This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The Pareto Economy

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

The Pareto Economy

The Pareto distribution suggests that costs could be cut by 80% across the entire economy.

Economist Vilfredo Pareto's (1848 - 1923) data-driven discovery that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population led to the Pareto principle, known as the 80/20 rule. Research has turned up an astonishing range of natural and social examples of the 80/20 rule: fixing 20% of software bugs eliminates 80% of the tech support calls, 20% of the customers are responsible for 80% of the complaints, and so on.

The Pareto distribution is not a Newtonian law of precise prediction, it is a power law probability distribution: it projects probabilities and ranges, not exact numbers. For example, the top 25% of U.S. wage earners pay 87% of the Federal income taxes. The point is not precision but the basic distribution.

The 80/20 rule can be further reduced (80% of 80 is 64 and 20% of 20 is 4) to a 64/4 rule: the 4% "vital few" have outsized influence on the "trivial many" 64%. We can see the rough outlines of this distribution in income and taxes: The top 1% of taxpayers reported almost 17% of all taxable income and paid 37% of all income taxes; the top 5% reported 32% of all income and paid 59% of the taxes, and the top 10% earned 43% of the income and paid 70% of the taxes.

As I have often noted, most recently in The Fiscal Cliff's Structural Endgame (December 28, 2012), and Why the Middle Class Is Doomed (April 17, 2012), roughly 70% of all financial wealth is held by the top 5%. That is remarkably close to the 4%/64% distribution we would expect.

Can 4% of Homeowners Sink the Entire Market? (February 21, 2007) Answer: yes, 4% of mortgages defaulting collapsed the global housing bubble.

The Pareto distribution has another application: cost-benefit analyses. Though it is more difficult to substantiate than ownership of assets or taxation, we can estimate that accomplishing 20% of the standard diet/fitness recommendations yields 80% of the health benefits.

A small, simple house that costs 20% of the average U.S. new home reaps 80% of the benefits: privacy, ownership, a warm place to sleep, etc. (Having built a plywood cabin by hand in 1978 that is still doing duty, I would go further and say a dwelling that cost 4% of the average home construction cost provides 64% of the benefits, as long as minimal electricity and indoor plumbing are included.)

This distribution of costs and benefits has profound macro-economic consequences. The U.S. "healthcare" i.e. sickcare system costs twice as much per person as competing nations' healthcare and still leaves tens of millions of people uninsured or underinsured. Though those profiting from sickcare will of course deny it, we can project that spending 20% of the current wasteful cartel/crony-capitalist system's budget would accrue 80% of the beneficial healthcare.

We can go on to project that 20% of the defense budget accrues 80% of the actual national defense provided by the U.S. military (as opposed to cartel/crony-capitalist weapons procurement and Imperial over-reach).

The applications of the Pareto distribution are endless and extremely thought-provoking. 80% of the potholes could be filled with 20% of the city street-repair budget. 20% of the food harvested could provide a nutritionally adequate diet for 80% of the people. (if you doubt this, recall that we waste an estimated 40% of our food and food products output, and it takes 3 to 15 pounds of harvested fish to grow one pound of farmed fish.)

What if 20% of the time spent in meetings produce 80% of the work/decisions?

Does anyone seriously doubt that spending 20% of the conventional cost ($120,000) for a four-year college degree would yield 80% of the quantifiable education gained?

If one car is shared by five people, 20% of the cost of vehicle ownership yields 80% of the benefits of ownership.

You see the point: roughly 80% of the U.S. economy is waste, friction, skim, fraud, profiteering and diminishing-returns inefficiency. Any system that spends 80% of its surplus on diminishing returns is doomed to insolvency.

This terrifies the conventional economics cargo cult because it suggests the market/state cannot provide jobs to 95% of the working-age populace.

Within the high cost-basis Status Quo, this is true. Few can afford to hire workers to perform marginal-return work, and few people can afford the absurd costs of education, healthcare and housing.

