Wiðercora wrote:Testify, j.mills.

Er. Is that good?

The bosses of these big companies have a very disproportionate amount of the wealth and do very little to actually make it happen. Today I saw an event hall manager stand around and chat, whilst kitchen porters and junior chefs sweated buckets around her. Without those people, the company wouldn't run, but they are both paid the lowest and treated the worst. It is them who generate a lot of the company's profit, and so it would seem fairer if they got a fair share for what they do. Managing isn't a great skill than say being a chef, yet it pays more. Both require knowledge and perhaps training - "manager" is simply a title, but I'd say in effort terms they both deserve about the same salary. One day the proletariat will demand a fair share of the profit for their efforts, this would be socialism.

Thanks for that. It's interesting when you see it broken down. Even if the margin is smaller than expected, is it $1.50 an hour difference?

I wouldn't have thought New York varied that much from London, but I think if you compared middle size US cities to middle-size UK cities you'd see a gigantic gap. If that makes any sense? I recon the UK like overall has a higher cost of living than the US overall by a considerable amount because of our insane population density and the demands.

HAJiME wrote:I recon the UK like overall has a higher cost of living than the US overall by a considerable amount because of our insane population density and the demands.

"The demands"? And what "insane population density"? We rank 51 in the world. India's at 32 - do they have a "higher cost of living"? Not clear why you think density should increase cost of living anyway: travel costs, for instance, ought to be smaller, and more job opportunities within reach.

Nonetheless, my impression is that the US is cheaper - because of lower taxation? Notably, petrol is under $3 per gallon in the US; in the UK, it's around £1.20 per litre, or $8.40 per gallon if my sums are right. A portion of fries in the US could feed the whole of Manchester for a month. There may be a cultural factor to this: the never-ending cup of coffee is alien to the UK.

HAJiME wrote:Thanks for that. It's interesting when you see it broken down. Even if the margin is smaller than expected, is it $1.50 an hour difference?

I wouldn't have thought New York varied that much from London, but I think if you compared middle size US cities to middle-size UK cities you'd see a gigantic gap. If that makes any sense? I recon the UK like overall has a higher cost of living than the US overall by a considerable amount because of our insane population density and the demands.

Not sure about that. Certainly living in Kansas is pretty cheap because no one lives there.

Kingston Upon Hull:

Restaurants [Edit]
Meal, Inexpensive Restaurant 4.54 €
Meal for 2, Mid-range Restaurant 17.03 €
Combo Meal at McDonalds or Similar 3.41 €
Domestic Beer (0.5 liter draught) 2.04 €
Imported Beer (0.33 liter bottle) 2.27 €
Coke/Pepsi (0.33 liter bottle) 1.70 €
Water (0.33 liter bottle) 1.14 €

Markets [Edit]
Milk (regular), 1 liter 0.85 €
Loaf of Fresh Bread 1.02 €
Eggs (12) 2.84 €
Fresh Cheese (1kg) 3.41 €
Chicken Breasts (Boneless, Skinless), (1kg) ?
Water (1.5 liter bottle) 0.45 €
Bottle of Wine (Mid-Range) 3.97 €
Domestic Beer (0.5 liter bottle) 0.45 €
Imported Beer (0.33 liter bottle) 0.45 €
Pack of Cigarettes (Marlboro) 6.24 €

Transportation [Edit]
One-way Ticket (local transport) 1.14 €
Monthly Pass 22.70 €
Taxi (5km within center) 9.08 €
Gasoline (1 liter) 1.08 €
Volkswagen Golf 1.4 90 KW Trendline (Or Equivalent New Car) ?

Utilities (Monthly) [Edit]
Basic (Electricity, Gas, Water, Garbage) 124.86 €
1 min. of Prepaid Mobile Tariff (no discounts or plans) 0.11 €
Internet (2 Mbps ADSL flat) 17.03 €

Sports And Leisure [Edit]
Fitness Club, Monthly Fee for 1 Adult 35.74 €
Tennis Court Rent (1 Hour on Weekend) ?
Cinema, International Release, 1 Seat ?

