Economic Inequality: It’s Far Worse Than You Think

[Nice Squirrel]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exponentially

any positive constant raised to a power.

It usually denotes something more than squared. And we can find a salary where he doesn't make the salaray squared, it's probably around 35K as the cutoff.

Bill makes approximately $7.8 Billion per year.

$35k squared is $1.23B

 

[beero1000]

Fitting functional relationships to a single data point is fun, isn't it?

 

[dismal]

It usually denotes something more than squared. And we can find a salary where he doesn't make the salaray squared, it's probably around 35K as the cutoff.

Bill makes approximately $7.8 Billion per year.

$35k squared is $1.23B

Bill Gates wealth is made up largely of large hunk of Microsoft stock.

While he may have large unrealized gains on the stock in some years and large unrealized losses in others, the IRS does not count unrealized gains/losses as "income".

 

[Derec]

Fitting functional relationships to a single data point is fun, isn't it?

My point exactly. "Exponentially" doesn't fit the context.

 

[Derec]

Bill makes approximately $7.8 Billion per year.

$35k squared is $1.23B

Wrong. 35k USD squared is 1.23E9 USD². You have to square the units as well.
But squaring still doesn't make it exponential as you are just comparing two numbers. And besides, with exponential functions you do not take a quantity to a power, but a fixed dimensionless number, often e.

"Exponential" refers to things where rate of change is proportional to the quantity itself. Classic examples would be exponential growth or decay.
It certainly doesn't refer to comparison of two quantities, even if one is much larger than the other.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Psst guys, it was a hyperbolic figure of speech. Let's not get too literal.

 

[Derec]

I do not know your income but it is a safe assumption that he makes much more than you per year. He probably makes 10,000 times more than you or perhaps even 100,000 times more. But he is still not making "exponentially" more than you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exponentially

any positive constant raised to a power.

You could express both your and Bill Gates' incomes as "constant raised to a power" (your 35k would be e^10.46 for example) and yet Bill Gates would still not be making "exponentially" more than you.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes and no, it depends. The issue is the perception of what people think is the difference and it matters. People get upset over both scenerios of the person in their work department that makes $5K more than them but in their eyes do less work than you do. The same thing with a CEO.

You question your betters? You fool. This is why you are not a billionaire.

Ahem, billionaires have no betters to question.

 

[Derec]

Psst guys, it was a hyperbolic figure of speech. Let's not get too literal.

Huh?

I think we need to make Calculus mandatory for all English majors, even if it's a watered down "Calculus for English Majors".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Hahahaha

 

[Axulus]

Here's my guess, and that's all it may be is a guess, so your mileage may vary. I don't thik the average low income person cares that there are rich people out there. Sure, they'd like to be rich too, but if they're even somewhat realistic they know better. What they want is not have to struggle so much themselves, be able to pay the bills, live comfortably, and have a little fun after the expenses are met. A quality of life. That's good enough for many people.

The problem is that low income and middle income people are starting to see that the rich have gotten grossly greedy and are gobbling up all the gains made in our economy. While the economy continues to grow, the average person isn't feeling it because the vast majority of the gains are going to those super rich people. The Walton family having the same wealth as the lower 41% of the rest of us combined is just insane, and yet they keep snatching up any gains made before the rest of us can so much as beg for crumbs, then they call it "class warfare" when we complain.

I don't think ~33% of all those gains can be considered crumbs, can it? This is the average amount collected in taxes by government for the income of the top 1%, federal, state and local. So, whatever their gains may be, the "rest of us" get ~33% of it through taxation.

Then, on top of that, those who make $10,000,000 or more give an average of 5.9% of their incomes to charity.

http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/Charitable-Giving-in-America-Some-Facts-and-Figures.cfm

So now, the "rest of us" are getting 39% of their gains.

Next, some of those gains are spent for their own consumption, providing incomes to those who sell the top 1% goods and services. I'm not sure what the average percent of their income is spent, but 25%, on average, seems like a conservative number.

Now, the rest of us aren't getting this directly like we do the previous 39%, but, still, it is money that heads back to "the rest of us". So now we are up to 64% that "the rest of us" get, more than a majority.

