Reciprocal Comparison. ---------------------+---------+--------------+--------- Families worth $5,000| | | and under. | Number|The wealth of |Averages. ---------------------+---------+--------------+--------- Difference from the | | | number below | |$2,424,075,352| ---------------------+---------+--------------+--------- Middle classes of the| | | 1st R. table[39] |5,584,576| 8,522,541,600| 1,526 ---------------------+---------+--------------+--------- Free owners of the | | | 2d orig. table[40].|3,078,077|10,946,616,952| 3,556 ---------------------+---------+--------------+--------- Difference from the | | | number above |2,506,499| | ---------------------+---------+--------------+--------- Now, the restored group of the middle classes of the first R. table should be absolutely in favor of diminishing the differences in the worth of the identical families and in [SN: INCONSISTENCY POINTS TO TRUTH.] their number. Yet the two groups reciprocally exclude each other by their opposite terms. So that, the comparison shows that the greater number of families has much smaller amount of the aggregate wealth; and the lesser number of families has much larger amount of the aggregate wealth; and that the difference in family-numbers is greater than 2½-millions in favor of the group of the 1st table; and the difference in the wealth, nearly 2½-billion dollars worth is in favor of the group of the 2d table. Hence, the opposite terms of the two economically similar groups can in no way coincide with one another. This being so, it is not difficult to find out the true situation as to the actual distribution of wealth which ought to have been represented by the 2d table. The alleged moderation of this table has [SN: AVERAGES ARE THE CAUSES.] been brought about by the same influence of averages which we have seen in the conclusions of Mr. Shearman.[41] One average of this gentleman has covered 89.4 per cent of the population, and thus made the wealth of the richest of them to be distributed among the millions of the very poor. The 89.4 per cent includes nearly 56-millions of individuals, whose aggregate wealth amounts to 18 per cent of the national wealth, and apportions $209 worth of it to every individual. But if you exclude only 20 per cent out of the 89.4 per cent of this great mass of people, selecting the wealthiest of all for the exclusion, you will thus have 69.4 per cent of the people left with less than 9 per cent of the national wealth. Your average then will be altogether different; it will cover masses of the poorest people, and every one of them will have less than $99 worth of wealth.