0980: "Money"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

dragonite1997
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:47 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby dragonite1997 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:42 am UTC

I don't know if anyone's noticed this, but it lists "price of a video game" as $49.99, when in fact it is usually $59.99. Unless he's changed it in the few hours since I looked at the chart. In any case, very exhaustive chart.

JiminP
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:46 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby JiminP » Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:42 am UTC

Image

wormywyrm
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:29 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby wormywyrm » Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:56 am UTC

I love how Donald Trump is his own section.

I also love that 18 billion US Gov. dollars is reportedly missing... and just in construction projects alone.

Super depressing.

I am surprised how little the wars cost compared to our annual gov spending, I thought it was more.

Wonderful how the amount of campaign fundraising so accurately reflects the winner of the presidential race... Wonder where the $$ came from.

I had no idea how popular minecraft is... Wow.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6279
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Jorpho » Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:02 am UTC

It's the annual derivatives market that I find worth commenting on. And to think people still can't quite agree on what a derivative is.

Also, US household debt is significantly larger than the federal government's debt.


blahedo
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:27 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby blahedo » Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:14 am UTC

dimwitd wrote:1. YEAH! Flat is not regressive, *technically*.


True, but if you're referring to the bit under "state taxes", he said "regressive" and meant "regressive". Count the units: there are $89b in the "state tax" blob for the top income pool and unless I've miscounted $167b in the analogous blob for the bottom income pool. When counted as a percentage of income, sales taxes are regressive. Sales taxes are not the sole source of state tax income, obviously, but they (and property taxes, also regressive) are the biggest chunk. In states where the income tax is flat, the overall state tax burden will be regressive; even in states with a mildly progressive income tax, it may not fully counterbalance the other taxes, although I'm certainly prepared to believe that there are a handful of individual states that have nonregressive tax structures.

dimwitd wrote:Sloppy liberal semantics.


Sloppy conservative conclusion-jumping? I mean, not that there aren't liberals who are sloppy with their terms (and conservatives too), but Randall explained pretty clearly what he meant by "regressive" here.

Hap
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:12 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Hap » Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:42 am UTC

fugacity wrote:
Hap wrote:The Value of Statistical Life listed for the EPA ($8M+) is not the same thing as the measurement of human life. From wikipedia:
There is no standard concept for the value of a specific human life in economics. However, when looking at risk / reward trade-offs that people make with regard to their health, economists often consider the value of a statistical life (VSL). The VSL is the value that an individual places on a marginal change in their likelihood of death. Note that the VSL is very different from the value of an actual life. It is the value placed on changes in the likelihood of death, not the price someone would pay to avoid certain death.

Wouldn't the price to pay to avoid certain death, for a rational person, be infinite? The VSL seems to be the best figure to work from since it derives from measured behavior.


Well, yes, you are right about that. But the VSL doesn't measure the price to avoid certain death, but rather the marginal increase one would be willing to pay for a marginal increase in the probability of death. Given the wording from the EPA and Wikipedia, I'm assuming it would function as, "for a typical 1% increase in the chance of dying, your typical person is willing to pay X amount."

(I say typical because going from 99% to 100% is very different than going from 0% to 1%).

The link below explains more in detail:

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/900B0A00.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2000%20Thru%202005&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C00THRU05%5CTXT%5C00000012%5C900B0A00.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1

Sir_Read-a-Lot
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:50 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Sir_Read-a-Lot » Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:45 am UTC

I love that even in such an exhausting and serious chart, he still added little jokes like "Velociraptor" and "J.K. Rowling if she became a rapper".

stuarta0
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:00 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby stuarta0 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:02 am UTC

JiminP wrote:
JiminP wrote:Actually, there are tiles tile_000_(000~048)_(000-032).png which are original.


I'm currently downloading (col 28 of 49) full-size images using my python script. Total size of the image file will be 100 megapixels...
Now I understand why tile_001_... are used in the C# code... :|


Actually I did miss the fact that 000 was the original. I thought I'd clicked on 1:1 before firebugging the page but apparently not :)

frajen86
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:48 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby frajen86 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:51 am UTC

The average cost/U.S. restaurant meal is off.

