4 ms·
> Here's the "paradox" that takes this phenomenon even further: the more choices people have, the less uniform the distribution is, and the more it favors the t
by thorw73m 4y ago
> Here's the "paradox" that takes this phenomenon even further: the more choices people have, the less uniform the distribution is, and the more it favors the top producers.
How do you explain the pre and post netflix years. More movies produced more people get rich post netflix. Fewer movies produced less people got more rich before netflix.
- prometheus76 4y agoTo me it sounds like "more people get rich" is a line in the sand. There are more movies to choose from, but the top movies gross more now than they ever have and the "middle-performing" movies, relative to the others, make less than they did 40 years ago. If you draw a line and say "more movies make over 100 million in revenue now than before", that is a natural byproduct of there being more movies to pick from now, and more people watching movies now. Pareto distribution also explains wealth distribution and "income disparity". There are simply more people now, so the separation between the median and top 1% is going to be greater now than it ever has been. There's nothing political about this. It's a natural manifestation of a Pareto distribution, and as another commenter pointed out: this distribution shows up all over the place in nature.
- woojoo666 4y agoYour parent comment was talking about distributions, while you are talking absolute figures. For example, if we define rich as >1 mil, then lets say before netflix, 100 movie producers made exactly 1 mil. Then after netflix, 5 movie producers made 1 bil while 150 made 1 mil. Still more people total, but the distribution is more uneven.
- thorw73m 4y agoI see it now. "1.5" billion from 150 people contributes to making the distribution uniform where as 5 billion from 5 people is contributing to skewing the distribution. But is there a proof to that or it more of an observation.