The solution is to radically lower the cost of living (education, healthcare, housing, governance/government) and reinvigorate the forgotten foundation of human life, the community. I discuss this further in my most recent book, Why Things Are Falling Apart and What We Can Do About It.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:12 | Link to Comment bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture


Parties on resisting the EU and bailout dictation, including Communists, have deprived the leading candidate of victory in the Cyprus presidential election today ... now there will be a run-off Feb 24

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:36 | Link to Comment Kitler
Kitler's picture

80% of Americans utilize 20% of the nations total brainpower.

(It may actually be safer for us all that they don't attempt to think...)

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:39 | Link to Comment CH1
CH1's picture

I disagree with this: The solution is to radically lower the cost of living.....

The solution is to stop obeying liars and thieves.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:41 | Link to Comment MrX
MrX's picture

80% of the weed is consumed by me.

don't miss this one:

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:44 | Link to Comment Manthong
Manthong's picture

I was going to say that maybe if we string up about 5% of the bankers and politicians we could fix 95% of our current problems, but then it seems, on an exponential curve, to follow that if we string up 95% of them we could solve fine nines (.99999) of our problems.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 22:11 | Link to Comment goldfish1
goldfish1's picture

If four cures sixty four...four's a good number to start.

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 01:22 | Link to Comment macholatte
macholatte's picture


let's see.....

there was a 4% chance a half breed communist muslim would be elected president but an 80% chance the elections could be rigged with 20% dead people voting and 64% not voting at all.


It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
Joseph Stalin

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 09:40 | Link to Comment qqqqtrader
qqqqtrader's picture

80% of the talking heads on CNBsC have an IQ of 20,

and the other 20% have an IQ of 80

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 10:29 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

if they go after 20% of the guns, someone will eventually figure out how to take down 4% of the grid


and i am 100% sure of that

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 07:38 | Link to Comment Frankie Carbone
Frankie Carbone's picture

I'm a 6-sigma guy myself. So that means shoot 99% of them and auction the remaining 1% off as trophies to the highest bidder.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 22:49 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

20% of 20% of 20% drive progress and civilization.

20% of 20% of 20% undermine progress and civilization.

How the remaining side with those two groups decides the fate of a society.


Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:15 | Link to Comment Motorhead
Motorhead's picture

It used to be the "ten percent".  Blame it on inflation, I guess.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 22:59 | Link to Comment Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

It was never 10 percent.  WTF are you talking about?

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 07:42 | Link to Comment Motorhead
Motorhead's picture

You never heard the old saying about the 10 percent?  Get a grip, chump (or put the bottle away).

Wed, 02/20/2013 - 14:51 | Link to Comment matrix2012
matrix2012's picture

e.g. Imelda Marcos once was well-known as Mrs. 10 percent in Philippines. Honestly I ain't sure if such 10 percent has been inflated to 20% nowadays.

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 09:21 | Link to Comment Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture



Always good stuff from Of Two Minds! .... well, 80% of the time

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:17 | Link to Comment dick cheneys ghost
dick cheneys ghost's picture

The 1% can kiss 80% of my ass..............

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:24 | Link to Comment Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 I just want to take time to welcome Z/H contributors, < back into the envelope<

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:25 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

There are many distributions that are far more skewed than 80/20, even in sales of a company's products.  Our bearing sales in Peru, for example, are about 90/10.

Further research into distributions of this kind are fairly urgently needed, IMO.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 21:46 | Link to Comment Matt
Matt's picture

There is a way of taking into account deviation from the 20/80 ratio; for example, if fewer than 20 percent of the people have more than 80 percent of the wealth, the country has less equality.

The principle is not just about property owners and income tax; the same mathematician discovered that approximately 20 percent of the pea pods in his garden produced about 80 percent of the peas, for example.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 22:37 | Link to Comment trillion_dollar...
trillion_dollar_deficit's picture

Similarly, I use this all the time in healthcare analytics. The general rule is that the top 20 procedures in lab/rad/surg/drg/cpt/etc. yield 80% of the total volume. 

