~

Arguments on The Fallacy of Averages
OR
A Child’s Guide to the Wonder of Statistics

Take a happy group of 10 survivors on the bead economy.
One lucky beado gets 90 beads; one poor beader only 10; eight get 50 beads each.
Total 500, average 50

Big Boy Beado gets tax cuts & subsidies, funded by cutting ‘middle class welfare’ & general public physical & social infrastructure, does beadstock option speculation — partially funded through cutting the workforce, the wages & conditions, &c. of average working beaders (thus moving beads from them to him).
‘Disadvantaged’ Beadie gets social equity boost from the government to 15.
One lucky or cunning BeadHolder more than doubles his to 110 (maybe in Microsphere shares or real estate).

Now: Big Boy Beado has 225 beads instead of 90, ‘Disadvantaged’ Beadie gets 15 instead of 10, BeadHolder has 110 instead of 50, and seven average little beaders now have 25 instead of 50.
Total 525, average 52.5 each

"We’re ahead!", cries the Tribal Council.
     "Average beads are up!" (52.5 v 50) and
     "The poor are better off!" (15 v 10) and
     "The pie is bigger!" (525 v 500) they crow.

But 7 of 10 are worse off beadwise, & underlying support for all is less, so that most need to spend more time earning to have the same material standard of living they had before. This usually means their overall standard of living, which most humans calculate as including family or community time & bonds, and leisure time. 

Even the poorest is worse off compared to the highest (earlier 10/90 (=1/9th) is greater than current 15/225 (=1/15th)).

Do you think before or after is a happier & more cohesive group?