Clothing And Shoes [Edit]
1 Pair of Levis 501 ?
1 Summer Dress in a Chain Store (Zara, H&M, ...) ?
1 Pair of Nike Shoes ?
1 Pair of Men Leather Shoes ?

Rent Per Month [Edit]
Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre 454.03 €
Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre 340.52 €
Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre 664.02 €
Apartment (3 bedrooms) Outside of Centre 516.46 €

Buy Apartment Price [Edit]
Price per Square Meter to Buy Apartment in City Centre 1,702.61 €
Price per Square Meter to Buy Apartment Outside of Centre 1,418.84 €

Salaries And Financing [Edit]
Median Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax) 1,865.00 €
Mortgage Interest Rate in Percentanges (%), Yearly 2.50


Kansas City:

Restaurants [Edit]
Meal, Inexpensive Restaurant 10.67 $
Meal for 2, Mid-range Restaurant 33.75 $
Combo Meal at McDonalds or Similar 5.93 $
Domestic Beer (0.5 liter draught) 2.83 $
Imported Beer (0.33 liter bottle) 4.17 $
Coke/Pepsi (0.33 liter bottle) 1.17 $
Water (0.33 liter bottle) 1.00 $

Markets [Edit]
Milk (regular), 1 liter 2.07 $
Loaf of Fresh Bread 2.00 $
Eggs (12) 1.70 $
Fresh Cheese (1kg) 5.97 $
Chicken Breasts (Boneless, Skinless), (1kg) 5.51 $
Water (1.5 liter bottle) 1.25 $
Bottle of Wine (Mid-Range) 18.00 $
Domestic Beer (0.5 liter bottle) 3.50 $
Imported Beer (0.33 liter bottle) 3.75 $
Pack of Cigarettes (Marlboro) 4.83 $

Transportation [Edit]
One-way Ticket (local transport) 1.42 $
Monthly Pass 43.33 $
Taxi (5km within center) 18.75 $
Gasoline (1 liter) 0.72 $
Volkswagen Golf 1.4 90 KW Trendline (Or Equivalent New Car) ?

Utilities (Monthly) [Edit]
Basic (Electricity, Gas, Water, Garbage) 163.33 $
1 min. of Prepaid Mobile Tariff (no discounts or plans) 0.27 $
Internet (2 Mbps ADSL flat) 45.00 $

Sports And Leisure [Edit]
Fitness Club, Monthly Fee for 1 Adult 45.00 $
Tennis Court Rent (1 Hour on Weekend) 31.00 $
Cinema, International Release, 1 Seat 10.00 $

Clothing And Shoes [Edit]
1 Pair of Levis 501 40.00 $
1 Summer Dress in a Chain Store (Zara, H&M, ...) 50.00 $
1 Pair of Nike Shoes 90.00 $
1 Pair of Men Leather Shoes 92.50 $

Rent Per Month [Edit]
Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre 550.00 $
Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre 520.00 $
Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre 1,031.25 $
Apartment (3 bedrooms) Outside of Centre 2,600.00 $

Buy Apartment Price [Edit]
Price per Square Meter to Buy Apartment in City Centre 2,152.78 $
Price per Square Meter to Buy Apartment Outside of Centre 2,368.06 $

Salaries And Financing [Edit]
Median Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax) 2,258.00 $
Mortgage Interest Rate in Percentanges (%), Yearly 5.25

NineOneFour wrote:Can you explain how income is infinitely recursive? I'd love to hear this.

Only idealized fractals are infinitely recursive. Essentially all real world fractals are only fractals over a finite range of scales. Such as this broccoli:

Snowflakes and any number of well know fractal are only fractal only over a finite scale range.

