ould be 9. Thus an increase in the range would mean inequality is increasing. The value judgement inherent in using the range, however, is that we are only concerned with the richest and the poorest person. Anyone falling between the richest and poorest is not considered. As a result, this measurement is hardly telling the truth if we want to get an idea of the welfare of all people. A measurement that considers the whole distribution must be used instead.
             An example of this would be to use the variance of mean income. By using the variance we can see how people's income varies with the mean income-the more variance, the greater the inequality. Value judgement is unavoidable because by simply using the mean income as a standard for comparison, we are implying that the mean income is the desired level of income. Consider a society where mean income is not enough to meet subsistence levels. If everyone had this income, then the variance would be zero and thus inequality to be zero. Yet in terms of welfare, no one in this society can meet basic necessities. Variance as a measure of inequality also contains a mathematical shortcomin
             ...