 

[Derec]

Hahahaha

Now that I've made you laugh, a more serious response. I do not think "hyperbole" fits here at all. Like if I said "my business grew exponentially" when the business grew fast, but not necessary exponentially. That would be an exaggeration, but still used in the same basic way you'd correctly use "exponentially" in a sentence. Using "exponentially" to say number A is much bigger than number B is an equine of a different pigmentation altogether.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Hahahaha

Now that I've made you laugh, a more serious response. I do not think "hyperbole" fits here at all. Like if I said "my business grew exponentially" when the business grew fast, but not necessary exponentially. That would be an exaggeration, but still used in the same basic way you'd correctly use "exponentially" in a sentence. Using "exponentially" to say number A is much bigger than number B is an equine of a different pigmentation altogether.

 

[ksen]

Here's my guess, and that's all it may be is a guess, so your mileage may vary. I don't thik the average low income person cares that there are rich people out there. Sure, they'd like to be rich too, but if they're even somewhat realistic they know better. What they want is not have to struggle so much themselves, be able to pay the bills, live comfortably, and have a little fun after the expenses are met. A quality of life. That's good enough for many people.

The problem is that low income and middle income people are starting to see that the rich have gotten grossly greedy and are gobbling up all the gains made in our economy. While the economy continues to grow, the average person isn't feeling it because the vast majority of the gains are going to those super rich people. The Walton family having the same wealth as the lower 41% of the rest of us combined is just insane, and yet they keep snatching up any gains made before the rest of us can so much as beg for crumbs, then they call it "class warfare" when we complain.

I don't think ~33% of all those gains can be considered crumbs, can it? This is the average amount collected in taxes by government for the income of the top 1%, federal, state and local. So, whatever their gains may be, the "rest of us" get ~33% of it through taxation.

Then, on top of that, those who make $10,000,000 or more give an average of 5.9% of their incomes to charity.

http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/Charitable-Giving-in-America-Some-Facts-and-Figures.cfm

So now, the "rest of us" are getting 39% of their gains.

Next, some of those gains are spent for their own consumption, providing incomes to those who sell the top 1% goods and services. I'm not sure what the average percent of their income is spent, but 25%, on average, seems like a conservative number.

Now, the rest of us aren't getting this directly like we do the previous 39%, but, still, it is money that heads back to "the rest of us". So now we are up to 64% that "the rest of us" get, more than a majority.

I don't think you understand our tax system and government expenditures if you really think the rest of us directly get every tax dollar collected.

 

[Axulus]

I don't think ~33% of all those gains can be considered crumbs, can it? This is the average amount collected in taxes by government for the income of the top 1%, federal, state and local. So, whatever their gains may be, the "rest of us" get ~33% of it through taxation.

Then, on top of that, those who make $10,000,000 or more give an average of 5.9% of their incomes to charity.

http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/Charitable-Giving-in-America-Some-Facts-and-Figures.cfm

So now, the "rest of us" are getting 39% of their gains.

Next, some of those gains are spent for their own consumption, providing incomes to those who sell the top 1% goods and services. I'm not sure what the average percent of their income is spent, but 25%, on average, seems like a conservative number.

Now, the rest of us aren't getting this directly like we do the previous 39%, but, still, it is money that heads back to "the rest of us". So now we are up to 64% that "the rest of us" get, more than a majority.

I don't think you understand our tax system and government expenditures if you really think the rest of us directly get every tax dollar collected.

Not directly but indirectly through our elected government representatives. You wouldn't say that we get nothing from government, would you? But, point well taken, a lot of government spending is indeed wasteful. That, however, is a problem with how the money is spent, not a problem of the money not existing at all.

 

[ksen]

You said directly.

 

[Axulus]

You said directly.

Ah, good point. What I meant to say was that we don't get that other 25% without first giving up something else (labor, product sales, etc.), unlike the other 39% which is obtained without giving up anything in return.

 

[ksen]

It's not just "we", I'm assuming you mean the 99%, that benefit from tax dollars collected like you are trying to imply.

 

[bilby]

This thread has been quarantined by the FDA due to an outbreak of pedantry induced posting paralysis.

PIPP is a serious condition, and this strain appears to be at least partially levity resistant.

Please wash your hands before posting in other threads, and apply full decontamination procedures before changing fora.