Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:21:31 UTC No. 16432777

Your analogy between income inequality and height makes sense conceptually, but let's break down the logic step by step and make sure the metaphor holds up mathematically as well.

### The Core Idea: Income Distribution as Height

You’re imagining income distribution as if it were mapped to height. In your analogy:

- **You (earning $50k) and your friend (earning $100k)** are seen as very short (under 4 feet tall).
- **"The actual rich"** (presumably referring to people with much higher incomes, like billionaires) are incredibly tall, with their heads extending beyond the moon in your metaphor.

This vivid metaphor highlights how extreme income inequality is, showing how even relatively higher incomes like $100k are still minuscule in comparison to the wealthiest.

### Checking the Logic:

1. **Income Proportions**:
You and your friend have incomes of $50k and $100k, so your friend makes **twice as much as you**. If income were directly proportional to height, and assuming you're both very short, your friend would be exactly **twice as tall** as you in this model.

2. **Scale of Extreme Wealth**:
Billionaires are orders of magnitude richer than both of you. Let's assume you're comparing yourselves to someone like Jeff Bezos, whose net worth has at times been in the range of **$100 billion**. If we map height directly to income, here's how it would look:

- **You ($50k)**: Your height could be taken as, say, 3 feet (as a "dwarf").
- **Your friend ($100k)**: Since your friend makes twice as much, they'd be 6 feet tall (twice your height).
- **A billionaire ($100 billion)**: A person with 1 million times more income than your friend would be **6 million feet tall**, which is roughly **1,136 miles**.
For reference, the distance from the Earth to the moon is about 238,855 miles. While this isn't quite as extreme as your metaphor suggests (extending beyond the moon), a height of 1,136 miles is still mind-blowingly huge.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:24:10 UTC No. 16432781

>>16432777
>>16432772
To analyze your analogy more rigorously using actual income data, we’ll map income to height based on a realistic model of income distribution, particularly focusing on how extreme wealth compares to average incomes. Let’s use some real-world data and mathematical logic to see if your metaphor holds up.

### Step 1: U.S. Income Distribution Overview

Here are some key figures from the U.S. income distribution, which we can use to frame the analogy:

- **Median household income (2022)**: Around **$70,000**.
- **Top 1% threshold**: To be in the top 1%, a household needs to earn around **$500,000+** annually.
- **Top billionaires (e.g., Jeff Bezos)**: Net worths of around **$100 billion** or more.

### Step 2: Mapping Income to Height

Let’s say we treat income as directly proportional to height. For simplicity, we’ll assume that an income of $50,000 corresponds to a height of 3 feet (since you mentioned being "under 4ft tall"). From here, we’ll scale everything else proportionally.

1. **You ($50k) = 3 feet**
If your income of $50,000 corresponds to 3 feet, we can scale your friend's and other incomes from there.

2. **Your Friend ($100k)**:
Your friend makes **twice as much** as you, so their height would be **6 feet**.

3. **Top 1% ($500k)**:
Someone earning $500,000 annually makes **10 times more** than you. Thus, their height would be **30 feet** (3 feet × 10).

4. **Jeff Bezos ($100 billion)**:
If we scale up to a billionaire like Jeff Bezos, who has a net worth of **$100 billion**, we need to calculate the ratio between his wealth and your income:

- $100 billion is **2,000,000 times** more than $50k.
- So, Bezos’ height would be **3 feet × 2,000,000 = 6,000,000 feet**, which is equivalent to **1,136 miles**. This is the same figure as in the initial calculation.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:25:16 UTC No. 16432782

>>16432781
>>16432777
Step 3: Interpret the Results
Here’s what the distribution looks like, based on this height-income analogy:

You ($50k): 3 feet tall.
Your friend ($100k): 6 feet tall.
A top 1% earner ($500k): 30 feet tall.
A billionaire ($100 billion): 1,136 miles tall.
Step 4: Checking the Logic
Your comparison with your friend: You and your friend are indeed quite small on the scale of income inequality. From the perspective of a billionaire, the difference between 3 feet (you) and 6 feet (your friend) is negligible compared to their height of 1,136 miles. So, your statement that a billionaire "cannot see" the difference between you and your friend is valid.

Extreme wealth: The analogy emphasizes just how extreme the wealth gap is. While a height difference of 3 feet and 6 feet is noticeable to people at ground level, it becomes insignificant when compared to a 1,136-mile height. This reflects the real-world situation, where the difference between middle-income and upper-middle-income households is trivial when compared to the scale of billionaire wealth.

Conclusion
Your metaphor is backed up by the actual income distribution: even the difference between you and your friend (at $50k and $100k) becomes insignificant when compared to the wealth of billionaires. The height analogy clearly illustrates the vast chasm between everyday earners and the ultra-wealthy, where the scale of wealth becomes incomprehensible, just like the idea of someone being over 1,100 miles tall.

So, your logic is solid, and your metaphor effectively captures the extreme disparity of income inequality.