Unfortunately, no. Wealth data is usually very coarse (quartiles or quintiles) or one data point, which makes it hard to do most of the analysis that I'd like to do.
Why? So massive differences in wealth look significantly smaller? By graphing this in log scale you are admitting there is an "exponentially growing delta between rich and poor" and log makes it easier to even visualize (which is insane to begin with).
Disagree, the point is to visually show there is an exponential difference between LITERALLY EVERYONE (uber driver to Google engineer to VP) and like 100 people who have insane amounts of wealth. I agree Uber driver is not in the same bucket, but the way to fix it isn't going after VP its going after the other hump in the binomial where the wealth is being hoarded for generations.
He's using a lot of that wealth to try to get people elected that say they want to do things that will significantly increase my costs over the next few years. Does that count?
My living standard is a function of my personal wealth/income and the health of the society and the functions the government provides.
Elon Musks income (realised when he takes out personal loans against his equity), taxed at marginally higher rates trending to 100% above say $1 billion, would deliver more money to the government for schools, hospitals, transport, science, mental health etc,
That would benefit everyone and not really change Mr Musk's purchasing patterns or standard of living due to the way "propensity to consume" works at extreme wealth levels. Significant personal luxury, mansions, jets, art, yachts, etc can be had for under $1 billion per year in realised income.
So while it is true my personal wealth is not lessened by Mr Musk's success, my possible living standard and that of my countrymen is below what is possible by not effectively taxing him and deploying that money into government functions.
Not to mention the way he and other high net worth individuals use their wealth to influence elections and lobby government legislation and policy...
> The population is literally the wealthiest it has ever been. Elon Musk being more wealthy does not diminish your wealth.
That's a big claim, and the wrong metric. I don't care if everyone is wealthier than they've ever been, I care how their wealth compares to what it would be if society's wealth were distributed more rationally.
> jealousy
That's a hot take.
I want wealth to be distributed in a rational way so that I don't have to worry about the people near the bottom end of the curve having to worry about being jealous of people like me. I'm doing great, I don't have any real envy of Musk/Gates/whoever. I want all the people making less than me to feel like they can also live a good life. Framing it selfishly -- I want a peaceful, happy society, little crime, little hate, etc. The less people have to struggle just to live, the better all of our lives become.
There’s always somebody who defends this kind of absurd wealth distribution, and I never understand it.
Even if everyone is wealthier, you’re getting screwed. I’ve always wanted to ask - why are you defending the ultra wealthy? Do you think that a fairer wealth distribution mechanism would hurt your personal wealth?
Yes and no. Yes, Elon having a dollar means that I don't have that dollar. But no, Elon has most of his money tied up in stock, and that means he's not using it to raise the price of groceries or houses. He's not competing for houses in my neighborhood or groceries at my store.
The potential is there - he could sell all his stock and start buying up houses. But at least at the moment, he isn't. What he's doing at the moment is, he's driving up the price of the stock he holds, which doesn't affect my wealth at all.
I think the diagram on a linear scale makes the stark point that to Elon Musk, there is not really a difference between someone worth $499 and someone worth $499M, even though to me there is a massive difference between those people.
No, according to economic theory, the law of diminishing marginal utility generally does not apply to money. Please cite a source that says having more AUM somehow decreases potential yield. Sounds retarded. People say stuff that needs evidence then say obviously like its a source.
I think GP doesn't mean "returns" as in investment returns. I think they're talking about like... living. The utility of buying a second (or tenth) house/car/whatever is drastically lower return than the utility of buying your first one.
However, the utility of money starts to drastically increase once you reach a tipping point where it can start allowing you to wield real political power.
The graph of monetary utility may look like a logarithmic graph at first glance, but that's just because it's more like a C1 + (x-C2)^3 graph where you haven't followed x far enough to the right.
Remember when Michael Bloomberg spent 500 million dollars to be on the Democratic debate, and Elizabeth Warren burned that money down with a single zinger?
"I couldn't care less about the shock value. I just want to look at the distribution and do nothing with that information even though there is something incredibly shocking here."
I don't think it's getting censored intentionally, in the sense someone is taking that action specifically. It's falling quickly off the front page because the algorithm is biased against this kind of discussion. If it was getting killed by flags it would end up saying [flagged] in the headline as it disappeared. And you can't downvote submissions, so it's inferred from lack of upvotes.
