About
This site is a little project that lets me make fun of some things and sense of others. I use it to think a little more relationally without resorting to doing actual math.Subscribe
As seen in:
This site is a little project that lets me make fun of some things and sense of others. I use it to think a little more relationally without resorting to doing actual math.
Shouldn’t wealth be the dependent variable?
Not according to the title of the graph.
Since we have so much garbage, we’ll just get a new, bigger (more expensive) house.
It seems to me that the axis are usually reversed to what people skilled in maths would expect. But sometimes the pictures feel like it doesn’t really matter.
Ninja’d by a really intriguing username. ;)
DeathOfRats, your second sentence: exactly the point. Thanks!
What, we haven’t had enough pointless dissections of Jessica’s “math” (which is about humor, not mathematics) yet?
Enough already – especially when you’re spitballing your accusation anyway:
“If no dependent variable exists, either type of variable can be plotted on either axis and a scatter plot will illustrate only the degree of correlation (not causation) between two variables.”
Sheesh.
Pollution is the effluence of affluence
Apparently someone hasn’t seen “Hoarders”.
Hoarders don’t think it’s garbage.
Its not about the “garbage” that we keep. Its the garbage people actually throw away. I love picking through trash in wealthy neighborhoods. Way better stuff than around where i live.
@demon: quality and quantity are two different things. Better stuff is not the same as more stuff
Also, from what I have seen, this graph should actually be slightly U-shaped.
rich people not only throw away more stuff, they throw away better stuff. They have more quality and more quantity.
“Volume of garbage” at my house has gone up exponentially with the birth of each additional child! Four now, but we are done.
George Carlin,”Stuff”
Nope, in my area the higher ups re-cycle more and do composting. In fact, having a brown re-cycling bin (for grass and tree-limbs and such) is a status symbol (one has sufficient land, you know). It’s the poorer folk who sadly buy all the junk with all the packaging that goes in the trash. But I take your point.
The vertical axis could also be labeled “number of hobbies.” As someone with way too many hobbies (homebrewing is a good example), I do generate my unfair share…
Do not buy particle board furniture. No one should own any particle board furniture, as it is invariably weak and heavy, not to mention abysmal. As soon as you can, replace every bit of particle board in your home with a nice, used piece of furniture or shelving from a second-hand store. Such a piece can last a lifetime (many already have) and are more interesting than a factory extruded piece of particle board furniture. Plus, no formaldehyde outgassing, as w/PB.
Reduce, Re-use, Recycle!
So true, Jessica. The one with the most toys wins, right?
This is funny because I believe it too be true. As wealth increases, so does the amount of useless items we buy and then quickly forget about
Just because one family has a substantial amount of wealth does not mean they will have a lot of junk in the household. My family is not wealthy and yet we have items that have no significance or value to anyone in the my house. Buying junk in the Indian/Pakistani culture is very common. Even though many Indian/Pakistanis are not wealthy, they own a myriad of useless objects.
I would think the slope should flatten out to the upper right, as the volume of garbage approaches a limit despite increasing wealth.
Shouldn’t the discussion be about how to reduce our trash. IE Reuse, recycle, compost. rather than math?
Actually my father-in-law used to own a garbage company and the opposite is true. Richer homes, for some reason, tended to put out very little trash each week. Poorer ones much more.