With something abstract like wealth and finance, a 1:1 graph is contextually misleading. To make the point simpler, lets ignore the top comment about debt and liquid wealth; it does strengthen the point. Someone with 100$ in their bank account is further from a $1.00 million account holder, than the 2nd person is from a $2.1 million account holder.
The 1st person is living paycheck to paycheck, if he's lucky. He's 3 unlucky events from having no transportation, no roof, no competent lawyer, not enough health insurance. The 2nd person has a decent house, and can comfortably retire for 3 decades with inflation resistant investments. The 3rd person has a nicer house or three, and has those inflation resistant investments as long as he's being rich instead of looking and feeling rich.
The basic economic concept that comes to mind is marginal utility. That $100,000 means a lot less to the 2nd and 3rd person than it does to the 1st person, even person 3 is literally $100k further from 2 than person 2 from 1. Some form of exponential/logarithmic scaling makes sense, because a 50/300/1000 billionaire is still much more consequential to society than a 4 millionaire.
And really, comprehending scarcity, opportunity cost (shoemaker's fallacy), and marginal utility should be requirements to vote in any modern civilization. Wouldn't pass because educated retards are allergic to the concept of scarcity being a universal, such as.
This is the same caliber PEMDAS abuse social media posts people like to prove how smart/dumb they are. The actual point of the originating exercises, that math notation has ad-hoc warts, is apparent if they did independent thinking or consumed higher quality/propensity information sources. There might be a poignant case about wealth inequality, but most halfwits aren't interested or capable of doing a comprehensive analysis of when and where inequality is the problem. Such competence is a requirement of a democracy not being dysfunctional.
With something abstract like wealth and finance, a 1:1 graph is contextually misleading. To make the point simpler, lets ignore the top comment about debt and liquid wealth; it does strengthen the point. Someone with 100$ in their bank account is further from a $1.00 million account holder, than the 2nd person is from a $2.1 million account holder.
The 1st person is living paycheck to paycheck, if he's lucky. He's 3 unlucky events from having no transportation, no roof, no competent lawyer, not enough health insurance. The 2nd person has a decent house, and can comfortably retire for 3 decades with inflation resistant investments. The 3rd person has a nicer house or three, and has those inflation resistant investments as long as he's being rich instead of looking and feeling rich.
The basic economic concept that comes to mind is marginal utility. That $100,000 means a lot less to the 2nd and 3rd person than it does to the 1st person, even person 3 is literally $100k further from 2 than person 2 from 1. Some form of exponential/logarithmic scaling makes sense, because a 50/300/1000 billionaire is still much more consequential to society than a 4 millionaire.
And really, comprehending scarcity, opportunity cost (shoemaker's fallacy), and marginal utility should be requirements to vote in any modern civilization. Wouldn't pass because educated retards are allergic to the concept of scarcity being a universal, such as.
This is the same caliber PEMDAS abuse social media posts people like to prove how smart/dumb they are. The actual point of the originating exercises, that math notation has ad-hoc warts, is apparent if they did independent thinking or consumed higher quality/propensity information sources. There might be a poignant case about wealth inequality, but most halfwits aren't interested or capable of doing a comprehensive analysis of when and where inequality is the problem. Such competence is a requirement of a democracy not being dysfunctional.