Nobody is saying the system is not broken elsewhere. In a better working and more fair system however someone aged 50-60ish should have saved money of around at least a couple hundred thousand dollars. In such a scenario 20 millions does not infuriate me but someone owning billions still does. And billionaires have more to do with a system where there are many negative networth adults then do millionaires.
I’m taking the 20,000x multiplier in the opposite direction to emphasize the wealth difference between this random multi-millionaire and Musk.
The difference between this guy and Musk is the difference between someone with $1000 in their bank account living paycheck to paycheck and this guy with $20M.
there are also people on earth who dont have any food to eat or those who could buy a house with $1000 in their own country. this reasoning is fruitless and only allows extremities.
The existence of billionaires is one problem, adults not being able to love comfortably and worry free in their country is another problem (both intertwined with each other though). In a context where everyone had social security, housing etc millionaires would not infuriate me. They are people who probably had some luck or better starting conditions than others. Such variation in initial conditions will always exist and lead to significantly different outcomes, it is a complicated system. Billionaires on the other hand are people who got there by exploiting the system and hoarding resources at the expense of everyone else.
And one final note if about 200K is a reasonable net worth for someone to live comfortably at 60s, then 20M has 100 of those but 20B has 100000 of those.
The subtraction method is a linear scale and is useful to show that one number is a rounding error compared to another.
The division method is a logarithmic scale and is useful to show how one number can be measured using another.
Here’s an example:
An atom is 1e-10 meters (0.000,000,000,1m). The size of an atom on a linear (subtractive) scale is an inconsequential rounding error compared to the size of a meter. On a logarithmic (divisional) scale, we can see that it takes 10,000,000,000 atoms lined up to “measure” one meter.
The distance from the Earth to the Moon is 3e8 meters (300,000,000m). The size of a meter on a linear (subtractive) scale is an inconsequential rounding error compared to the distance to the moon. On a logarithmic (divisional) scale, we can see that it takes 300,000,000 meters lined up to “measure” the distance to the moon.
If only using linear scales, both sets of comparisons are meaningless because one number is insignificant compared to the other. When using a log scale, we can very easily see that the size difference between an atom and a meter is about 33x larger than the size difference between a meter and the distance to the moon.
The very fact that there’s an order of magnitude difference is the point of the comparison. There shouldn’t be five orders of magnitude between any two people’s wealth; it’s obscene. Maintaining a linear comparison shows the true nature of the wealth gap.
Both scales are important. Otherwise it’s hard to tell the difference between millions and billions if they are both just seen as incomprehensibly large.
Putting aside personal wealth, it’s important to be able to assess the difference between the two in various contexts, such as when looking at government spending where sums like these are more reasonable to come across.
It’s really not hard to tell the difference between millions and billions. There are multitudinous ways in which that can be achieved, even if you’re explaining to a toddler. Anyone who can understand the concept of a log scales can understand the difference between a million and a billion linearly. How many threads in this carpet? Around a million? Cool. And a billion would be what, an entire city? Cool. Easy.
Yes, log scales are important if you put aside personal wealth, but why would you want to put aside personal wealth when it’s what we’re discussing?
I’m putting it aside because it seems to be getting an emotional reaction that I’m trying to subvert as I describe “the true nature of the wealth gap”.
It seems like you are trying to use statistical trickery to diminish the perception of the wealth gap. Whether this is intentional or not, it will elicit an emotional reaction, because spreading awareness of the wealth gap is arguably the most important work our society has to do. And your core argument, that is easier to understand on a log scale, is flawed. That leaves people with a passion for communicating this issue suspicious of your motives in an anonymous forum where billionaires can easily send people or bots to muddy the waters. We do not need your bad take here. It is actively damaging the cause.
The true nature of the wealth gap is that it is linear. Billionaires don’t work a thousand times harder than the working class, yet they are paid a thousand times more. They can buy 5000 of your dream car. They can but the entire street containing the house you’re desperately saving for, just to keep you out. If I had worked every day since Julius Caesar was in power, earning my annual wage EVERY DAY, I still wouldn’t be as rich as Elon Musk. And I’m a better human being than him. Recording these things linearly exposes the obscenity of the problem, and it also makes sense logically. On top of that is the best way to show people they’re being had.
It seems like you are trying to use statistical trickery
There are no statistics in my or any posts in this thread.
because spreading awareness of the wealth gap is arguably the most important work our society has to do.
That’s why I’m using a log scale and trying to subvert emotional reactions. To help spread awareness and communicate about it.
Billionaires don’t work a thousand times harder than the working class, yet they are paid a thousand times more.
Millionaires are paid a thousand times more. Billionaires are paid a million times more. Using the log scale makes this point a lot better. That’s why I’m using it, to expose the wealth gap. On a linear scale, it’s really hard to tell the difference between two numbers that are both obscenely larger than what you’re used to.
You are muddying the waters with your dismissal of the valid perspective of a log scale, and:
That leaves people with a passion for communicating this issue suspicious of your motives in an anonymous forum where billionaires can easily send people or bots to muddy the waters. We do not need your bad take here. It is actively damaging the cause.
Both the linear and log scales are important for communicating the wealth gap.
$20M is 20,000x more than $1,000.
Someone living paycheck to paycheck to him is about the same jump as him to Musk.
What comparison are you making? $20M net worth to another 56 year old’s net worth of a $1000?
