Comments on: Income of the Superrich in 2005 http://visualizingeconomics.com/2009/01/29/income-of-the-superrich-in-2005/ Thu, 17 May 2012 22:40:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Don http://visualizingeconomics.com/2009/01/29/income-of-the-superrich-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-931 Don Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:17:00 +0000 http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2009/01/29/income-of-the-superrich-in-2005/#comment-931 First of all, I love your graphs. Most people just don't have any perspective on the kind of inequality that exists. I'm certain you are familiar with the "L-Curve." When I came across that a few years ago it blew my mind. And I am a very math-oriented thinker. The average person has no idea. I did, however, find a mistake in your figures above. The average and minimum stated for the bottom half of the top percent just didn't seem right, so I dug into the CBO tables you referenced. The minimum and average you list for the 99.0-99.5% are actually for the 96-99% range. According to the CBO tables, it should read $588,100 average and $305,500 minimum in your chart. Your point stands, of course, but I wanted to bring this up. First of all, I love your graphs. Most people just don’t have any perspective on the kind of inequality that exists. I’m certain you are familiar with the “L-Curve.” When I came across that a few years ago it blew my mind. And I am a very math-oriented thinker. The average person has no idea.

I did, however, find a mistake in your figures above. The average and minimum stated for the bottom half of the top percent just didn’t seem right, so I dug into the CBO tables you referenced. The minimum and average you list for the 99.0-99.5% are actually for the 96-99% range. According to the CBO tables, it should read $588,100 average and $305,500 minimum in your chart. Your point stands, of course, but I wanted to bring this up.

]]> By: Feldspar http://visualizingeconomics.com/2009/01/29/income-of-the-superrich-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-607 Feldspar Sun, 15 Feb 2009 06:19:48 +0000 http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2009/01/29/income-of-the-superrich-in-2005/#comment-607 I didn't realize that bottom edge of the top 1% was $126,000. However since the bottom edge of the top 0.1% one can almost feel the pain of the top bankers who will be limited to a mere $500,000. Here is my blog comment on the above graph. http://feldsparia.blogspot.com/2009/02/bottom-of-top-1-of-us-households-not.html I didn’t realize that bottom edge of the top 1% was $126,000. However since the bottom edge of the top 0.1% one can almost feel the pain of the top bankers who will be limited to a mere $500,000.

Here is my blog comment on the above graph.
http://feldsparia.blogspot.com/2009/02/bottom-of-top-1-of-us-households-not.html

]]> By: Mario Sikorski http://visualizingeconomics.com/2009/01/29/income-of-the-superrich-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-606 Mario Sikorski Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:56:23 +0000 http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2009/01/29/income-of-the-superrich-in-2005/#comment-606 Great, awesome work, but could you substitute is by income pyramid, it would be much better understood. Your graphically-statistical-art-work on the Visualization of Global Economics 1500 AD - 2000 AD tread is here http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=382&p=1004#p1004 PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economyâ„¢ (PFMPEâ„¢) : mathematically perfected economyâ„¢ (MPEâ„¢) is the singular integral solution to 1) inflation & deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, & 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a vital circulation, engendering inevitable systemic failure at a finite system lifespan defined by an inevitable, terminal sum of insoluble debt. Mathematically Perfected Economyâ„¢ is every prospective debtor's right to issue their promise to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of that promise, or the natural opportunity to make good on it. Great, awesome work, but could you substitute is by income pyramid, it would be much better understood.
Your graphically-statistical-art-work on
the Visualization of Global Economics 1500 AD – 2000 AD tread is here
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/f/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=382&p=1004#p1004
PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economyâ„¢ (PFMPEâ„¢) : mathematically perfected economyâ„¢ (MPEâ„¢) is the singular integral solution to 1) inflation & deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, & 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a vital circulation, engendering inevitable systemic failure at a finite system lifespan defined by an inevitable, terminal sum of insoluble debt. Mathematically Perfected Economyâ„¢ is every prospective debtor’s right to issue their promise to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of that promise, or the natural opportunity to make good on it.

]]> By: Zev Mo Bloggin’ » Blog Archive » Income of the Superrich in 2005 http://visualizingeconomics.com/2009/01/29/income-of-the-superrich-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-605 Zev Mo Bloggin’ » Blog Archive » Income of the Superrich in 2005 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:45:25 +0000 http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2009/01/29/income-of-the-superrich-in-2005/#comment-605 [...] Visualizing Economics [...] [...] Visualizing Economics [...]

]]> By: Kathryn Cramer http://visualizingeconomics.com/2009/01/29/income-of-the-superrich-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-604 Kathryn Cramer Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:22:30 +0000 http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2009/01/29/income-of-the-superrich-in-2005/#comment-604 AT first I didn't understand it until I realized that that last bit of punctuation in each number was a comma, not a decimal point. The lower figure on the minimum income for the topmost income bracket is missing a 0. It should be 8,579,000, yes? AT first I didn’t understand it until I realized that that last bit of punctuation in each number was a comma, not a decimal point. The lower figure on the minimum income for the topmost income bracket is missing a 0. It should be 8,579,000, yes?

]]> By: Saul http://visualizingeconomics.com/2009/01/29/income-of-the-superrich-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-603 Saul Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:21:15 +0000 http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2009/01/29/income-of-the-superrich-in-2005/#comment-603 Neat graph. I think it should be reversed left-to-right, and the average income put in the middle of the bar (only really relevant for the highest two segments). The bar could use its width to denote "number of households"; then the area of the bar could be a comparative measure of the total income of that group. I've been reading Tufte, so these things jump out at me now =) Neat graph. I think it should be reversed left-to-right, and the average income put in the middle of the bar (only really relevant for the highest two segments). The bar could use its width to denote “number of households”; then the area of the bar could be a comparative measure of the total income of that group.

I’ve been reading Tufte, so these things jump out at me now =)

]]>