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 22:59 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Yes, Matt and trillion_, + 1

The 80/20 Rule pops up up everywhere!

I was referring to the fact that there are MANY cases of more skewed distributions than Pareto's 80/20.  Here's an interesting book that I read about 80/20:

Koch, Richard  The 80/20 Principle  Doubleday, 1998

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 23:45 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Perhaps the 80/20 rule has its basis in bell curve distributions.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:30 | Link to Comment trendybull459
trendybull459's picture

The author is wrong on apply the Law of the PAretto twice,this rule shows real Elite % toward % of population they are try to control and this is 80% rule to the 20% from 80/20,because bewtween Elite also going the War,like right now between politicians and elities and the Banking industry which suppose to be the Scape Goat,because they created overburden ballanse which bended to Elite the hands,so,real rule is 96/4(80% from 20% is 16 from 20,so we plus those Elities who went victims of the system into middle and lower classes to the 80% of the slavory population),as soon as Paretto Law makes proportion becoming into over 96% -critical point,ballance which should not be overcomed by high number,as the Revolutions following,usually because Elities forgot to keep healthy proportion and became hunger too much,the proportion of the PAretto actually applies to the Stock Markets where he was specialist,his brilliant work was based on much earlier psyhological research which later Ung and Freud use in their works,forexample Foretter found that in family where was alchogolic during 6generation should be born alcocholic and if in family was killer,then due 6generation Must born killer,but if not-it will not happend next generations,thats why our parents was following the families trees,because this was helping to manage healthy outcome and unhealthy outcome for the family,which of the habits could appear and which gone in next generations

we got new Forum in russia and in russian,but you can talk english(as most russians speaking it),to leave comments in translite or russian,what is good is that Russia absolutly free country if it apply to critics of their enemies,it takes some few minutes to be free from Big Brother watching being registred in

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:39 | Link to Comment Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

  Paragraphs help?  A person with your wisdom/calibre, kNOWS how to >indent?

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:20 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

Trendy mispells 20% of his words .... the other 80% of his errors are diction and punctuation and typos !

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:37 | Link to Comment Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture



I prefer all caps and in bold - easier to read

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:56 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

80% taint 20% boil ?

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 23:02 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

20% bearing the other 80%...

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 07:40 | Link to Comment Frankie Carbone
Frankie Carbone's picture

And sentences less than 500 words always helps too!

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:38 | Link to Comment Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

I think that the 80/20 rule is about right when describing what the governments rips out of the economy as opposed to what you get to keep.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:42 | Link to Comment McMolotov
McMolotov's picture

Sixty percent of the time, the 80/20 Rule works every time.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:04 | Link to Comment disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

"90% of this game is half mental." Yogi Berra. that would be 9 time World Series Champion...Yogi Berra.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:48 | Link to Comment Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

I recall a lone voice in the wilderness proposing to cut $1 Trillion from the federal budget - not 10 years from now - but this year.

Imagine the pleasure of saying 'What TSA? What Dept. of Interior & Education? What Depts of Energy, Housing and Urban Development and Commerce? They don't exist!


Fucking Statist establishment...


Welfare and Warfare Nation 4Eva!

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 14:11 | Link to Comment Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

The Wall St. Journal came out with a budget tool a while back (can't find it now) during the last budget battle back in December, I took it out for a spin and noted that if you just take out some tax breaks and add in a bunch of common sense cuts, you end up with about $850 billion in the black, this year.  So, the question really shouldn't ever be "can they technically do it", because it's very, very obvious that it can be done.  It just won't be done.    

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:58 | Link to Comment orangegeek
orangegeek's picture

80% of unionized workers do 20% of the work they are supposed to do.


Hey!  This really works!


80% of government provides 20% of the value that they are supposed to provide.


