| Final-Fan said: Oh? What is your level/area of expertise? Can you explain to me why something like what I am trying to describe is impossible to measure in a study? What I have the idea of measuring is a combination of standard of living, quality of life, and the practical utility of additional income in improving these for various levels of income. What I mean by diminishing returns is that additional income at high levels of income is not proportionally as useful in improving the individual's life. So, the "returns" of improvements in one's life "diminish" in relation to the proportion of increase in one's income. I had thought I was using this term accurately. Am I not? In what way am I misusing it? |
I used it to major in it and have read a lot of research on it before and have conducted research on it. I know the ins and outs of research on the subject in any case.
The problem with the law of diminishing returns is that it's promarily an economic principil. If anything it seems that having more money increases your chances and abilities to get more money. Since you could send said money on many kinds of buisnesses instead of just one buisness it would basically never come to fruition... infact it would be the opposite.
First off. You couldn't conduct a study with that many people. Unless it was used soley through crunching number data.
Second off. Standard of Living is a flawed measurement in general. As i mentioned previously, standard of living is at perfect influx when in a socialist/communist like structure where everybody is paid the same.
Income distribution is a factor of Standard of living. Therefore using it in a study to decide what is a good distribution of wealth... or even income is faulty. Income distribution disrupts standard of living. There really could be a better living conditions in one country, but the other will read as better soley due to having more evenly distributed wealth.
Third off. Quality of life doesn't have a good judgement for "stuff people can buy." because of how everybody is different. In fact it's just assumed that more money = higher quality of life with no sort of correlation drawn.
Furthermore, quality of life issues basically need 7 generations to work. So for us to know how it would work one would have to make the decision to change to my plan... then wait for 7 generations to see if the outcome was better or worse. (Acounting for unforseen natural diasasters) to see if it was a good idea or not.
Also there is no widely accepted standard for quality of life measurements.
Fourth off... isn't your third factor what your trying to figure out in the expirement?
Basically none of your factors could be used in your study since they all conflict directly with what your actually trying to figure out.
Your using numbers that assume your hypothisis to be true to prove your hypothisis.