Now the only real objection to a fractal description of income distribution is if the Hausdorff and topological dimensions are the same. Rather than try to argue this, would referring to authority be sufficient?
http://blogs.forbes.com/michaelnoer/2010/09/10/mapping-income-inequality/

Income inequality is one of the most morally pressing and deeply intractable problems in economics. It is also, apparently fractal, as New York University economist William Easterly explains:

http://aidwatchers.com/2010/09/beautiful-fractals-and-ugly-inequality/

When you order income from bottom to top, this well ordering is a structure imposed on it. Take the well known fractal defined by Brownian motion (Wiener process), with a Hausdorf dimension of 1/2. Now suppose instead of looking at the variation over time, you simply ordered the variations from smallest to largest. This is basically what is done when we order incomes and wealth from smallest to largest, and compare the relative small numbers of large variations (high incomes) to the relatively large number of smaller variations (low incomes). This ordering process produces a curve like an income curve from Brownian motion. The same pattern comes up when you compare the incomes of geographical regions, rather than individual incomes.

Income distribution is indeed a fractal.

http://www.amazon.com/Nickel-Dimed-Not- ... nskepti-20

An interesting book I read on this topic a while back.

my_wan wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:Can you explain how income is infinitely recursive? I'd love to hear this.

Only idealized fractals are infinitely recursive. Essentially all real world fractals are only fractals over a finite range of scales. Such as this broccoli:

Snowflakes and any number of well know fractal are only fractal only over a finite scale range.

Now the only real objection to a fractal description of income distribution is if the Hausdorff and topological dimensions are the same. Rather than try to argue this, would referring to authority be sufficient?
http://blogs.forbes.com/michaelnoer/2010/09/10/mapping-income-inequality/

Income inequality is one of the most morally pressing and deeply intractable problems in economics. It is also, apparently fractal, as New York University economist William Easterly explains:

http://aidwatchers.com/2010/09/beautiful-fractals-and-ugly-inequality/

When you order income from bottom to top, this well ordering is a structure imposed on it. Take the well known fractal defined by Brownian motion (Wiener process), with a Hausdorf dimension of 1/2. Now suppose instead of looking at the variation over time, you simply ordered the variations from smallest to largest. This is basically what is done when we order incomes and wealth from smallest to largest, and compare the relative small numbers of large variations (high incomes) to the relatively large number of smaller variations (low incomes). This ordering process produces a curve like an income curve from Brownian motion. The same pattern comes up when you compare the incomes of geographical regions, rather than individual incomes.

Income distribution is indeed a fractal.

I'm sorry, that's quite silly. There is no comparison to be drawn between income inequality in Manhattan where $14000 is considered a low income and in Mongolia. All that's saying is that all places have some degree of income inequality. Well, no shit. No place has perfect income inequality, and that's a good thing (I don't argue for perfection).

It also does NOTHING to address any policy solutions. It's a great thesis or dissertation, but unless I've missed something, I can't see how it's relevant to the real world, nor this discussion, nor in fact any discussion on income inequality other than being an interesting aside.

thaesofereode wrote:http://www.amazon.com/Nickel-Dimed-Not-Getting-America/dp/0805088385/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291523084&sr=1-1&tag=rationskepti-20&tag=rationskepti-20

An interesting book I read on this topic a while back.

Hell of a good read and everyone in this thread should read it.

NineOneFour wrote:I'm sorry, that's quite silly. There is no comparison to be drawn between income inequality in Manhattan where $14000 is considered a low income and in Mongolia. All that's saying is that all places have some degree of income inequality. Well, no shit. No place has perfect income inequality, and that's a good thing (I don't argue for perfection).

This implies you are still denying that income distribution is a fractal, yet due to what you say below, I'm not sure. I'm not sure how mentioning Manhattan and Mongolia is any different from mentioning two different individual jumps in motion Brownian motion and saying those two motions have nothing to do with fractals. The signature curve, when you order Brownian motion linearly, looks like an income distribution. Two features are needed to define a fractal.
1) Self similarity with scale changes, which basically has 3 types of self similarity.
2) The Hausdorff dimensions and topological dimensions differ.
The 3 forms of self similarity in decreasing levels is:
A) Exact self-similarity
B) Quasi-self-similarity
C) Statistical self-similarity

When you compare the top 10% of the top 10%, it has the same general unequal distribution as the top 10% of all wealth to the whole. Same thing comparing the top 10% of the top 10% of the top 10% to the top 10% of the top 10%. Same thing if you do the top 5%, or top 20%, or etc. Same thing if you look at the income distribution of nations, states, or counties, instead of people.

