0980: "Money"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Ghandi 2
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:40 am UTC
Location: Williamsburg, Virginia
Contact:

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Ghandi 2 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:31 pm UTC

The restaurant section is deeply (and I can only assume deliberately) dishonest. Considering all prep time as opportunity cost ignores that most people do not have the opportunity to work as many paid hours as they can endure, and even if you could, adding rice and beans to your grocery trip does not take more than 5 minutes, and it does not take more than ten minutes to wash a damn pan. Which I guess leaves Randall assuming you have to stand there doing nothing the entire time the rice and beans are cooking? And while maximizing the cost of homemade food, he minimizes the cost of Outback Steakhouse by assuming only half an hour of opportunity cost, which ignores that two adults have to drive there and back and sit around in the restaurant at least half an hour or more waiting for their food, service, etc., while one person can cook the rice and beans. The ingredient cost also would certainly be lower if you bought in bulk, but I guess if it weren't distorted he wouldn't fit into the liberal narrative of people eating unhealthy food at restaurants because it's actually cheaper.

As for the whole actual thing, it is harder for me to respect the effort when I know it was only because Randall needs the money from the poster sales.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby AvatarIII » Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:39 pm UTC

not sure if this has been posted, but "AT&T Attempted T-Mobile Purchase", either the figure is wrong (possibly copied from LivingSocial?) or the squares are wrong (the squares imply $39bn, the number states $2.98bn)

silexh
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:25 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby silexh » Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:57 pm UTC

It seems the latest update has also broken the background of the 'Trillions' section.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Yakk » Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:01 pm UTC

I wish there was a troll prevention mechanic that protected the top post on the page somehow.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

AceVanquish
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:02 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby AceVanquish » Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:05 pm UTC

I think the price for an Audio Book and Paperback Book is switched. Perhaps even Hardcover is involved too. Generally going from lowest to highest: audio book < paperback < hardcover. But otherwise, amazing chart.

junkuser
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:00 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby junkuser » Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:06 pm UTC

Looks like there is a typo in the upper right corner, just under "Cost of Electricity"

The number for "Advanced combined cycle natural gas" has as it's figure 78,10z0,000,000

I think the "z" insertion is extra... unless this is some bit of wit I'm missing.

Andromeda321
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:31 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Andromeda321 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:36 pm UTC

Just finished going through this all; in short it's a masterpiece.

Bravo!

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby AvatarIII » Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:50 pm UTC

AceVanquish wrote:I think the price for an Audio Book and Paperback Book is switched. Perhaps even Hardcover is involved too. Generally going from lowest to highest: audio book < paperback < hardcover. But otherwise, amazing chart.


an audiobook on CD is just as, if not more expensive than a Hardback in my experience.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Telchar » Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:07 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:I wish there was a troll prevention mechanic that protected the top post on the page somehow.


It's even better that he complains about "the libruls" and then complains about an attempt to make money.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

quokka
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:05 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby quokka » Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:08 pm UTC

Ghandi 2 wrote:As for the whole actual thing, it is harder for me to respect the effort when I know it was only because Randall needs the money from the poster sales.


You're upset that Randall isn't independently wealthy?

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

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby frajen86 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:18 pm UTC

mindstalk wrote: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.

This is a semi-repost, with more detail.

Looking at the sources: http://xkcd.com/980/sources/
Direct link herehttp://xkcd.com/980/sources/DataDump.csv

I saw 3 restaurant-related sources.

1. http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/22/pf/meals_averagecost/ - Average restaurant costs
This link cites a 2005 Zagat survey, including one drink and tip.
2. http://www.zagat.com/buzz/2012-america%E2%80%99s-top-restaurants-guide-available-now - More cost/meal (agrees with CNN 2005 * inflation)
This link goes to the 2011 Zagat survey results.

I can't find specific details on the Zagat survey methodology (there are some comments here: http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/the-is-have-it/).

3. http://www.rolypoly.com/news/articles/R&I%202009%20Top%20400%20Restaurant%20Chains.pdf - Cost/meal
A quick scan of the "average check" column suggests that the $35 average is high.

