Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
no, will, I didn't miss #6. I even chuckled a bit. I know your tongue was in your cheek, but it did touch on an aspect of what I'm trying to get at here. The question it raises is, "what are we measuring?"
Are we measuring people's happiness and well-being? Do we care about people having different amounts of physical things (of which money is the main one) because we think that money/things make them happy? And if that's the case, is there some other way of measuring happiness that is more reliable than the number of things people have? If that's NOT the case, why do we care about people having different numbers of physical things?
Again: I'm trying to get at WHY economic inequality matters. Not that it should be ASSUMED it matters, but that the reasons should be articulated. I agree does matters at some level, but I suspect my level and reason differs from others'.
|
Ah, you did get it.
To get more to the point from my last post, maybe we should specify what we're specifically trying to show via the data. Because people are subjective regarding stats like this, it would be better to simply provide as much raw data as possible and then let people answer the questions you're asking on a person by person basis. I suspect that my measurement of financial happiness may be different than someone else's, and as such it'd be good for me to read data instead of conclusions made by people who have their own subjective conclusions.
In my opinion economic inequality has to do with numerous factors, but starts at income per household, depending on location. Right now I'm in the 83k after taxes area, which would be great in many places, but is rather mid-range here in San Jose, even with the housing market in shambles. So when I want to get an updated informed opinion regarding economic inequality, I'd want access to localized incomes per household.