Just to double, check, the "20%"s are 20% of the population, sorted by wealth?
I'd be curious to see what a wealth distribution graph would look like for some of these bars. In particular, it doesn't seem surprising to me that the wealthiest 20% of the population have way more than 20% of the wealth (and that the least wealthy 20% have way less than that) -- isn't the whole point that they're more (or less) wealthy than most people? It seems intuitively nonsensical to think that the bottom 20% could possibly have 10% of the wealth; while the top 20% would have only 30%; wouldn't that imply that the wealthiest people are only three times as wealthy as the least wealthy people? That seems obviously crazy, given that lots of people have basically zero wealth, because their income and expenses are very close...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-10-10 12:28 am (UTC)I'd be curious to see what a wealth distribution graph would look like for some of these bars. In particular, it doesn't seem surprising to me that the wealthiest 20% of the population have way more than 20% of the wealth (and that the least wealthy 20% have way less than that) -- isn't the whole point that they're more (or less) wealthy than most people? It seems intuitively nonsensical to think that the bottom 20% could possibly have 10% of the wealth; while the top 20% would have only 30%; wouldn't that imply that the wealthiest people are only three times as wealthy as the least wealthy people? That seems obviously crazy, given that lots of people have basically zero wealth, because their income and expenses are very close...