My guess is that the Zagat survey does not factor in the thousands (millions?) of annual purchases at McDonalds, Subways, Pizza Huts, etc. where each individual "meal" is far less than $35.

Cheers

User avatar
WolfieMario
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:45 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby WolfieMario » Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:32 pm UTC

Okay, I waited a while to say this, expecting an update or something. I haven't seen one, and Ctrl+F implies nobody has mentioned it yet (surprisingly).

*Annual cost of bird ownership - $200. Annual cost of small mammal ownership - $300. They both have 200 green boxes. I actually noticed this right away...

There's countless other situations where either the amount of boxes or the amount of money are wrong. I've forgotten most of them since yesterday, but I'll try rediscovering a few to throw on Randall's bug list. Now, I may not be correct about some of these (especially if I have a severe misunderstanding of how this chart works), but I tried my best to find what I could.

Billions:
*Advanced combined cycle natural gas - cost has a random 'z' in it. Not as bad as the original mistake it had, but I now actually forget what that original error was.

Millions:
*1976 Past Presidential Campaign fundraising has the same amount of boxes as 1988. 606 boxes is too few, assuming the dollar figure is correct.
*1933 Double Eagle Coin and Treskilling yellow postage stamp are listed with the same dollar amount. Wikipedia seems to imply the stamp is nowhere near $83 million (I haven't checked the sources), and so does the stamp's number of boxes.
*1933 Double Eagle Coin itself is probably not $83 million either - the number of boxes again seems to reflect Wikipedia's info.
*Jackson Pollock's "No. 5, 1948" only has 143 boxes, not 153.
*William de Kooning's "Woman III" - there is some odd clipping at the top of its boxes, likely a result of giving that bracket a white fill and having it a layer above the money.

Thousands:
*"Cost per household served..." at bottom-left of Thousands section: 310 boxes, but $359K+ cost?
*Kate Middleton's wedding dress has an extra 25 boxes, assuming dollar amount is correct.
*Prince William and Kate Middleton's cake is missing three boxes.

Dollars:
*Typical 2007 CEO Pay - missing 100 boxes.
*Smartphone annual average bill - missing 5 boxes.
*Low-end bicycle has 10 extra boxes
*Paperback book has 1 extra box
*Smartphone average monthly fee missing a box
*Outback Steakhouse: Missing 4 dark boxes. Number of light boxes inconsistent with others (none are consistent).
*Chili's: Missing 2 dark boxes.
*Arby's: Missing 1 dark boxes.
*McDonald's: Missing 5 dark boxes; oddly largest travel time for 30 minute car ride.
*Note that for the above 4 entries, the total cost with travel time is represented with the correct number of boxes (dark+light). The number of boxes without travel time is always too small, however. I think this means Randall simply made more boxes transparent than he should have. If the corresponding amounts of light boxes are made dark, we get 8 light boxes consistently, so $8 for any 30-minute car ride, rather than some apparent variability based on food chain.
*Average single US restaurant meal has an extra box.

Damn, that was boring by the time I got to the end. Also, sorry for basically going backwards, no clue why I started at the Billions :shock: (And no, I never even traversed the Trillions, nor do I want to anymore...)
I should get paid for this. :P

Anyways, excellent comic/chart!

EDIT: My list of errors had an error: Copy paste'd "Average single US restaurant meal" somewhere in there. Fix'd
Last edited by WolfieMario on Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"Sometimes game development isn't about doing what is nice to everyone all the time." - Jens Bergensten

NoloPromittere
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:26 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby NoloPromittere » Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:36 pm UTC

I'm seriously confused by the "US Household Income" portion of the graphic. It shows a total of about 10 trillion dollars, and the left side gives about 125 million households total, but it also has a section of the money set aside as being necessary to "keep the average income above $250,000". If you take 10 trillion dollars and divide it by 250 thousand dollars per household, you only have 40 million households getting paid. What am I missing?

leroyjenkinson
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:43 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby leroyjenkinson » Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:46 pm UTC

When did MC Frontalot make that claim about JK Rowling? I'm an avid fan of his and I have all his music, but I've never heard one of his lyrics say this. Did he say that in the Nerdcore Rising documentary?

visose
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:22 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby visose » Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:01 pm UTC

blahedo wrote: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.


