You think this is okay, even though you probably fall in the bottom 3 classes

...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Naw, I don't, but then again I only come here to shitpost and laugh at flat earther/faked moon landing/ancap threads

It depends. If the bottom 10% make an average of $50,000 a year, but the top 10% make billions a year, it's better than the bottom 10% making $1 a year and the top 10% making $10 a year.

>ideal distribution
try again normativefag
i would expect much more from united nations fag

Ideally they would be more balanced, but the solution is not to steal shit from rich people you fucking communist subhuman

All this says to me is that most people severely overestimate their worth.

>wealth is distributed exponentially
wow who woulda thunk it

>people who dont understand distributions think all percentile bars should have about the same area
The "ideal" distribution implies the middle class should be no better off that the destitute. typical communist scum.

what the fuck kind of point is that

Judging by how dumb this comment was I take it youre in the bottom 10%.

How much of the top 20 percent is spent on wages and expenses, though?

I'm sure this isn't just profits here.

I'm not a nigger so...

In your scenario, $50000 is the price of a big mac

That is true but wages have been stagnant and wealth has actually fallen for the middle class

Bottom is just unrealistic.

His point was fine, you're just too dense to get it.
Wealth distribution doesn't matter as much as absolute wealth.

That doesn't reflect the population. Even if all the niggers were in the bottom class, that still leaves plenty of room for whites in the bottom 3. And the (((capitalist))) get to keep their place at the top

wow, kekd hard. youd pay 100 dollars for a gum.

UN Flag triggers so many dipshits, especially in the ancap threads.

You could also say that the "ideal" distribution implies that the destitute are no worse off than the middle class. Its a meaningless statement. The problem is that it says absolutely nothing about the standard of living.

So its fine if the majority makes cents as long as you have a few billionaires? Thats how you get India.

Of course I think it's ok, why wouldn't I? If I provide goods and services to my fellow man that he wants really badly then I'll end up extremely wealthy, if I don't then I won't. Nobody has taken any money off of me except the government.

You saw the rest of the bar. Though I'd say the upper bar is too optimistic.

That's not what I was saying. If the average person has a better standard of living under the less equal system then that system is better.
Even more important, if the unequal system is more moral than the equal one then it's the better system.

>If I provide goods and services to my fellow man that he wants really badly then I'll end up extremely wealthy

>Everyone needs Kim Kardashit and similar useless crap like Iphones.

Anglo-saxons were a mistake.

If the poorest can afford a car and a house do they need anymore money

Anyone who sucks Trumps cock is OK with the actual distribution because one day they too might become rich
In fact just by posting here and kissing his ass online they one day will get a visit from their god emperor
He'll show up and give them some of his enormous wealth for doing such a great job keeping the country safe from those pesky SJWs!

Why? That seems fucking stupid to me. If the amount of money in the US economy remains the same and the distribution changes, how the fuck does that change the absolute wealth? As far as I can tell the absolute wealth of the society is the same, which again begs the question, what the fuck kind of point is that?

He's talking about real wages and yes the distribution is meaningless, what matters is making people better off.

Of course since people's happiness is often dependent on comparisons they make to other people distribution will never go away.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

$10 in the hands of a genius is worth more than a million in the hands of an imbecile.
Because wealth doesn't increase unless that wealth is being invested.
Investing is something that the lower classes (rural and suburban retards) wouldn't do with that money.

Yeah I do think this is ok, I don't want to fuck up the folks at the top because I know damn well there are folks below me that would fuck me up given the chance. We spend so much time looking up hating the man at the top that we never look down to see the man hating us and planing and hoping for our demise.

It's because globalization gave 1ceo 10x more customers and 1/10 operating costs and 100% more banks to hide xir wealth in.

Liberals think its tax the rich, but it's actually encourage investment in your own people. Build locally, sell locally unless your market can't sustain, then you import or export.

It's not as bad as I thought. Why are people complaining so much?

and then the worth of the top 20% drops like a stone, then the third top 20% drops like a stone, middle 20% drops, and the bottom 20 is poverty, and everybody is miserable, because nobody will have any incentive to be in the top 20% because the government will just fucking steal most of it

Afterall, what would you have? 5% of 17.95 trillion dollars, or 15% of nothing?

Hierarchy is natural, the problem is how the money is acquired.

In your scenario the rampant inflation from 10% of the population of the United States averaging billions of dollars for every person would completely fuck up whatever value a dollar has.

