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