4 ms·

> Joe is rich because Bob is poor. And vice versa. Grasp that and you've got the whole thing. Well, why should I grasp that? Just prove it's true and I'll be c

• rdiddly 5y ago
  Say n = 3. You've got 3 people, all of whom are equally wealthy. Now make one of them richer. The other two are now poor. They weren't before, but now they are, by comparison if nothing else. It's a wealth distribution. You can't have an upper end without a lower end. Notice I'm not even insisting that the rich guy gets his wealth from the other two, but if he did, then the two are literally poorer as well.
  • Udik 5y ago
    Good point, I agree with the basic principle. But in your example you made 33% of the population richer. If you made richer a single person out of 1 million, would the other 999999 be equally poor as in your previous example? I'd say they wouldn't, because the overwhelming majority of those they interacted with would still be as wealthy as themselves. They might even never cross paths with the richer one. So yes, slightly poorer but almost imperceptibly so. Anyway, the clickbait title seems to imply some (inverse) connection between the two figures- minimum wage and Wall Street bonuses. Yes the bonuses have grown dramatically, and yes there can be something wrong in the fact that minimum wages are so low; but trying to create a connection between the two is moral blackmail.