4 ms·

The same thing is happening with world poverty. Most people think poverty is getting worse, but the opposite is true http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_and_ola_ros

by xexers 12y ago

The same thing is happening with world poverty. Most people think poverty is getting worse, but the opposite is true http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_and_ola_rosling_how_not_to_be_ignorant_about_the_world http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_and_ola_rosling_how_not_to_be_...

ekianjo 12y ago
That's what happens when people keep talking about "growing inequalities" instead of focusing on the fact that everyone is actually getting richer with time (and obviously people who already have a lot of capital grow richer faster). There's no zero-sum game at work.
- eru 12y ago
  > (and obviously people who already have a lot of capital grow richer faster) That's not so obvious, and not trivially true.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    > That's not so obvious, and not trivially true. Well if you have 1 million dollar and you don't grow your capital faster than someone who has 100 dollars in the bank, you are doing something deeply wrong with your investments. When you have lots of capital you have access to investment opportunities which simply do not exist below a certain level, too. So I'm not sure where the "not trivially true" is coming from.
    - eru 12y ago
      First, we have to decide whether we are going to measure absolute differences or proportions. If we go for proportions, which makes sense since utility of money is roughly logarithmic, it is not at all clear that you can grow 1 million dollar faster than 100 dollar. If we go for absolute differences, than most of the time the millionair will be ahead. But in the recent financial crisis lots of rich people lost lots of wealth (at least on paper), while poor people can only lose so much in an absolute sense.
      - ekianjo 12y ago
        Agree if we talk on proportions - while, as I mentioned, the millionaire has access to investment options unavailable to "normal" people and therefore should still be able to grow faster even in proportion. But most of the time when the media talk about inequalities, they talk about them in absolute values.
        eru 12y ago
        > the millionaire has access to investment options unavailable to "normal" people and therefore should still be able to grow faster even in proportion. But the millionaire also needs bigger opportunities. It's much harder for Warren Buffett to find billion dollar opportunities now, than it used to be for him to find million dollar opportunities.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Unfortunately, it appears that the rate at which the developing world is catching up with the developed world may be reverting to a much slower mean: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21616891-ten-years-ago-developing-economies-were-catching-up-developed-ones-remarkably-quickly-it http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21616891-ten-years-ag... While the proportion of people in poverty has fallen significantly over the last 20 years or so, the absolute number of people in poverty is still quite high because the bulk of population growth is in very poor areas.
mehwoot 12y ago
The first graph from those questions is weird. It seems to stop in the mid 2000s... in 2004, at least 280,000 people died in the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. That would make the graph sharply rise again, yet it isn't on there. Does the graph stop at 2003 on purpose, is it not listed, or something else?

by xexers 12y ago

ekianjo 12y ago

That's what happens when people keep talking about "growing inequalities" instead of focusing on the fact that everyone is actually getting richer with time (and obviously people who already have a lot of capital grow richer faster). There's no zero-sum game at work.

eru 12y ago
> (and obviously people who already have a lot of capital grow richer faster) That's not so obvious, and not trivially true.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > That's not so obvious, and not trivially true. Well if you have 1 million dollar and you don't grow your capital faster than someone who has 100 dollars in the bank, you are doing something deeply wrong with your investments. When you have lots of capital you have access to investment opportunities which simply do not exist below a certain level, too. So I'm not sure where the "not trivially true" is coming from.
  - eru 12y ago
    First, we have to decide whether we are going to measure absolute differences or proportions. If we go for proportions, which makes sense since utility of money is roughly logarithmic, it is not at all clear that you can grow 1 million dollar faster than 100 dollar. If we go for absolute differences, than most of the time the millionair will be ahead. But in the recent financial crisis lots of rich people lost lots of wealth (at least on paper), while poor people can only lose so much in an absolute sense.
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      Agree if we talk on proportions - while, as I mentioned, the millionaire has access to investment options unavailable to "normal" people and therefore should still be able to grow faster even in proportion. But most of the time when the media talk about inequalities, they talk about them in absolute values.
      - eru 12y ago
        > the millionaire has access to investment options unavailable to "normal" people and therefore should still be able to grow faster even in proportion. But the millionaire also needs bigger opportunities. It's much harder for Warren Buffett to find billion dollar opportunities now, than it used to be for him to find million dollar opportunities.

anigbrowl 12y ago

Unfortunately, it appears that the rate at which the developing world is catching up with the developed world may be reverting to a much slower mean: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21616891-ten-years-ago-developing-economies-were-catching-up-developed-ones-remarkably-quickly-it http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21616891-ten-years-ag... While the proportion of people in poverty has fallen significantly over the last 20 years or so, the absolute number of people in poverty is still quite high because the bulk of population growth is in very poor areas.

mehwoot 12y ago

The first graph from those questions is weird. It seems to stop in the mid 2000s... in 2004, at least 280,000 people died in the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. That would make the graph sharply rise again, yet it isn't on there. Does the graph stop at 2003 on purpose, is it not listed, or something else?