I assumed the source they are using is from the "the top restaurants" link, http://www.zagat.com/buzz/2012-america%E2%80%99s-top-restaurants-guide-available-now.

These "top restaurants" are not a true representative of "all" or even "average" restaurants. Looking at the cost per meal (actually stated as average check) in their other source (http://www.rolypoly.com/news/articles/R&I%202009%20Top%20400%20Restaurant%20Chains.pdf), you will see that people are not spending $35 per meal at restaurants...

Cheers

Potatoswatter
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:48 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Potatoswatter » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:01 am UTC

The GDP of Europe (incl Russia and Turkey) is missing a ",000".

hthall
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:40 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby hthall » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:11 am UTC

I love that he started out by comparing (fairly) apples and oranges.
Look at me, still talking when there's Science to do.

jmcclaskey
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:09 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money" - error in Europe GDP?

Postby jmcclaskey » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:21 am UTC

Truly fascinating...and no doubt I will be even more astonished with fuller explanation. I haven't read every post here of course, so at the risk of being a bit of a noodge: there appears to be 3 zero's missing at the end of the figure for the world GDP attributable to Europe (incl. Russia and Turkey): It is given as 20,130,000,000 (billions) rather than 20,130,000,000,000 (trillions), the latter being consistent with the other figures and the graphical representation. All-in-all terrific, though.

Jurph
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:38 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Jurph » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:46 am UTC

I'm thrilled that he used my research at SDMB as a source for some of his numbers!

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby skeptical scientist » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:49 am UTC

I just noticed "advanced" nuclear in the power section. Does anyone know what this means? Is that what it would cost (per unit* of energy produced) to build a new reactor today using modern reactor designs and run it for the lifetime of the reactor?

*the unit being the amount of electricity needed to power all US homes for a year.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby yurell » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:50 am UTC

Starbucks coffee $2.00 o.O They cost close to double that here. Must be why they only live in tourist traps.

All in all, I think this was a very interesting webcomic, although I'm not particularly fond of the default viewer for it.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:52 am UTC

SirMustapha wrote:Reaction of xkcd fan: "Wow! This must have taken so much time, it's no wonder the comic is late!"

Reaction of xkcd hater: "This comic is so completely worthless, it's amazing that Randall should spend so much time in it!"

Reaction of both: tl;dr

Proper reaction of xkcd hater: "This is clearly just here so he can sell the poster, and he didn't even proofread the damn thing first! Does he expect us to do that for him, for free? I guess that's why he says they won't be available until December."

It's also funny how Randall used such a sloppy method to make the chart viewable when he's such a computer geek. I guess if he can't program it in Python, it's not worth his time. ;)

I mean, seriously, not being able to use it on an Android phone is one thing, but why has nobody bothered to mention the fact that every time I move or zoom the image, the browser adds another entry to my history, rendering the "Back" button completely unusable?! Hell, even Cracked had an article about crap like that (scroll down to #1). And bonus points for that same article linking to xkcd's comic about university websites on its first page.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby skeptical scientist » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:53 am UTC

yurell wrote:Starbucks coffee $2.00 o.O They cost close to double that here. Must be why they only live in tourist traps.

All in all, I think this was a very interesting webcomic, although I'm not particularly fond of the default viewer for it.

Maybe he means drip coffee rather than espresso drinks. It's hard to imagine espresso drinks at Starbucks costing $2 anywhere, and I know they're not that cheap anywhere in the US.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

theskuj
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:56 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money" - Cnada

Postby theskuj » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:59 am UTC

Canada's public debt isn't even close to a trillion dollars. It's about half of that.

It's been in the mid 500-billions for a long time now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_public_debt

innerproduct
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:15 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby innerproduct » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:19 am UTC

Mukesh AmbaRi should be Mukesh Ambani. (In the list of billionaires.)

Gamer_2k4
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:09 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Gamer_2k4 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:28 am UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:Proper reaction of xkcd hater: "This is clearly just here so he can sell the poster, and he didn't even proofread the damn thing first! Does he expect us to do that for him, for free? I guess that's why he says they won't be available until December."