>bring in millions of poor people
>OMG YOU GUISE LOOK AT THE HUGE CLASS DIVIDE

Who's to say that the people at the top are any smarter or better? I know countless retards with trust funds that continue to make money hand over fist, because the fact of the matter is that it is not that hard or intellectually taxing to make money if you already have capital. I agree with your point that there are a lot of fucking morons that would simply blow any fortune they came into on trivial bullshit. But I don't buy that the quality of being a moron is tied inextricably to your class. That, to me, is fallacious and imperceptive. I think that there are a lot more people than you realize in the lower classes who are capable of responsibly using wealth to generate more, the primary issue being that they simply have no way to access it.

I have lived in both the US and overseas.

The a majority of our poor would be middle class in a ton of countries.

This is an incredibly stupid stat for several reasons:
>Wealth is not a finite quantity
It's not like "they have taken more of the pie", it's more like they baked their own pie and now the overall number of pies has increased, so somebody with only a slice of a pie now has less percentage-wise but still the same amount in absolute numbers. So somebody having more does not imply that others have automatically less. The likely scenario of some policy would likely be that the blue strip stays the same and the other four get cut down to size.
>Why do you care about inequality?
If you make a decent living what difference does it make to you whether your neighbor makes the same or 100 times more? As I said above, you aren't any worse of, so why care?
>Wealth inequality can be positive
The same amount of wealth buys you more now then it did 20 years ago (or however far you want to go back). TVs used to cost a fortune, today you can buy one for an apple and an egg and they are much bigger and have significantly more features. Same thing when it comes to a lot of goods that were seen as a luxury. Hell, you go far enough back, salt was only something wealthy people could afford. By having the "Top 20%" lavishly buy these products at unreasonable prices it makes sense for producers to try to find ways to cut the price so that they can underbid their competitors.
>Poor people are bad with money
The harsh reality is that most poor people in the Western world are simply just bad with money and it is in most cases at least partially their fault. If you send a drug addict money from the government guess what he is going to spend that money on. The Brookings Institute released 3 simple rules not to be poor in the US: Finish High School, don't have kids out of wedlock, don't be a criminal. By giving these people some "gibs me dat" you aren't magically improving their lives...

>he is still a GLOBALists

baka fampai

disregard all libertardian logic on the matter
when you allow this to happen the jews end up on top

It's not great, but forcing wealth distribution is 100x worse.

Sure, each class has it's own bell curve, but the fact is that intelligence is highly correlated to class. Just because there are a few below average people at the top and a few geniuses at the bottom doesn't mean that the distribution by and large is wrong.

>no source

Fucking kek

One of the only people in the thread with arguments actually worth addressing has to post on a night when I find myself approaching 60 intensive hours without rest. While I would love to, I unfortunately do not have the energy to provide a counter argument that would do this justice. At least know, that although I disagree with your conclusions, you are, at the very least, head and shoulders above the other morons in this thread, user. Good on you, wherever you are.

If my standard of living is very high why the duck should I care the a few other people are very wealthy?

It's literally just a system. It could work, it could not work. It's all about cash flow.

>the fact is that intelligence is highly correlated to class

source?

If everyone's standard of living was high then it wouldn't matter. Untill nobody has to worry about food, shelter, etc, then it should be your concern unless you are an asshole.

You are right though in that 'wealth distribution' is and has always been a meme, its a distraction. The key is security distribution. As long as everyone in a society is secure that society is doing well. Trying to divide all wealth up 'fairly' would ruin an economy, but ensuring everyone is secure via proper tax rates and safety nets will ensure a more prosperous civilization in the long run.

I would argue that whether the distribution, by and large, is right or wrong is almost beside the point. Simply as a matter of ethics, I would rather live in a society that offers a greater degree of economic mobility such that those geniuses at the bottom can more readily make it to the top. I think that there is an argument to be made that the masses of morons would largely remain right where they are, regardless of any more even a distribution. But to nurture more of those who would further society and bolster the economy would be beneficial to all, even in such a distribution.

Forgive me, if I ramble. I'm currently exhausted. Thanks for carrying on a reasonably civil discourse.

>I would rather live in a society that offers a greater degree of economic mobility such that those geniuses at the bottom can more readily make it to the top

You do this via security. Make it so the genius at the bottom is free to pursue and use his genius, and doesn't have to fall in to some menial task for survival.

Hmmm...
Yes... This makes 63% of the top 5% sense. Very intriguing.

>Tfw paid 100 for a gun

>Simply as a matter of ethics, I would rather live in a society that offers a greater degree of economic mobility such that those geniuses at the bottom can more readily make it to the top
I wouldn't consider it a matter of ethics, but I would prefer it this way too. Then again, how many people would actually argue against economic mobility.