I think you didn't get to read my original post about what "technically" a regressive tax should mean. I post it again:

The graph states that state taxes are regressive because of the sales tax. Technically, a regressive tax is when the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. This means that a sales tax is a flat tax, because you have to compare it to the amount that that person is consuming, not his income. Regressive would be if, for example, buying a tomato had you pay 10 cents as sales tax, but buying 100 tomatoes would have you pay 50 cents.
I think that it's for political reasons that the term regressive is commonly used in relation to someones income, even when what is being taxed is not income.

It's also a bad idea to use income as the base instead of what is actually being taxed if you want to mean that "poor people pay more taxes in relation with the money they have". A person making $20,000 a year and having $20,000,000 in the bank has a higher "regresivity" (using income as base instead of consumption) from a sales tax than someone making $40,000 that lives paycheck to paycheck.

User avatar
Murderbot
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:29 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Murderbot » Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:23 pm UTC

Stoove wrote:Hi Guys,
I read the money comic and I really enjoyed the perspective. Wrapping your mind around the volume of the world economy is tough and the comic certainly helped. I manage a group of bond analysts in the research division of Citi and I wanted to make a point about the size of the derivatives market. I see these numbers thrown around a lot in the media and if anyone wondered this, I'd like to explain what they mean.

About 80% of that $439 trillion is the interest rate swap market, so I'll start there. An interest rate swap is an agreement where you and I decide to exchange risk exposures, usually between fixed and floating rate payments. If I have a fixed stream of cash flows but want to protect myself from interest rate variability and you have a source of variable cash flows with a fixed set of liabilities, we might swap them. The agreement might look like this:
I don't get it. :oops:

Stoove wrote: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)

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.

Let me repeat that in my own terms to see if I understood it correctly.
I lend you 1000$ repayable in 1 year, with an interest rate of 1.34% per year.
At the same time, you lend me 1000$ repayable in 1 year, with an interest rate coupled to some fluctuating index.
I engage in this transaction because I gamble on said index causing the interest rate to be lower than 1.34% and you engage in it, because you gamble on the opposite.
Neither of us need to really have 1000$, but you should at least have 11.34 $ minus whatever a realistic minimum index would dictate in case you "lose" and I need to have whaever the maximum realistic index dictates minus 11.45 $ in case I "lose".

Is that correct?

linforcer
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:48 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby linforcer » Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:40 pm UTC

Roderik, I'm originally below sealevel too, and unless you buy used (at which point you'll still be out €50 there ( around 67 dollars ) ) that is indeed what a low-end bike costs.

Singer4096
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:48 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Singer4096 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:51 pm UTC

Hi,

I love the Money infographic, but I have one suggestion. It would be nice if the numbers of the appropriate references were on the chart in the appropriate places.

Thanks and keep up the amazing work.

D

BuddyBoombox
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:59 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby BuddyBoombox » Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:14 pm UTC

I wonder what the cost of war would look like using the EPA value of human life?

I'm guessing earlier wars would get suddenly more expensive, while later wars would look a lot cheaper. Though, that might depend on whether you include only the allied losses or the enemies' losses as well.

cjjmccray
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:09 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby cjjmccray » Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:38 pm UTC

This is an excellent infographic, and I guess you're sick of typos been pointed out, but please, correct them all and get this made up for us to buy as a poster, A3 or A2 size would be ace.

Two typos I've spotted (and apologies if I'm repeating other posts, there's been 200+ posts so far):

"Buri Khalifa" at the bottom should be "Burj Khalifa"

Near the top/middle, in the "Cost of Electricity" panel, the top entry: "Advanced combined cycle natural gas" has the number: "$78,10z0,000,000" - the 'z' is spurious.

saldrich
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:38 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby saldrich » Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:45 pm UTC

The statistics on the Book industry are entirely wrong.

