the different wealth types, which also gives more granularity.

However, the problem is that you lose that top 1% skew, and you also lose the negative wealth (debt) of the bottom percentiles.

NB the contrast here seems greater than with the percentiles above, that's usually not the case, but that’s because of the enormous figures involved (measuring something different).

Is there a ‘best way’ to display inequality data?


The techniques used to display the data could influence how people feel about wealth inequalities. For example, presenting the data in deciles makes the wealth inequalities seem greater, while presenting them in thirds, less so, and a bar chart shows the differences more starkly than a simple table or pie chart.

Where changes over time are concerned, using the Gini coefficient makes inequalities seem as if they have hardly changed at all, but comparing the changes in wealth by ‘households by income decile’ (admittedly confusing to get your head around at first), we see that the poorest 30% of households have gained no wealth, while the richest 20% have gained more than everyone else.

It’s quite possible (even likely) that someone’s politics could influence their decision over how to visualise inequality data: and you would probably expect those that are against inequality to prefer those visualisation techniques which show the most dramatic differences, in the hope that these would inspire a sense of social injustice in people.

For those on the political right, and working within government, you would perhaps expect them to favour visualisation techniques which show the lowest levels of inequality, or even obscure visualisations which contain so much information you’re not actually sure what’s going on. For an interesting example of a publication which seems to do this, have a look at the ONS’ latest publication on income inequalities, it is nowhere near as clear as the one I’m talking about here on wealth inequalities.

To my mind it’s impossible to come to a truly objective decision about the most valid way to display wealth inequality data – whether you display the data broken down into five quintiles, or ten deciles, or whether in a bar chart or a pie chart is going to depend on what aspect of the data you’re focussing on, which in turn depends on the story you’re trying to tell, or what you ultimately want to do with the data. And then of course, you also have to please the people that are paying you to write the report.

Given that it seems unlikely that we’re going to get a totally value-free representation of wealth (or any other type of) data, it would seem to make sense for the ONS to move towards developing interactive infographics which the user can manipulate, so they can display the data in a means they want to. Interactive infographics allow the user to determine their own measures of wealth, their own bins (groups), and their own timescales, and allow them to hide any data they don’t want to see so as to make comparisons easier.

However, a potential problem with this is that it encourages a postmodern, voyeuristic attitude to statistics on wealth inequalities… the more magnificently flexible the infographic, the more bells and whistles, the more the user becomes enraptured by playing around with the different options. The effect of this may be to render an important political issue neutral.

Sources

Wealth in Great Britain Wave 5: 2014 to 2016: Main results from the fifth wave of the Wealth and Assets Survey covering the period July 2014 to June 2016

The Inequality Trust.

 


Posted from my blog with SteemPress : https://revisesociology.co.uk/how-should-we-visualise-inequalities-in-household-wealth/

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I'm not in favour of all singing, all dancing infographics (just because you can, doesn't mean you should); but sometimes you do need two or three ways of looking at and exploring the data to understand what it means.

My most recent favourite is the ONS definition of "recent internet user" which turns out to be anyone who has used the internet once in the past three months. This is being interpreted in some quarters as "x% of people use the Internet and as the rationale for "self-service internet based council services". Of course, the idea is to reduce the cost of council services in general and face to face services in particular. However, it all went Pete Tong when the carers' "self service portal" was launched: telephone traffic increased seven-fold. All because of inaccurate assumptions about the underlying data.

Any help you can give me about how to track down the prevalence of late onset (ie adult) asthma over a particular time period in a particular area would be gratefully received 😊

·

That really does sound like a case of just using some inappropriate data to justify a cost cutting decision that had already been made.

There must be some kind of NHS portal you can access to get that health data surely?

·
·

There's the public health observatory - wading my way through is where I'm struggling.

·
·
·

I'm afraid I can't help you with the specifics! Isn't there someone you can email?

Inequality is divisive and I think I've read that it reduces general happiness. The rich tend to make sure they keep getting a larger slice as they have the power to make that happen. The poor have very little power. As for that 'trickle down' bollocks...

·

It's more like 'trickle up'..... I am a believer that we need greater equality, I'm just trying to figure out the most impactful way of presenting the stats!

I think stories work best... e.g. comparing 'Dave' the CEO to 'Brenda' the nurse.

Thank you so much for participating the Partiko Delegation Plan Round 1! We really appreciate your support! As part of the delegation benefits, we just gave you a 3.00% upvote! Together, let’s change the world!

Hi, @revisesociology!

You just got a 1.1% upvote from SteemPlus!
To get higher upvotes, earn more SteemPlus Points (SPP). On your Steemit wallet, check your SPP balance and click on "How to earn SPP?" to find out all the ways to earn.
If you're not using SteemPlus yet, please check our last posts in here to see the many ways in which SteemPlus can improve your Steem experience on Steemit and Busy.

Hi @revisesociology!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 4.530 which ranks you at #1919 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has improved 1 places in the last three days (old rank 1920).

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 196 contributions, your post is ranked at #21.

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • Some people are already following you, keep going!
  • The readers appreciate your great work!
  • Great user engagement! You rock!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server