Speaking of selling posters, why is the one poster 15 dollars, while the four quadrants poster (which, if I'm reading correctly, is simply four sections, each the size of the "small" version) is 150 dollars? I expect it's four times the paper and four times the ink, which should add up to 60 dollars, not 150. Randall has a 150% markup if you order the large version. WHY?

For a cartoonist of a webcomic about math, Randall sure isn't very good at it.

Tomo2k
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:27 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Tomo2k » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:31 am UTC

webdude wrote:
endolith wrote:"Buri Khalifa" should be "Burj Khalifa"


Depends on which transliteration you're using. Have you ever seen the list of how many ways the western media spelled "Qaddafi?"

No it does not. The building name is spelt Burj with a J on the road signs and the official website:
http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/

(Same as the Burj Al-Arab down the road.)

Aside from that, I and J endings are pronounced very differently in English, unlike G and Q for Gaddafi/Qaddafi.

Seriously though, given the scale of this poster, the number is typos is pretty small - and yay for crowdsourced proofreading!

- There's now a "z" in the Gas Combined Cycle cost.
Last edited by Tomo2k on Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:33 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
nerd65536
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:49 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby nerd65536 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:33 am UTC

For anyone interested, here's a bash script to download and assemble the pieces of the image.
(Requires imagemagick)

Code: Select all

wget http://imgs.xkcd.com/money_tiles7/tile_000_{000..048}_{000..032}.png

for i in {00..48}; do
  montage tile_000_0"$i"_0{00..32}.png -tile 1x -geometry +0+0 column_$i.png
done
montage column_{00..48}.png -tile x1 -geometry +0+0 xkcd_980.png


3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
8214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
44288109756659334461284756482...

User avatar
Ideas sleep furiously.
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:07 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Ideas sleep furiously. » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:48 am UTC

I would be infinitely more successful if I could do this kind of thing in my spare time instead of playing Skyrim.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. - Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:29 am UTC

Gamer_2k4 wrote:
Steve the Pocket wrote:Proper reaction of xkcd hater: "This is clearly just here so he can sell the poster, and he didn't even proofread the damn thing first! Does he expect us to do that for him, for free? I guess that's why he says they won't be available until December."

Speaking of selling posters, why is the one poster 15 dollars, while the four quadrants poster (which, if I'm reading correctly, is simply four sections, each the size of the "small" version) is 150 dollars? I expect it's four times the paper and four times the ink, which should add up to 60 dollars, not 150. Randall has a 150% markup if you order the large version. WHY?

For a cartoonist of a webcomic about math, Randall sure isn't very good at it.

I chalked that up to supply and demand, since these are probably being pre-printed. I figure the only potential customers for a poster the size of an entire wall would be schools, and $150 sounds more or less like what a school would pay for something like that anyway.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:59 am UTC

The average life is $8.4m? It went down from $10m in 1990 dollars? Dammit people, stop producing children that are worth less!

Also, I do not spend 2 hours shopping just to make a meal for 4 (or make a meal for 4, but that's an aside). Shopping for food amounts to maybe an hour for the week, so that's only an extra ~$2.50 per dinner (less when factoring in other meals), plus travel and cooking costs for maybe another 50 cents/meal.

User avatar
TG333
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:39 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby TG333 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:18 am UTC

High end bicycles can easily break the $10k mark, $1,500 is what I paid for a decent (not even top notch) front end on my DH-racer. Yes, my life is rather empty.

Otherwise a massive blast to imagine the amount of work put into this one. Thank you, sir.
I don't wanna hear your excuses! The building has to be at least... three times bigger than this!

Dynamoxie
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:25 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Dynamoxie » Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:43 am UTC

Someone may have pointed this one out already, but this thread is crazy long...
"$1 per US household - $117,290,000,000"
Almost certainly was meant to have three fewer zeros.