The global market for professional books alone is $28 billion in 2010.
K-12 publishing in just the U.S. is roughly $8billion and Higher Education is around $10.1 billion by the end of 2011.
Consumer Trade books market in the U.S. will be rounded out to $9.5 billion by the end of 2011.

Adding up just those figures alone (one global and 3 U.S. figures) would bring you to $55.6 billion, and this doesn't incorporate other forms of publishing such as yellow pages or newspapers.

Source: Simba Information

zephalis
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 3:26 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby zephalis » Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:48 pm UTC

Unless I missed it scanning the 7 pages (I should really be sleeping), how is the US federal governments debt ~26x the US national debt and ~40x the estimated total economic production of the world...EVER!? Moreso, how did so many people catch so many more obscure typos?

k...bed for me for 14 hour shirt tonight...

Thanks btw Randall, once all the typos are fixed this will be epic!

Fabio
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:21 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Fabio » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:31 pm UTC

That's amazing!

Typo:
Under "Corporate Tax Deduction", equipment is misspelled as equpiment in its first instance in "Temporary change to equipment depreciation rules..."

User avatar
thesingingaccountant
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:18 pm UTC
Location: My trusty tablet, most likely

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby thesingingaccountant » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:41 pm UTC

My mind feels like oatmeal after having perused the entire chart AND having read through all seven pages of comments. Here's my two cents' worth (see what I did there? *nudge, broad wink*):

It blows my mind to think of the amount of time Randall must have spent on research for this damn thing. Well done, sir.

It cracks me up that so many people have posted the typos/errata they discovered, and so few mentioned that not many of us could have done this much work in such a short amount of time without a similar number of screw-ups.

I found something no one else has mentioned yet! Under Billions > Individual Tax Deductions, there are two headings marked "State and local tax," with two vastly different figures. I have no clue which one represents actual state and local tax, and I have no clue what the other figure might represent. I'm proud to say that my accounting expertise does not include more than the most basic understanding of the US tax code. ;-)

I find it both hilarious and sad that there are two types of people on this thread: those who praise Randall for his effort to work his tail off and provide us with all this fascinating info, usually without questioning any of the data, and those who slam him for being a servant of the "leftists" while conveniently forgetting that the folks on the "right" side of the spectrum are just as likely as those on the "left" to skew, misrepresent, and lie to get people to buy into their messages.

My heartfelt thanks to everyone who has posted for giving me a big pile of stuff to ponder. I'm glad I don't have a job anymore... If I did, I couldn't do this all day. :-D
Never trust a psychic who has to reschedule.

Lathe
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:36 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Lathe » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:07 pm UTC

mippy wrote:Investing $1000 a year for 30 years at 5% interest with 3% inflation will not give you a real value of $27K. Your real interest rate is 2% so the real value after 30 years will be around $41K (depending on how often the interest is compounded).

The figure on putting your money in your mattress for 30 years assumes you have all of the money in the first year, in contrast to the savings calculations which assumes you are adding $1000 a year. If you put $1000 in your mattress a year (to make it comprable), your real value after 30 years would be $20K not $12K.


Thanks mippy, you beat me to it.

Yes, the inflation calculations in the image are wrong and should get corrected. Simply put: if you gaining 5% from interest/year but losing 3% to inflation/year, then each year you would have a net gain. This yearly gain compounds annual for each of the $1000/year you invest. Thus, after 30 years you would definitely have MORE than $30K saved up in today's dollars.

This is more than a typo in the image, the image simply has bad math. :!:

Lathe
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:36 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Lathe » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:12 pm UTC

Entroper wrote:This chart is awesome.