Wow!  Another one!  Holy shit!!!

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:58 | Link to Comment Rustysilver
Rustysilver's picture

20% of the products bring in 80% of the profits.  My memory of Pareto.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:59 | Link to Comment Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 I've been up too long. Red arrows are great (inference). Be well Bitchez.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:59 | Link to Comment sunnyside
sunnyside's picture

As the hyperventilation about sequestration increases, I'm struggling with some of the details.  As I understand it, sequestration would cut 85 billion per year.  We are running 1 trillion deficit per year.  They are screaming over less than 10% of a fix?????  If this is a problem, then it is obvious there is no way this gov't has any will to fix it.  Why give a fuck anymore and even make a pretense to participate in this charade?

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:50 | Link to Comment NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Exactly.  Find a good seat and strap in. 

Not to pick nits, but it's $1.2T a year.  But what's another $200B a year between friends, right?  We can find that wadded up in the back of our sock drawers (though, apparently sequestration can't get us that much).  Oh, well.  Not to worry.  It'll all work itself out fine in the end, I'm sure.

Welcome to ZH.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:52 | Link to Comment itstippy
itstippy's picture

"As I understand it, sequestration would cut 85 billion per year."

The Fed is printing $85B per month.   What would happen to the economy if Bernanke really did reverse course and began selling Treasuries & MBS instead of buying, as he insists he will eventually when the economy "gets on better footing"?

"Why give a fuck anymore and even make a pretense to participate in this charade?"  That's the $85B question. 

There's a bad moon on the rise.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 21:23 | Link to Comment McMolotov
McMolotov's picture

"They are screaming over less than 10% of a fix?????"

More to the point, these are people who seem to believe they're "cutting spending" when they propose a slightly-smaller-than-wished-for increase in spending. It's best not to think too deeply on what motivates such imbeciles, lest you invite insanity.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:01 | Link to Comment buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

the crack of doom fixes everything

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:04 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

"20% of the population is responsible for 80% of social service spending !" .... NAACP

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:06 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

"Is that a sardine in your knickers .... or are you just venting pheromones .... because you want me to fuck you ?" .... Pick up line in southern Italy

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:19 | Link to Comment Smegley Wanxalot
Smegley Wanxalot's picture

80% of inflation results from 20% annual increases in the printed money supply.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:15 | Link to Comment Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

The pareto distribution carries over into the relative sizes of animals and of corporate dominance in markets. 


Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:24 | Link to Comment Super Broccoli
Super Broccoli's picture

here is another rule / paradox : 99% of the people don't understand a fuck about what's happening right now while they're responsible for this mess !

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:28 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

Is that a stalk of broccoli in your pocket .... or are you just happy to see me ?

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 21:59 | Link to Comment Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

If you honestly believe that 99% of the people are responsible for the mess we are in then the top 1% are truly saviours and we deserve both them and what is happening.

I believe that the top 1% both understand and are driving the mess we are in even though they are better positioned to reverse the downward spiral of the USA.

Wed, 02/20/2013 - 22:56 | Link to Comment MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

At least 80% of the fuckers on this planet are so bereft of intellect or life experience or any kind of logical ability they'll gladly demand slavery upon themselves & insist it's better if their neighbors (that's us) enjoy it too.

So ya, they pretty much are the problem. The elite bank robbers of the world only get away with it because the larger populace doesn't use numbers, masses of riots, to attack, jail & execute the fuckers.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:25 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

20% of dog kibbles is protein .... 80% is filler and stool builder !

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:27 | Link to Comment Who is John Galt
Who is John Galt's picture

20% of the posters on this site account for 80% of the moronic posts.

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 03:38 | Link to Comment mkhs
mkhs's picture

No, 80% account for the moronic posts; 20% have some value.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:28 | Link to Comment Whatta
Whatta's picture

so would it be 80% of GS calls cause 20% losses or vice-versa?

