4 ms·
This is silly though. There are fewer than 500 Billionaires in the US. Why is that your line for the "haves"? Really you can create whatever ratio you want by d
by harryh 13y ago
This is silly though. There are fewer than 500 Billionaires in the US. Why is that your line for the "haves"? Really you can create whatever ratio you want by drawing the "haves" line in completely arbitrary ways.
- ebbv 13y agoIt's not arbitrary, though. It's called wealth disparity and it's a real thing. Yes there's fewer than 500 billionaires, does that make it more acceptable or less that they have billions of dollars and the average income is $52k? You don't seem to have any grasp of why this is a problem, let alone how to begin to deal with it.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- harryh 13y agoI was just saying that your 19,230:1 ratio was arbitrary. You could just as easily have made it 192,300:1 by choosing 10x billionaires (of which there appear to be 41) instead of just billionaires. Or you could have made it 1,923:1 by choosing 100x millionaires (dunno how many of those there are I'm gonna guess 10k or so). On the other side of the line that 52k $ is arbitrary. Why is "average income in the US" the relevant #? I bet the average income in Detroit is lower. Or what about average african american income which is surely lower than that? I bet there are people in Detroit who earn essentially no money? Surely that number is relevant when talking about a wealth disparity ratio. I was just saying that there are much much much better measures of wealth disparity than the #s you came up with.