When that article laid out that it was talking about a survey I sat down and thought about what kind of distribution there likely is. My first guess was:
f(x) = 500 / (1-x)
where x is 0..1 (excl. 1), 0 being the poorest person and the one right before 1 the richest.
This yields 88.8% being owned by the richest 20% when using 1mio slices (the only reason I'm not trying to integrate symbolically is that I'm too lazy to try to revive my college math skills).
This is strikingly close to the 84% that the article claims is reality.
So, what's wrong with this then now?
The journalist writes that it "should" be different but doesn't provide for an explanation that says why the distribution should be following a different mathematical formula (and which).
Thanks for your reply. You're giving me some food for thought.
To be clear, I'm poor, i.e. I've failed both at wealth creation and ownership so far. I'll think about how (much) wealth creation can 'distort' the geometric formula.
This yields 88.8% being owned by the richest 20% when using 1mio slices (the only reason I'm not trying to integrate symbolically is that I'm too lazy to try to revive my college math skills).
This is strikingly close to the 84% that the article claims is reality.
So, what's wrong with this then now?
The journalist writes that it "should" be different but doesn't provide for an explanation that says why the distribution should be following a different mathematical formula (and which).
Who is being stupid here, me or the journalist?