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 00:24 | Link to Comment RopeADope
RopeADope's picture

20% of global fraud is derived from 80% of GS revenues.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:28 | Link to Comment Silversinner
Silversinner's picture

having 80% of the sex with 20% of the girls.

having 20% of the sex with 80% fat and ugly girls.

damn booze.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:31 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

80% of the posters account for 20% of the humour !

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:31 | Link to Comment Whatta
Whatta's picture

Icahn's 20% stake in HLF causes Ackman 80% losses?

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:35 | Link to Comment Smegley Wanxalot
Smegley Wanxalot's picture

80% of the STDs I have came from 20% of da ho's I banged.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:41 | Link to Comment smacker
smacker's picture

80% of political elites are a complete waste of space. The other 20% do something useful, for themselves.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:47 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

Western economies are 20% Capitalist .... 80% Socialist !

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 21:13 | Link to Comment smacker
smacker's picture

Exactly so. But we're not supposed to notice, 80% of the time.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:50 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

20% of the Khmer Rouge killed 80% of Cambodia's literates !

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:51 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

80% of your Lasagne is horsemeat .... 20% is beef !

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:58 | Link to Comment Snoopy the Economist
Snoopy the Economist's picture

The 80/20 rule is truly powerful. It may sound sad but I try to live my life by the 80/20 rule - everything I do I follow this rule and by addressing 20% of teh biggest issues I find that many of the smaller '80%' issues fix themselves. Ahh the life of an engineer.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 21:07 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

If you measure your dick .... starting from your asshole .... 20% is taint .... 80% is dick !

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 21:08 | Link to Comment egoist
egoist's picture
Sun, 02/17/2013 - 21:56 | Link to Comment jballz
jballz's picture

20% of zerohedge posts account for 80% of my shitty mood.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 22:50 | Link to Comment socalbeach
socalbeach's picture

From Wikipedia,

"It is a common rule of thumb in business; e.g., "80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients". Mathematically, where something is shared among a sufficiently large set of participants, there must be a number k between 50 and 100 such that "k% is taken by (100 - k)% of the participants". The number k may vary from 50 ... to nearly 100 ... There is nothing special about the number 80% mathematically, but many real systems have k somewhere around this region of intermediate imbalance in distribution."

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 22:30 | Link to Comment smartstrike
smartstrike's picture

If 20% earn 80% of the profits, how is the economy supposed to work? The Pareto principle would suggest that the economy isn't working for 80%?

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 22:37 | Link to Comment Smegley Wanxalot
Smegley Wanxalot's picture

80% of the time I waste online is wasted on 20% of the porn sites I visit.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 22:44 | Link to Comment lead salad
lead salad's picture

80% of owebama is ass, 20% is hole.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 22:58 | Link to Comment Pareto
Pareto's picture

I thought the Pareto rule (principle) was simply this: Given any endowment between two or more individuals, Pareto efficiency occurs when there is an opportunity for an exchange such that at least one person is made better off and no one person is made worse off.  It wasn't until neoclassical economists got a hold of this and developed authoritarian government redistribution measures such as the Kaldor/Hicks coercive kind, where a redistribution is said to be Pareto efficient if as a result of government action, the winners could compensate the losers and still leave something left over regardless of whether compensation is actually paid.

Frank Michelman (1967) evaluates the Pareto criterion and the "just compensation" principle in the context of regulatory takings and the takings clause to the 5th Amendment (...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation - Takings Clause, 5th Amendment, US Constitution).  The utilitarian welfare maximization principle (or the Kaldor/Hicks efficiency) uses the Pareto criterion as a crutch, in my opinion, insofar as I doubt Vilfredo ever had the social welfare maximization principle in mind.  Michelman, didn't think so either.