However, the numbers for "$1 per US household" and "resident" don't match up to "$10 from every US household" and "resident". If you divide the latter numbers by 10 you get:

$1 - 117,290,000 households and 312,620,000 residents
$10 - 117,918,000 households and 332,620,000 residents

My guess is that for "per" the numbers are official census data and for "from" the numbers include estimates of undocumented people.

ijuin
Posts: 1104
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby ijuin » Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:51 am UTC

Stoove wrote: The agreement might look like this:

I agree to pay you a fixed interest rate of 1.34% and you pay me the variable rate of LIBOR (London Inter-bank Offer Rate) for 5 years. This percentage is based off of an arbitrary number called a notional amount, which is what the payments are based on. Usually notional it $1000 for each "side" of the swap. Assuming one payment per year, I might pay you $11.34 (1.34% x $1000) at the end of the year and you might pay me $5. (Seems like an unfair deal but LIBOR rates are projected to rise over the next 5 years)

Anyway, for the purpose of that $439 trillion number, this agreement would count as 1000 + 11.34 + 1000 + 5 = $2016.34 dollars toward that total. Add a few decimal places and you have $439 trillion. This is hundreds of times larger than the 6 bucks that traded hands.

Thank you for explaining just how it is possible for the derivatives market to be worth more than the last fifty years' worth of the USA's total GDP.

Rachie
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:16 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Rachie » Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:53 am UTC

Typo:
"Typing FUNDS" should be simply "FUND", assuming it refers to the SimCity 2000 code to issue a large bond.

mindstalk
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:47 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby mindstalk » Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:09 am UTC

Jorpho wrote:Also, US household debt is significantly larger than the federal government's debt.


Not that surprising in retrospect. Federal government budget is only about 20% of the economy, or less, makes sense that private debt would outweigh public.

I wondered about the $35 restaurant meal, but maybe it was for a family of four? Hard to say since he didn't give any direct sources.

Likewise, the Canadian debt might be something other than public debt, just as US federal debt can be $10 trillion or $14 trillion or maybe another number, depending on what's counted.

Then again he had $16,000 as French income/capita, which is just, what.

Ichneumon_dc
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:27 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Ichneumon_dc » Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:17 am UTC

Randall, you really screwed the pooch on the "typical CEO pay".

I looked at your list of sources, and you cite a report by the "Economic Policy Institute" as your source ("The State of Working America, 2008/2009", by Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, Heidi Shierholz).

First, you really should have considered the EPI's well-known leftist bias when weighing whether they were the most objective source to use, and perhaps gone looking for more reliable sources of raw data.

Second, you obviously took the following line from the report and fell for the propaganda twist on it, overlooking the weasel-wording that the authors hoped the reader would miss so as to come away with the wrong impression:
In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 298 at the end of the recovery in 2000, fell due to the stock market decline in the early 2000s and recovered to 275 in 2007. In other words, in 2007 a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than the typical worker earned all year.

Indeed, your alleged "typical 2007 CEO pay" figure is exactly 275 times your "2007 production worker average hourly wage" figure, just as Mishel et al asserted. (Oddly though, your 1965 CEO pay is 25 times the worker wage, not 24 times as asserted by Mishel et al, did you mis-punch your calculator?)

However, note the weasel wording in the paper's assertion: It speaks of "U.S. CEOs in major companies". Key phrase, "MAJOR COMPANIES". How major? Oh, just the very biggest companies in the country... Most tabulations of "CEO compensation" use the "Standard & Poor's 500" index companies as their statistical base, some use the Fortune 500, a few use the Russell 3000. In any case, these are all HUGE corporations. In order to even be on the S&P index, a company has to have a market cap of AT LEAST $4 BILLION DOLLARS.

Furthermore, CEOs at quite a few of those megacorporations own a piece of the company, either so that they'll have a stake in the company's success, or because they helped create it in the first place (consider Steve Jobs for example, or Sam Walton), and this gets counted in what they "earn" as CEO, pushing up the averages for huge-company CEOs as a group. Those figures aren't just for salary. Additionally, there are often incentive bonuses -- when the company grows, the CEO gets bonuses, when the company does poorly, so does the CEO, so of *course* at the top (i.e. most successful, growing) companies you'll find a CEO with a very generous payday.