I have a calculation challenge, rather than a typo:

Under THOUSANDS, "Value of an investment of $1,000/year", the value after 30 years, after accounting for the cost of 3% annual inflation, is listed as $27,370. I don't think this is right. It seems that the calculation was $66,440 / (1.03 ^ 30). However, this would only be correct if the entire $30,000 was invested up front, rather than over 30 years. When you invest over time, the inflation doesn't hurt you as much on the money you invest later as it does on the money you invest earlier. You should still "come out ahead" if the interest you're earning (5% in this example) is higher than inflation. The chart implies that if you invested at 5% and inflation was 3%, you would effectively be losing value, which is not the case.


I agree. This calculation mistake is holding me back from sharing this image with my friends (don't want to share bad information).

quantheory
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:16 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby quantheory » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:20 pm UTC

I really loved this one, and spent way too much time looking the whole thing over yesterday.

However... I'd kind of like it to be looked over a bit better for typos and mistakes before buying a poster of it or anything. Looking for 10 seconds this morning, I found a typo that had been fixed with another typo (the advanced natural gas power cost has a 'z' in the figure) and one that still hadn't been caught (three pieces of art are listed as worth $83M, but only the Qianlong vase seems to be right).

orbenn
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:30 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby orbenn » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:39 pm UTC

Isn't using household income pretty misleading?
Households are of different sizes and they vary in size over income level among other things, so it's not really related to the income level of actual people.

quantheory
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:16 am UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby quantheory » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:42 pm UTC

Two quick observations:

Firstly, the inflation calculation is approximately correct, though counterintuitive. Assuming that the scenario starts in 2011, the last $1,000 you put in is in 2030 dollars. That means that, accounting for inflation, it is worth only about $424 in 2011 dollars. The reason you end up with less in the end isn't because your investment is becoming less valuable, but because the money you put into the investment later on is worth less in 2011 dollars. Naturally, if you put $30,000 in right away, instead of $1000 per year, you'd experience a net gain of about 2% per year (actually 100%*(1-(1.05/1.03))=1.94...%).

(Edit: Of course, you could argue that the quantity being calculated here is not the important one, and that one should take inflation into account in a way that shows how the investment is still actually good. After all, you may get less than 30k in 2011 dollars out, but you also put less than 30k in 2011 dollars in. Nonetheless, the final value of the investment in 2011 dollars is correct, whether you think that's a really useful measure or not.)

Secondly, I think that there is a mistake in the calculation nonetheless, or at least an ambiguity. If the first year is the baseline, only 29 years pass, and only 29 years worth of inflation take place. Using 30 years of inflation would mean using the year before your first deposit as the baseline. The former convention would lead to the final value of the investment (in 2011 dollars) being about 28,190, which is an $800 advantage.

PeterS6g
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:00 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby PeterS6g » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:57 pm UTC

PeterS6g wrote:
Kizyr wrote:...I'm noticing a lot of typos (captions that are most likely mistypes, missing or inadvertently added ,000s, that sort of thing). It's making it hard to understand in some parts... KF


I think there's a typo in Typical Household income (thousands). Both the Top 1% and the Top 10% are listed as $201,100.


It's fixed now -- pretty quick turn-around...

callmeindy
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:31 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby callmeindy » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:59 pm UTC

I looked at the sources, but I couldn't figure out how he figured out the total economic output of the human race. Anyone have a source for that?

Thanks,

atrahasis
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:03 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby atrahasis » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Sources : 200
Tiny boxes : 150,000
Getting a bunch of nerds to proofread your $150 poster for free : Priceless

Is anyone else puzzled by the 6x4 poster being $15 while the large poster which is 4 6x4 posters is $150?
If it was actually printed on 12' x 8 ' paper then I (having a rudimentary grasp of printing) could understand the price differential, but how exactly do 4 print jobs of exactly the same size and quality cost 10 times as much as 1?

Sunidesus
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:09 pm UTC
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Sunidesus » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:09 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:It's hard to pick nits over something this massive, but his lowest-scale zinger point is that a meal at McDonalds costs less than beans and rice made at home, and that's bullshit. An hour of shopping can give you two weeks worth of food, which divides down to two minutes per meal, and cooking is just letting the beans soak overnight, putting the beans in a crock pot with some (different) water, putting the rice in a rice cooker, and pouring both onto a serving dish. If that takes more than ten minutes of your time, you're doing it wrong.


