Look at median, and not mean GDP per capita
We are dealing with millions here. To move the needle for 297 million people, the other 33 million have to do a lot.<p>Assume the 297 million people all make $100k. That&#x27;s $29.7 million. Now have the 33 million make an even $1 million. That&#x27;s $33 million. That&#x27;s 10% of the population making over 50% of the income. Altogether, that&#x27;s $30.7 million income across 330 million people. Or about $190k per year.<p>Yes, that&#x27;s almost double what the 297 makes, but it&#x27;s far closer to them than to the 33 million.<p>&gt; If a government regulation benefits Bill Gates $10 billion and every single American $20<p>I think he meant to say &quot;costs every single American $20&quot;, because otherwise, it&#x27;s technically an ok deal if it benefits everyone even if it benefits one person a whole bunch. And his following statements seem to indicate we should be subtracting $6bn from $10bn.<p>And I also have a problem with the hypothetical. It&#x27;s set up in a way to give only one outcome. He couldn&#x27;t even make it $40 dollars, because then it&#x27;s $12bn to $10bn. And he has to work with billions because 300 million people are a fucking lot.<p>But arguing about whether we should be measuring averages one way or the other is kind of missing the real point. Are the people taking the bulk of the income <i>deserving</i> of that income? For the most part, the people taking the lion&#x27;s share of the income are only doing so because they have put themselves in the position to determine how the profits of an enterprise are allotted. And it&#x27;s clear that they are not allotting the profits based on the value the employees are bringing to the company.