In any case, it's not surprising that the CEOs of the very largest companies in the world earn a proportionally large "payday" -- their decisions can make or break billion-dollar corporations, as well as affect the livelihoods of many thousands of company employees (as well as the lives of people indirectly dependent upon that company). You have to pay good money to get the most competent CEOs, or they'll go elsewhere (even overseas if the US ever gets stupid enough to cap CEO pay here like some morons keep suggesting.) Even if your figures were correct (and they're already suspect), they reveal about $11M/year for a top CEO, which is worth it for someone who can keep a billion-dollar company running well year after year, especially if his stewardship manages to grow the company a few percent a year (he actually pays for himself, plus provides growing numbers of jobs for other people).

Getting back to the accuracy of your figures, however, first note the bait-and-switch that Mishel et al pull in the above quoted passage -- they start out comparing "CEOs [mumble]in major corporations[mumble-but-we-won't-stress-HOW-major-mumble]" to "an average worker" (already an apples-vs-oranges comparison), then to make sure the reader has the largest possible chance to take away an incorrect conclusion from their misleading presentation, their very next sentence claims "in 2007 a CEO earned more in one workday [...] than the typical worker earned all year".

OH LOOK! Suddenly the "in major corporations" qualifier has been left by the side of the road, and they talk about "a CEO" (without qualifiers) to try to imply that they mean "any old CEO" or "a typical CEO", just like "the typical worker" they mention in the second half of the sentence for comparison, as they try mightily to distract the reader from the fact that they're still talking apples-and-oranges -- comparing a very small handful of the CEOs of the very largest megacorporations, to the "typical worker" in small businesses everywhere.

Comparing the (very rare atypical very-top-of-the-heap) CEO to the (typical) worker isn't a very fair comparison now, is it?

But Randall, you fell for it.

In your own presentation, you forgot all about the mentioned-fast-in-passing-now-forget-about-it-please qualifier of "major companies", and you (mis)represented the data as simply "typical CEO pay" vs "production worker average wage", as if randomly selecting a CEO and a worker would tend to show a 275:1 income ratio.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Your leftist propaganda source intentionally misled you, Randall.

But they're not the only ones. Other leftist sources are famous for the same bait-and-switch. Consider for example this page by the AFL-CIO: http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/
They start out by weasel-wording about "CEOs of the largest companies", but by the time they get to the second paragraph the "largest companies" qualifier gets unceremoniously jettisoned and the BIG SHOWY GRAPHIC just talks about "CEO pay had grown to [BIG ORANGE FONT]343 times worker's median pay".

Oh looky, no qualifier at all about "CEO pay" there, even though they *are* still talking about "mega-corporation CEO pay", NOT "typical CEO pay for the vast majority of CEOs in the country".

I've found countless examples of the same bait-and-switch at many leftist sources, and the same lack of any admission whatsoever about just how LARGE their passing mention of "large corporation" means, i.e. it means super-giant-megacorporations (where one would *expect* the CEO to be appropriately compensated, especially if he's owner or part owner of the company), nothing like a *typical* corporation or typical CEO compensation.

As for why the (bogus metric) ratio of "very top corporation CEO pay vs production worker pay" would substantially rise over the past fifty years, I submit it's because the absolute size of the top-most mega-corporations has grown over the years (i.e., the "biggest" has reached greater heights), and with a larger ship to helm (and a larger income stream), the responsibility (and compensation) rises accordingly. I'd be willing to bet, though, that (when adjusted for real dollars) the compensation of a CEO of, say, a $50,000,000 corporation in 1965 and a $50,000,000 corporation 2007 (comparing apples-to-apples) wouldn't be all that different.

So what *is* the actual median CEO compensation for *all* companies in the US, not just a handful of the uber-mega-companies? Well, no one really knows (which is another reason why the leftists can get away with presenting just data from the hugest corporations as "what's easily available" and then pull the sleight-of-hand of pretending it's "typical" for all companies of all sizes). Most companies are rather small (and thus hard to track), most are not publicly traded (and thus aren't required by law to publish their CEO's salary), etc. This makes it damned hard to compile statistics on what the actual median CEO compensation is for *all* companies.

