[byearthithatius]

Why? So massive differences in wealth look significantly smaller? By graphing this in log scale you are admitting there is an "exponentially growing delta between rich and poor" and log makes it easier to even visualize (which is insane to begin with).

[vzaliva]

Now, it looks almost like a binomial distribution. Yet, an Uber driver may not feel like being in the same bucket as someone worth $499M.

The diagram makes the point but misses subtlety.

[byearthithatius]

Disagree, the point is to visually show there is an exponential difference between LITERALLY EVERYONE (uber driver to Google engineer to VP) and like 100 people who have insane amounts of wealth. I agree Uber driver is not in the same bucket, but the way to fix it isn't going after VP its going after the other hump in the binomial where the wealth is being hoarded for generations.

[zach_miller]

I think the diagram on a linear scale makes the stark point that to Elon Musk, there is not really a difference between someone worth $499 and someone worth $499M, even though to me there is a massive difference between those people.

[endo_bunker]

Additional wealth has diminishing marginal returns, obviously.

[byearthithatius]

No, according to economic theory, the law of diminishing marginal utility generally does not apply to money. Please cite a source that says having more AUM somehow decreases potential yield. Sounds retarded. People say stuff that needs evidence then say obviously like its a source.

[dmoy]

I think GP doesn't mean "returns" as in investment returns. I think they're talking about like... living. The utility of buying a second (or tenth) house/car/whatever is drastically lower return than the utility of buying your first one.

[atmavatar]

However, the utility of money starts to drastically increase once you reach a tipping point where it can start allowing you to wield real political power.

The graph of monetary utility may look like a logarithmic graph at first glance, but that's just because it's more like a C1 + (x-C2)^3 graph where you haven't followed x far enough to the right.

[JetSpiegel]

Eh, it's not that linear.

Remember when Michael Bloomberg spent 500 million dollars to be on the Democratic debate, and Elizabeth Warren burned that money down with a single zinger?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD4csGWPo6o

[enragedcacti]

"The Marginal Utility of Income"

> We have thus confirmed the (cardinalist) assumption of nineteenth century economists that marginal utility of income declines with income.

https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp0784.pdf

People say stuff that needs evidence then say "according to economic theory" like its a source.

(fwiw I agree that this isn't a good argument for a log scale)