--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 14:06 +0000 Eric Burger <eburger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf