I used the 2nd table which provides a straight histogram of the number of individuals in a particular income range. Per capita doesn't come into it at all.
The household income table is much more difficult to interpret in this context.
Getting straight facts often takes a little effort. If you are not using per-capita income, you are throwing around numbers with no cited baseline. What is the top 1% for the numbers that you are using (with references)?
You have provided no credible sources for those figures at a global level. You started off with some random $50,000/yr figure and are comparing that to a completely different population group (wage earners). Apples::Oranges.
Here is another reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082385/We-1--You-need-34k-income-global-elite--half-worlds-richest-live-U-S.html. Note that they are using "after tax" income ($34,000), which throws even more confusion into the mix. They claim that 48% of the global 1% live in the U.S.
If 48% of the richest 1% live in the US, we can see that 1% of 7B (global population) is 70M. 70M * 48% = 33.6M. Of the 300M US population, 33.6M are in the global 1%. That matches pretty closely (11.2%) with my earlier figures. And rather far off from 25%.
In the United States 25% of the >15 year old population has a personal income > $50K
You are mixing per-capita income (mine) with the income of wage earners (yours). That is the same misleading comparison the web site I linked to was tempting potential donors with.
A clearer picture can be had by looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
The first big table has "household income" as well as "household size". This shows that one needs to be near the top 10% before you get to "$47,500 per capita" rate that is considered "the global 1%".
I am not downplaying the fact that the U.S. has a lot of wealth compared to the rest of the world. But some of the numbers thrown around are used in a misleading manner. For example, the site I linked to above was trying to get wage earners to compare their personal or household income with some "global per capita wage" and not asking for their household wage and number of household members, which would be a more fair comparison.
The top 1% in 2011 earned $47,500 (individual income) according to the web site cited below. That means that a family of 2 adults would need to make $95,000/yr to fall into the global 1%. For a family with 2 kids, a dog and a hamster, that total grows to $190,000/yr. Remember kids, this is individual income distribution across all people, not family income distribution or anything like that.
Here is the source: http://www.globalrichlist.nl/how.asp
Not a too many American families make it into the global 1% any more.
You may not agree with that perspective, but it is the issue that Google is wrestling with: Should they facilitate the ability to prevent apps from knowing that they are not getting the clean data that they currently take as payment for producing the app?
In my opinion, our current standards for acquiring such data are extremely shady, relying heavily on a consumer base that is deeply misinformed of the extent of the surveillance and the risks the data stores pose. Where the balance of good lies between surveillance and countermeasures is hard to tell; it could be that subverting the datastream is pro-social in the long run -- but that is not the side on which Google's bread is buttered. They have a strong motive to see things from the app developers / watchers / revenue stream point of view. A great deal of money flows to Google from informed, uninformed, and misinformed consent to surveillance.
I completely agree. There is another, related problem that Google needs to address. Users have little recourse when app producers renege on the privacy that was initially sold to the user. For example, I paid for WeatherBug Elite simply because it did not require "phone state and identity" when I purchased it. Guess what? A year later they wanted that information for "Elite" too. I can either accept or not upgrade. I don't upgrade. I have a bunch of apps that are not getting updated because the new perms they ask for are ridiculous. If users cannot maintain the privacy that they paid for, what other options exist for them?
Either privacy has value and must be honored by app producers as part of the sale, or it doesn't and users have the right to block access to private information.
Applications and services that support AllJoyn can communicate "regardless of manufacturer or operating system and without the need for Internet access,"
Wow, what could possibly go wrong with that? Devices which will communicate whether you want them to or not, and with all of that information in the hands of greedy assholes.
In order to use this light bulb, and before it can be turned on, you must first agree to this EULA...
Candles anyone?
Well, then this is a feature, not a bug. The patient already set up for another contrast exam.
And can never pass through a metal detector unmolested...
Q: How do I convince management to hire more IT staff?
A: Quit.
Fail!
Let me explain how this works in management-land.
"We're not going to back fill."
A good manager will take the raise and accolades for cutting costs. And then leave for greener pastures while the references are still positive.
It's all Win-Win. The company saves money, the manager gets a raise and a better job. Everyone wins.
My son is 13 years old and has been training to be a pilot since he was 11. He has taken off and landed a small airplane (with the PIC in the airplane with him, of course) quite a few times.
Really?!? You're kid is flying a plane with a PIC? So, he's essentially being trained to fly by a drone. Is there anything a robot can't do anymore?
Yeah, and if you use the word "stealing" instead of "make infringing copies", that makes the latter sound a lot worse. But here on Slashdot, you're not allowed to do that, yet it's A-OK to redefine other words for our own feel-good* purposes, apparently?
MAFIAA bribery (or "lobbying") resulted in corporations "stealing from the public domain". And they have managed to re-defined "fair use" as "DMCA violations". But you keep using whatever terms makes you feel good about that.
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." -- Bertrand Russell