For a sample consider in the US:
The top 20% own: 85% of the all wealth.
The top 10% own: 86% of the wealth owned by the top 20%.
The top 5% own: 85% of the wealth owned by the top 10%.
The self similarity repeats at effectively every scale, within the total income range.


Here is a paper dealing with corrections to fractal dimensions when self-similarity only applies over a finite range of scales, called a finite scale- corrected dimension:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1688706/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1688706/ wrote:The most common error involves ignoring the fact that ideal, i.e. infinitely nested, fractal structures exhibit self-similarity over any range of scales. Unlike ideal fractals, real-world structures exhibit self-similarity only over a finite range of scales.

NineOneFour wrote:It also does NOTHING to address any policy solutions. It's a great thesis or dissertation, but unless I've missed something, I can't see how it's relevant to the real world, nor this discussion, nor in fact any discussion on income inequality other than being an interesting aside.

Here you moved from a claim that income distribution wasn't a fractal, to the claim that it has no policy implications. Yet it does, just as fractal engineering have helped fluid control applications, signal and image compression, soil mechanics, etc., etc. Ever heard of econophysics?

One of the easiest policy effects to describe is the idea of trying to draw a line in income. People above line line pay, which is then received by the people below this line. This policy, given a fractal structure, means that some people below this line must end up with more money than some people below this line. This does not mean it can't be done, with a minimum of, or insignificant degree of, income distribution inversion, but any naive line drawn in the sand isn't as meaningful as is often assumed.

Also, if you take money from the top incomes, not meant to be redistributed but used to pay government overhead and such, then the price variations will redistribute to take some part of that money back from the poor in the form of a cost of living increase. The policy must be geared to wage pressures, so the incomes of employees increase more freely. This is because profitability of even individual companies fluctuates on the short and long term, like a stock market graph, and if employee incomes eat too deep in the positive fluctuation, either the price index must increase, or the wages limited. Tax at the top is a part what what cuts into the profitability of those variations in profitability. So saying you didn't pay tax X, because your employee payed them, is an illusion. Why would it be any more or less expensive for the employer to pay that same money in wages, rather than taxes. It's the same employer cost either way. That creates an incentive for government to want the income to go disproportionately to high income people, because high income people pay a higher percentage of that income in taxes.

j.mills wrote:

HAJiME wrote:I recon the UK like overall has a higher cost of living than the US overall by a considerable amount because of our insane population density and the demands.

"The demands"? And what "insane population density"? We rank 51 in the world. India's at 32 - do they have a "higher cost of living"? Not clear why you think density should increase cost of living anyway: travel costs, for instance, ought to be smaller, and more job opportunities within reach.

I was thinking house prices and things? I guess I might be wrong, but I would have thought house prices are higher where there are more people and more demand. I feel like you're thinking exclusively. There are other things effecting our high cost of living, but a heavy population on top adds to it was kinda what I meant? I could still be wrong, but, does that make sense?

Nonetheless, my impression is that the US is cheaper - because of lower taxation? Notably, petrol is under $3 per gallon in the US; in the UK, it's around £1.20 per litre, or $8.40 per gallon if my sums are right. A portion of fries in the US could feed the whole of Manchester for a month. There may be a cultural factor to this: the never-ending cup of coffee is alien to the UK.