But an idea of how atypical the huge-megacorporations are compared to businesses as a whole in the US can be gained from perusing sites like this one:
http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html
For example, only 20,605 firms in the US had annual receipts of over $100 million dollars (and could conceivably had $11M to spare to pay their CEOs), whereas over FIVE MILLION firms in the US (out of 6.049M total firms) had annual receipts *under* $10 million (and couldn't possibly have paid their CEOs the $11M+ *you* claim is the "typical 2007 CEO pay"...)

And from personal experience, I can assure you that most CEOs of most non-gigantic companies don't earn anything even remotely like "275 times" that of a production line worker -- a much more "typical" (using the word correctly, for once) ratio is about 10 to 1. For example, the CEO of the company I work for barely makes twice what I do, *and* he shovels a lot of his own money back into the company because he owns it and if it goes down, so does he.

Would you care to revise your BS numbers regarding "typical CEO pay"?

And would you care to stop relying so uncritically on leftist sources? In my experience, they habitually spin their propaganda so hard it could be used as a centrifuge.

User avatar
hakuna_miata
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:21 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby hakuna_miata » Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:17 am UTC

The two things that struck me was that "all liquid assets in the world" didn't dwarf everything, meaning how much things are worth "on paper." That, and how damn small all of the combined state debts are, too, that it'd be comparatively easy to bailout all of the states.

N1AK
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:37 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby N1AK » Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:39 am UTC

Great infographic. I really appreciate the time it must have taken you to put this together for us all.

If you ever do decide to make some minor amendments then it may be worth noting you're missing ,000 of the European GDP in Trillions. Love the way you shaped it.

tyboy
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:56 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby tyboy » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:01 am UTC

I particularly loved the bit about the amount of money saved by modern hurricane forecasting technology. There was a comic about that a little while back and the thread contained a fair amount of discussion about the value of money spent on the NHC.

In the back of my head I wonder about the sourcing on a number like that, but since it's just a curiousity anyway I choose to ignore that voice.

jens
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:03 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby jens » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:06 am UTC

Hi,

I couldn't find a high res version of the chart,
so I created one and uploaded it here.
http://atomatix.net/jens/xkcd_money_highres.png
(copyright xkcd.com)

Hope this helps someone.

Rahman
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:16 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Rahman » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:26 am UTC

More Errata

In cost of Electricity:
Advanced Combined ... etc. shows $78, 10z0, 000, 000 ....it is alternative energy but perhaps not so alternative as to include a 'z' in the cost

In the High incomes section: says 8% but shows 9 little houses
In the Upper incomes section: says 16% but shows 18 little houses

I wonder if he put the 9 for the 8 and then copied and pasted himself to a second error?

Great graphic...please clean it up a bit before it goes viral. We don't need any more straw men in our political climate. Or make it into a wikipedia page somehow so that it can updated and improved by the obviously eager community.

Mythic
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:56 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Mythic » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:06 am UTC

The US Federal Government debt is higher than the total production of the human race! xD
It's 9.5 quadrillion while human product is 2.4 quadrillion. Three extra zeros were added accidentally

piy
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 10:13 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby piy » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:44 am UTC

i'm sorry i didn't read all this stuff, i just wanted to mention, that in the "trillion"-section, he forgot 3 "0"'s after the europe gdp.

its 20,130,000,000,000 instead of 20,130,000,000.

it makes no sense, that the eu has a higher gdp than whole europe+russia

alitiae
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:46 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby alitiae » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:50 am UTC

'ice ceam sundae" should be "ice cream sundae".

Besides that, the comic (still a comic?) is brilliant. Something to remember. I'd get a poster if I could.

Ian_1
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:03 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Ian_1 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:10 pm UTC

What a brilliantly fascinating graph! I can't imagine how long it must have taken to put together - congratulations!

My previous post seems to have fallen into the vortex, but I just wanted to point out that Europe's GDP is missing a ,000 and should be 20,130,000,000,000 rather than 20,130,000,000. If that could be corrected it would be marvellous!

Thanks so much!


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Keyman and 56 guests