SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (587309)9/24/2010 4:41:15 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 1574854
 
Suppose we could choose between societies in which:

1) the top 1% earned a minium of $1B per year each and the bottom 50% earned $250K per year each or

2) the top 1% earned an average of $1M per year each and the bottom 50% earned %10K per year each.

Choice #1 would be much more unequal.

$1B / $250K = 4000

$1M / $10K = 100

But which would be best for the bottom 50%? I figure most liberals would prefer the second choice - less inequality.



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (587309)9/24/2010 5:23:24 PM
From: Alighieri  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574854
 
I'm not as concerned about the rich getting richer as I am about the poor and middle class having their lives improve overall.

You are assuming that there is no inverse relationship between the two conditions?

Al


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News