3 ms·
You say that success isn't relative but just two posts up you said 200k is in the top 3% of earners in the US. Why did you limit that to the US? The same logic
by sethev 14y ago
You say that success isn't relative but just two posts up you said 200k is in the top 3% of earners in the US. Why did you limit that to the US? The same logic that made it sensible to restrict your comparison to the US applies to tptacek's observation.
- ruswick 14y agoI chose the US because I had those statistics on hand. If we widen the comparison to the entire world, Patrick will be even more "successful," considering the prevalence of poverty in the world. So yes, he is not only more successful than the overwhelming majority of people in this nation, he is also spectacularly more well-off than most people in the world. Changing the scope doesn't change the conclusion.