Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
From: eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution
Message-ID: <254@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Dec-84 13:36:19 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.254
Posted: Sun Dec  9 13:36:19 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 03:16:48 EST
References: <253@mhuxh.UUCP>, <243@ssc-vax.UUCP> <549@tty3b.UUCP> <270@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 22

> 
> Yes, and 90% of the wealth is controlled by only 25% of the
> population!  And 15% of the people are poverty stricken?
> 
>                  ihnp4!iham1!krista (k.j.anderson)

Not necessarily the group you think of as poor.  For example, when I first
came to work at Boeing, I had about $10 000 in debts (mostly school loans)
and no assets to  speak of (clothes, books).  So I was in that negative
net worth group.  I could have spent every dollar I earned  and had a fairly
high standard of living, but not moved up in wealth.  I was poor in the
sense of not being able to stop working and continue to eat.  On the
other hand, a small farmer could have zero income and a large net worth
(40 acres at $3000 an acre, plus house and barn=$200 000).  He could sell
out and be comfortable on the interest.  
     What the government defines as 'poor' is low income, while the real
indicator is amount of capital.  Income is the first derivative of wealth
(in the mathematical sense of derivative), and is not the proper unit
to measure poverty.  I just wanted to clear up how to interpret the data
I presented.

Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / ssc-vax!eder / (206)773-4545