Yes. This.

Constantly hearing that it is costs less to eat crap at McDonald's than it does to cook good food for oneself bugs me no end. I eat fresh fruit every day, very little processed anything, nearly every dinner has meat, and every time I've done the math I spend about 2 bucks a meal. Yes, it requires a bit of organization (I cook in bulk twice a month and freeze things) but it is totally worth it.

However, in general... AMAZING "comic", incredible amount of work obviously went into it!

bdhowald
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:18 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby bdhowald » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:23 pm UTC

This is one of the greatest works I have seen in recent memory.

I would also like to note a typo so that I can buy this in all its data-awesomeness and correctness. The New York City real estate total says $334,490,000,000, but it seems to add up to $806,490,000,000, unless I am misunderstanding how the sum was to be computed.

Kudos on the research.

ispajic
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:43 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby ispajic » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:45 pm UTC

Hey, I can't seem to find Rotschilds or Al Thani anywhere... and they're both as wealthy as it gets...

Axiomnor
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:36 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Axiomnor » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:48 pm UTC

I was on my droid loading this comic and I said to myself, "why is this taking so long to load?" I found out.

Also, there are 3 types of people in this thread.
The type who are amazed by the comic.
The type who are not amazed by the comic and feel the need to post anyways.
The type who are obviously English majors and feel the need to compulsively correct typos.

Thn1kk4man
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:48 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Thn1kk4man » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:50 pm UTC

In the section of State Government spending, I believe you have a blob for Colorado, but it's not labeled.

mippy
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:26 pm UTC

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby mippy » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:55 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:It's hard to pick nits over something this massive, but his lowest-scale zinger point is that a meal at McDonalds costs less than beans and rice made at home, and that's bullshit. An hour of shopping can give you two weeks worth of food, which divides down to two minutes per meal, and cooking is just letting the beans soak overnight, putting the beans in a crock pot with some (different) water, putting the rice in a rice cooker, and pouring both onto a serving dish. If that takes more than ten minutes of your time, you're doing it wrong.


Not that this gets you to two hours, but in addition to rice and beans, the cited meal also includes bacon, onion, green pepper, salt and pepper. Cooking time will be a little longer than if it was just rice and beans. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Sprocket » Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:27 pm UTC

I was looking at the chart for a good long time and just thinking "by god Randall, you're amazing", before I thought back and realized the terrible reference the alt. text was making....sigh. :roll: I guess he has to keep the hero-worship to minimum SOME how.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 0980: "Money"

Postby Yakk » Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:38 pm UTC

McD breakfast: 5 minutes as I drive by, 5$.

Home made breakfast:
30 minutes per week making sure I have fresh ingredients (specifically for breakfast) -- yes, I could be a more efficient shopper. But I'm not.

10 minutes to cook and sit down and eat. 10 minutes to clean (no dishwasher) that evening (because morning time costs too much).

Egg(s) (50 cents), Bacon (50 cents), Bread (50 cents, including wastage), OJ (50 cents) + misc (free).

Over 5 days that is 130 minutes and 10$ for home breakfast.
Over 5 days that 25$ for McD breakfast and 25 minutes.
105 minutes vs 15$

Wake up 5 minutes earlier, lose 10 minutes per evening. It earns me (after tax) 8.6$ per hour.

The home cooked meal will probably be tastier (better bread, better OJ).

So making (for myself) an egg/bacon/bread breakfast isn't "worth" it. Making it for a second person drops the prep and cleaning costs per person -- 20 minutes for 1 person, 25 total for 2 people, 30 total for 3 people -- which is non-trivial increase in efficiency!

In addition, the more practical solution of making oatmeal at the start of the week, throwing some fruit in it, and nuking it each morning ends up blowing McD's out of the water.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Leovan, Raidri, Tirear and 107 guests