--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 14:06 +0000 Eric Burger
<eburger(_at_)standardstrack(_dot_)com> wrote:
For me, the plan outlined below changes the cost of the travel
from: Long @ $2,000, Medium @ $1,200, and Short @ $400 =
$3,600 to:
Short @ $400, Short @ $400, Medium @ $1,200 = $2,000
HOWEVER, if I lived in Asia, the plan proposed below changes
my costs from $3,600 to Long @ $2,000, Long @ $2,000, Medium
@ $1,200 = $5,200
So, instead of someone in the U.S. paying $3,600, or about
7.5% the per-capita GDP, they can pay $2,000, or about 4% of
per-capita GDP, for a reduction of travel costs of about 45%.
Along with that dramatic savings, there is a corresponding
shifting of the travel burden. Instead of someone in China
paying $3,600, or about 84% of the per-capita GDP, they can
pay $5,200, or about 122% of per-capita GDP, for an increase
of almost 50%. Even better, that individual most likely will
have trouble getting a visa.
Eric,
I understand your intent and might even agree with your
conclusion, but question an analysis based on per-capita GDP.
Per-capita GDP numbers reflect population universes that are
simply irrelevant to us. If you want to find, or invent, some
standardized salary level for those engaged in network
engineering or comparable fields, maybe. Think about the ratio
of the number of network engineers (or equivalent) to the total
population of a country and the problem will be clear. For this
sort of comparison, percentages of per-capita GDP are just
nonsense.
I also note that there are some small fraction of us with
medical or other constraints that make your "long" numbers huge
underestimates.
...
best,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf