The Geography of U.S. Inequality

Re:The Geography of U.S. Inequality by harryh on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @10:58AM (#12436446)

Someone living on $2/day (the generally accepted figure for extreme poverty) is living on about $730 per year. A single year of 10,000% growth would get that person to an annual income of $73,000 which would be well into the global 1%.

Annual growth of 10,000% for even a single decade would give that person an annual income of:

$73,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That's 73 sextillion dollars. For reference Gross World Product is around 100 trillion.

I think you're setting the bar a little high!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Geography of U.S. Inequality by astazangasta on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @11:01AM (#12436472)

Yeah, I didn't think that out very carefully, obviously exponential growth at any substantial rate would have that kind of effect. The perils of composing text in the loo. My main point still stands, though...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Geography of U.S. Inequality by harryh on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @11:04AM (#12436499)

I don't think it does to be honest. Income growth for the world's poorest has been astonishing over the last several decades. The gains are very real and very meaningful.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Geography of U.S. Inequality by astazangasta on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @11:17AM (#12436600)

In what terms are they "very meaningful"? There are still hundreds of millions of people living in slums in cities around the world; if these people now survive on $2 instead of $1, why is this "very meaningful"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Geography of U.S. Inequality by Klockan on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @01:52PM (#12437854)

What are you talking about? The difference between $2 and $1 is extremely meaningful. $1 a day means that you can barely afford enough rice to survive, at $2 you can start diversify your food and maybe save up for better clothes.

[ Parent | on HN ]