Numbers are abstract and often hard to grasp until they’re put into a context. A vivid example of this comes up with a nifty trick put together by Slate.com called “Mitt’s Income vs. Your Income: How long would it take the GOP candidate to earn what you make in a year?” Now, I know that my personal income is respectable. As a university professor — albeit at a not-very-well-funded university — my salary is above the state’s median. (And while you can look up the salaries of all state employees, including myself, at Utah’s Right to Know, I’m not going to spill the beans here. You’ll have to work for it.) On the other hand, when I learned that in 2010 Mitt Romney made as much money in 24 hours as I did in one year, I felt, well, rather diminished. Or, to put it another way, at my current rate, I would have to work over 360 years to make as much money as he did in one year. Huh.
[Note: Despite the fact that I am a bleeding-heart liberal member of the Green Party, I don't necessarily equate making lots of money with being evil incarnate. I'm not criticizing Mitt in this post; just making an observation. Really.]
So, a little context can mean a lot. That’s our lesson for today.
Filed under: Things I Learned Tagged: comparisons, context, income, interpretation, Mitt Romney, money, Slate (magazine)
