14
h lders int fur gr -ups ( o u lea where b th have wealth- couples wh re
ne • nly has wealth, single men and single r .men ), •‘■'he reducti n in
sample 3ise Impairs the regularity f the data and I have therefore
aggregated the four int two groups i married c uples and single
pees ns.
The calculated ftoet> coefficients for income of wealth woe
wners are much higher than the actual ones ( ^able 1),
These calculated c efficients c >rrespond more nearly to those of
all income receivers including the wealthless ones -t e great
majority. They correspond also more nearly to those of the
conditional income distribtti >ns in all wealth classes except the
last three. In fact, if we exclude the open wealth class
fr g the income distribution ( which might perhaps be motivated
by the argument that it is not contained in the calculation of AT
either ) the we get Pareto coefficients entirely in line with
the calculated ones ( Table 1). The motivation is not enti el^
convincing and the results are inconclusive.
9inde the conditional income distributions in the
wealth classes have been referred to several times. * give in the
fallowing data for couples where b th husband and wife have wealth.
conditional inc me distributi n
Wealth in ~ K mean Pareto coefficient
150.175
474
4.06
175-2' -
4 76
3-55
2 ^-250
4-79
3 03
250-30
4 04
392
3 -4o
4.88
3.69
4 0.5,00
4-95
3-34
5 -75
5.01
3.29
75-1 r
5. 9
3.0
10 -2 0
5.10
3.47
2 0-5 0
5.38
2.19
5'00-
(5.74)
1.17
All
2.68
All without open
wealth class
3.16