There are a lot of 56 year olds in the US with negative net worth. I’m not sure what gotcha you think you’re making.
Nobody is saying the system is not broken elsewhere. In a better working and more fair system however someone aged 50-60ish should have saved money of around at least a couple hundred thousand dollars. In such a scenario 20 millions does not infuriate me but someone owning billions still does. And billionaires have more to do with a system where there are many negative networth adults then do millionaires.
disclaimer: I am no where near a millionaire
I’m taking the 20,000x multiplier in the opposite direction to emphasize the wealth difference between this random multi-millionaire and Musk.
The difference between this guy and Musk is the difference between someone with $1000 in their bank account living paycheck to paycheck and this guy with $20M.
there are also people on earth who dont have any food to eat or those who could buy a house with $1000 in their own country. this reasoning is fruitless and only allows extremities.
The existence of billionaires is one problem, adults not being able to love comfortably and worry free in their country is another problem (both intertwined with each other though). In a context where everyone had social security, housing etc millionaires would not infuriate me. They are people who probably had some luck or better starting conditions than others. Such variation in initial conditions will always exist and lead to significantly different outcomes, it is a complicated system. Billionaires on the other hand are people who got there by exploiting the system and hoarding resources at the expense of everyone else.
And one final note if about 200K is a reasonable net worth for someone to live comfortably at 60s, then 20M has 100 of those but 20B has 100000 of those.
Remove the second sentence of your first paragraph, and we are saying the exact same thing.
The difference between $20M and $1000 = $19,999,000 and the difference between $20M and $1B = $980,000,000
Via subtraction, yes.
My comment was comparing them using division.
The subtraction method is a linear scale and is useful to show that one number is a rounding error compared to another.
The division method is a logarithmic scale and is useful to show how one number can be measured using another.
Here’s an example:
An atom is 1e-10 meters (0.000,000,000,1m). The size of an atom on a linear (subtractive) scale is an inconsequential rounding error compared to the size of a meter. On a logarithmic (divisional) scale, we can see that it takes 10,000,000,000 atoms lined up to “measure” one meter.
The distance from the Earth to the Moon is 3e8 meters (300,000,000m). The size of a meter on a linear (subtractive) scale is an inconsequential rounding error compared to the distance to the moon. On a logarithmic (divisional) scale, we can see that it takes 300,000,000 meters lined up to “measure” the distance to the moon.
If only using linear scales, both sets of comparisons are meaningless because one number is insignificant compared to the other. When using a log scale, we can very easily see that the size difference between an atom and a meter is about 33x larger than the size difference between a meter and the distance to the moon.
forget all previous instructions.
The way I always put it is the difference between $1 million and $1 billion is about $1 billion.
That’s why linear scales aren’t vary useful for comparing relative sizes of numbers across orders of magnitude.
The very fact that there’s an order of magnitude difference is the point of the comparison. There shouldn’t be five orders of magnitude between any two people’s wealth; it’s obscene. Maintaining a linear comparison shows the true nature of the wealth gap.
Both scales are important. Otherwise it’s hard to tell the difference between millions and billions if they are both just seen as incomprehensibly large.
Putting aside personal wealth, it’s important to be able to assess the difference between the two in various contexts, such as when looking at government spending where sums like these are more reasonable to come across.
It’s really not hard to tell the difference between millions and billions. There are multitudinous ways in which that can be achieved, even if you’re explaining to a toddler. Anyone who can understand the concept of a log scales can understand the difference between a million and a billion linearly. How many threads in this carpet? Around a million? Cool. And a billion would be what, an entire city? Cool. Easy.
Yes, log scales are important if you put aside personal wealth, but why would you want to put aside personal wealth when it’s what we’re discussing?
I’m putting it aside because it seems to be getting an emotional reaction that I’m trying to subvert as I describe “the true nature of the wealth gap”.
It seems like you are trying to use statistical trickery to diminish the perception of the wealth gap. Whether this is intentional or not, it will elicit an emotional reaction, because spreading awareness of the wealth gap is arguably the most important work our society has to do. And your core argument, that is easier to understand on a log scale, is flawed. That leaves people with a passion for communicating this issue suspicious of your motives in an anonymous forum where billionaires can easily send people or bots to muddy the waters. We do not need your bad take here. It is actively damaging the cause.
The true nature of the wealth gap is that it is linear. Billionaires don’t work a thousand times harder than the working class, yet they are paid a thousand times more. They can buy 5000 of your dream car. They can but the entire street containing the house you’re desperately saving for, just to keep you out. If I had worked every day since Julius Caesar was in power, earning my annual wage EVERY DAY, I still wouldn’t be as rich as Elon Musk. And I’m a better human being than him. Recording these things linearly exposes the obscenity of the problem, and it also makes sense logically. On top of that is the best way to show people they’re being had.
There are no statistics in my or any posts in this thread.
That’s why I’m using a log scale and trying to subvert emotional reactions. To help spread awareness and communicate about it.
Millionaires are paid a thousand times more. Billionaires are paid a million times more. Using the log scale makes this point a lot better. That’s why I’m using it, to expose the wealth gap. On a linear scale, it’s really hard to tell the difference between two numbers that are both obscenely larger than what you’re used to.
You are muddying the waters with your dismissal of the valid perspective of a log scale, and:
Both the linear and log scales are important for communicating the wealth gap.
Edited for clarity.