All I know is that in central London things are more expensive, and outside London completely they are cheaper still, but it's not a huge amount. In the US, almost everything was a LOT cheaper than outside of London. I was confused by the cost of trainers thing on that list for New York, because I now only buy shoes in the US due to them being 2/3rds of the cost. One of the things that were not cheaper was medicine. Here you can get a pack of ibruprophen in Tesco for like... 16p is it? Even Wal-Mart failed to provide me with own brand painkillers this cheap. Everyone told me before going out there that food was about the same price, there was just more of it. I can't say I noticed this. It WAS cheaper and there may have been slightly more, but it depends where you went, but it was cheaper. You are expected to tip more in the US though, but from what I understand waiting staff in the UK ARE payed minimum wage, but in the US they are not...? As for McDonalds portion sizes, they are the same, they just have extra sizes. Our smallest size is called medium, in the US that size is called small and it's the same. I never once saw anyone get supersize, I guess they were at the drivethrough though. I wanted a photo of someone with a supersize meal. :C

HAJiME wrote:There are other things effecting our high cost of living, but a heavy population on top adds to it was kinda what I meant?

I suggest it is less the density of population than the speed of its increase that might raise living costs. A rapid increase might lead to housing and other facilities being in short supply, and thus expensive; whereas a high-density population that has remained stable for decades is more likely to have resolved those problems and found an 'equilibrium'. IIRC, 50% of im/migrants end up staying in London, so that's a particularly 'stressed' area. Plus, of course, city centres are in some ways attractive places to live anyway, so there'll always be a price-premium there, at least for housing.

What I wouldn't expect is that it would automatically cost more to live in an ordinary town simply because the country as a whole had an increasing population density.

my_wan wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:I'm sorry, that's quite silly. There is no comparison to be drawn between income inequality in Manhattan where $14000 is considered a low income and in Mongolia. All that's saying is that all places have some degree of income inequality. Well, no shit. No place has perfect income inequality, and that's a good thing (I don't argue for perfection).

This implies you are still denying that income distribution is a fractal, yet due to what you say below, I'm not sure. I'm not sure how mentioning Manhattan and Mongolia is any different from mentioning two different individual jumps in motion Brownian motion and saying those two motions have nothing to do with fractals. The signature curve, when you order Brownian motion linearly, looks like an income distribution. Two features are needed to define a fractal.
1) Self similarity with scale changes, which basically has 3 types of self similarity.
2) The Hausdorff dimensions and topological dimensions differ.
The 3 forms of self similarity in decreasing levels is:
A) Exact self-similarity
B) Quasi-self-similarity
C) Statistical self-similarity

When you compare the top 10% of the top 10%, it has the same general unequal distribution as the top 10% of all wealth to the whole. Same thing comparing the top 10% of the top 10% of the top 10% to the top 10% of the top 10%. Same thing if you do the top 5%, or top 20%, or etc. Same thing if you look at the income distribution of nations, states, or counties, instead of people.

For a sample consider in the US:
The top 20% own: 85% of the all wealth.
The top 10% own: 86% of the wealth owned by the top 20%.
The top 5% own: 85% of the wealth owned by the top 10%.
The self similarity repeats at effectively every scale, within the total income range.


Here is a paper dealing with corrections to fractal dimensions when self-similarity only applies over a finite range of scales, called a finite scale- corrected dimension:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1688706/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1688706/ wrote:The most common error involves ignoring the fact that ideal, i.e. infinitely nested, fractal structures exhibit self-similarity over any range of scales. Unlike ideal fractals, real-world structures exhibit self-similarity only over a finite range of scales.

NineOneFour wrote:It also does NOTHING to address any policy solutions. It's a great thesis or dissertation, but unless I've missed something, I can't see how it's relevant to the real world, nor this discussion, nor in fact any discussion on income inequality other than being an interesting aside.

Here you moved from a claim that income distribution wasn't a fractal, to the claim that it has no policy implications. Yet it does, just as fractal engineering have helped fluid control applications, signal and image compression, soil mechanics, etc., etc. Ever heard of econophysics?

One of the easiest policy effects to describe is the idea of trying to draw a line in income. People above line line pay, which is then received by the people below this line. This policy, given a fractal structure, means that some people below this line must end up with more money than some people below this line. This does not mean it can't be done, with a minimum of, or insignificant degree of, income distribution inversion, but any naive line drawn in the sand isn't as meaningful as is often assumed.

