True, but not the point I was trying to make (1-in-10 chance vs 50-50 chance).
Which is why I used median wage and global scale.
Which of course is arranging the facts just so, but this is what statistics is all about.
Nevertheless, the premise is still valid: if you live in North America or Europe, it is far, far more likely that you are in the top X%, for whatever value of X (and for whatever “being in the top” is supposed to mean anyway).
Because the distribution of wealth between the so-called “first world” and the rest of it is extremely uneven - no surprise after centuries of colonialism, exploitation, cultural and economical suppression, and casual genocide.
The fact that the distribution of wealth inside the so-called “first world” is also extremely uneven, is, in this context (as defined by me), merely a subset that enters into it, but doesn’t really change the ratios on the global scale.
“Income isn’t the best measure on that scale, due to the countervailing force of cost of living within different countries. USD$32k/annum goes a lot farther in Mumbai than it does in L.A.”
Of course it does. But US$ 32k in India would still put you in the 1% slot globally and, simultaneously, in the 0.001% slot in India (totally made up % because I can’t be asked to look up India’s statistics right now, but you get the point).
“Are the article indicates, wealth is the better measure of who’s in the global 1%. If you’ve been able and fortunate enough to amass USD$770+ in net worth you could conceivably realise that USD$32k/annum income – funds to be applied in the country or countries of your choice – without doing a lick of work.”
Valid point, but in this context (see above) this only means that this person has a much better chance than 50-50; in fact their place in the globally 1% slot is practically a given.
“If you’re an American, think about how many people you run into every day who make $32000+/year. Now think about how many of those people have USD$770k+ in the bank and their home equity and possessions and are effectively debt-free.”
Trick question/muddled argument/rehash of your last paragraph, think about it. So I think I don’t need to answer that with a remix of my last answer.
“In these discussions, I always make a point of illustrating this distinction because conservatives* constantly use the income measure as a cudgel against “spoiled” and “ungrateful” Americans who argue not for Communist wealth re-distribution but simply for a domestic society that isn’t dangerously unequal.”
Excellent point. Which is why in this discussions maybe you should point out the difference between average and median income; the elephant’s trunk in the room is the ratio between them, see the graph below.
The disproportion is so insanely large now that you don’t even have to loose anything to become poor, the rich will do that to you simply by getting richer.
It is not conceivable that a liberal1) democratic1), stable1) society1) can survive this sort of disparity for long.
1) As used in the right-pondian sense.
“[* which I know you are not]”
Again, depending on the scale or metric one uses… and, to some extent, on the topic of the discussion.
Summing up:
I am perfectly aware that we are very much on the same page here… but there is a lot of truth in the old adage that arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud.