He emphasized, among other things, that demoralization costs are not, nor have ever beem factored into the Pareto principle when applied to social welfare maximization redistribution schemes conjured by government.  Michelman's demoralization costs constitute, "the total value of (1) the dollar value necessary to offset disutilities which acrue to losers and their sympathizers specifically from the realization that no compensation is offered, and (2) the present capitalized dollar value of llost future production (reflecting either impaired incentives, or, social unrest) caused by demoralization of uncompensated losers, their sympathizers, and other observers disturbed by the thought that they themselves may be subjetced to similar treatment on some other occasion" (p. 1214).

Never heard of the 80-20 rule in the context of Pareto efficiency.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 23:42 | Link to Comment faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

"Never heard of the 80-20 rule in the context of Pareto efficiency."

Er, what? Never heard of it?

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 00:25 | Link to Comment Pareto
Pareto's picture

Its true.  I hardly understand this to be his greatest contribution, but, evidently it is.  In economics, the 80-20 principle was never the focus of Pareto's work.  Welfare economics focused strictly on the maximization principle.  Admitedly, I know little about the 80-20 rule.

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 00:46 | Link to Comment Monedas
Monedas's picture

Please try to stay on topic .... 20% of single guys .... get 80% of the available ass !

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 23:45 | Link to Comment adr
adr's picture

Manufacturing and overhead usually takes up around 20% of the MSRP of a decent quality product. For a time 40% profit went to the manufacturing distributor and 40% went to the retail store. Equal distribution of profit. This then went to keystone pricing, 50% margin to the retailer, 30% to distributor. Next came the push to 60% retail margin. The mega retailers are now starting to push for 80% margin. Once that line is crossed it becomes impossible to produce any quality product and make a profit as a manufacturing distributor. If cost is 20% and you must sell at 80% margin, there is no profit. So the manfacturing distributor is destroyed.

In fact the line has been crossed already, only outsourcing and reducing quality have allowed profit to be generated out of the ever shrinking margin of a manufacturing distributor.

Big retail has started to go direct to overseas manufacturers and purchase the rights to brand names. Dick's Sporting Goods purchasing the rights for Reebok and Adidas Baseball. The name is worth 10%, manufacturing and overhead add 20%. This leaves Dick's with 70% margin. To get to 80% they reduce quality 10%. This leaves 10% for name and 10% for the actual product. $10 retail produced for $1.

Same goes for JC Penney. The already reduced quality by 10%, but sales did not follow. In order to increase sales, they cut retail prices. They eliminated the brand and brought out JC Penney brand clothes saving the 10% brand fee. We'll see if it works. Sure you now pay $18 instead of $20, but it still only cost $2 to make the shirt. Some people think the label with a brand is worth the extra $2.

It really is all bullshit. Wall Street makes sure of that.

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 01:10 | Link to Comment HeavydutyMexica...
HeavydutyMexicanOfTheNorthernKingdom's picture

80% enter through the wide door, 20% enter through the narrow door.

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 07:16 | Link to Comment mellons
mellons's picture

Disappointing to read such nonsense in zh

A ratio is meaningless if it can be applied arbitrarily to any relationship without any factual basis.

Wed, 02/20/2013 - 22:48 | Link to Comment MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

the ratio IS the factual basis, just like with Fibonacci. One set of data is a set of facts, another set of facts contains the mathematical relationships that exist in the data. None of it is conjecture, opinion or deniable.

If you want to show it's inapplicable in certain cases then pick a case and make your case. Where it's held as applicable people have picked a case & made a case (successfully defended).

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 08:15 | Link to Comment Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

So 20% are the critical mass needed for a change?

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 08:39 | Link to Comment kralizec
kralizec's picture

I keep reading about doom, when do I get to see it?  Frankly, I am surprised we made it this far. . .

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 09:09 | Link to Comment TrumpXVI
TrumpXVI's picture

I believe I've got another example.  

With women, 20% of their behavior is the product of their individual personality, and 80% of their behavior is due simply to the fact that they are women!

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 13:56 | Link to Comment whoknoz
whoknoz's picture

20% of your stuff represents 80% of your net go clean out your closets!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!