Also, if you take money from the top incomes, not meant to be redistributed but used to pay government overhead and such, then the price variations will redistribute to take some part of that money back from the poor in the form of a cost of living increase. The policy must be geared to wage pressures, so the incomes of employees increase more freely. This is because profitability of even individual companies fluctuates on the short and long term, like a stock market graph, and if employee incomes eat too deep in the positive fluctuation, either the price index must increase, or the wages limited. Tax at the top is a part what what cuts into the profitability of those variations in profitability. So saying you didn't pay tax X, because your employee payed them, is an illusion. Why would it be any more or less expensive for the employer to pay that same money in wages, rather than taxes. It's the same employer cost either way. That creates an incentive for government to want the income to go disproportionately to high income people, because high income people pay a higher percentage of that income in taxes.

I'm sorry, this is complete madness.

I'm not going to spend a bunch of time convincing you why, but suffice to say, even if incomes WERE fractal, they are different per year, per country, etc. So one can change what percentages go to which income level. Furthermore, taxation can definitely impact income levels.

NineOneFour wrote:
I'm sorry, this is complete madness.

I'm not going to spend a bunch of time convincing you why, but suffice to say, even if incomes WERE fractal, they are different per year, per country, etc. So one can change what percentages go to which income level. Furthermore, taxation can definitely impact income levels.

Yes they are different, fractals are the result of differences that only look like the same differences when the scale is changed.

And yes, I agree that taxation can impact the income levels, whether it actually helps the poor or not. Nor am I saying that taxation can't go to help the poor. Certain types of government entities and safeguards, beyond imposing business rules, are even absolutely necessary. The fractal structure does have an impact on which policies, tax structures, etc., may be the most useful and efficient, and least destructive in getting the wealth distribution shifted downward though.

Some countries do better than others, and I would like to be able to figure out how to maximize those lowest level incomes even more than what the best countries have accomplished, without too much cost the overall productivity and economic growth. Your general political and economic views are well within what I find respectable and helpful. I just think we need to understand the problem even better.

my_wan wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:
I'm sorry, this is complete madness.

I'm not going to spend a bunch of time convincing you why, but suffice to say, even if incomes WERE fractal, they are different per year, per country, etc. So one can change what percentages go to which income level. Furthermore, taxation can definitely impact income levels.

Yes they are different, fractals are the result of differences that only look like the same differences when the scale is changed.

And yes, I agree that taxation can impact the income levels, whether it actually helps the poor or not. Nor am I saying that taxation can't go to help the poor. Certain types of government entities and safeguards, beyond imposing business rules, are even absolutely necessary. The fractal structure does have an impact on which policies, tax structures, etc., may be the most useful and efficient, and least destructive in getting the wealth distribution shifted downward though.

Some countries do better than others, and I would like to be able to figure out how to maximize those lowest level incomes even more than what the best countries have accomplished, without too much cost the overall productivity and economic growth. Your general political and economic views are well within what I find respectable and helpful. I just think we need to understand the problem even better.

That's perfectly fine, but I doubt using fractals in any way can help. I'm sorry, but for me, any investigation must be first and foremost pragmatic, and based in reality.

Everyone has different point of views, but we need jobs to support us for survival. They have the right to set policy, if we want our job to last we should obey. But this doesn't mean we don't have rights. Furthermore, one might think working at Walmart, Target, McDonalds and so forth is simple, but it isn't as easy as one might think. A number of reduced wage health results have been found which exact a physical toll on the people in these kinds of careers.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:I agree however I believe in a minimum wage from preventing companies taking advantage of upturns in unemployment. There should always be a standard to work from.

In times of unemployment it's better to have unemployment than to have low wages? That's the implication of what you're talking about.

I don't think I agree.

EDIT: Whoops, didn't see that this thread had been bumped by a one-post poster. Not sure if that matters or not.