Global Wealth Redistribution and the Pareto Principle

[William Hung]

OK, can some stats nerd or economics guru please help explain something for me...

Back in high school, I was taught something called the 80/20 phenomena. It's basically the Pareto principle (Pareto principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which can be observed in all kinds of sitiation in this world. We don't know how or why it is so, it just is. A phenomena, I was told.

Anyway, I remember I once had a discussion with some friends about wealth inequality and the Pareto principle was used. One argument against wealth redistribution was that...it is just a fact that around 80% of the global wealth will ALWAYS be controlled/owned by only 20% of the global population. It is dictated by the Pareto principle. It is what it is...a phenomena that cannot be explained, nor can it be changed, no matter what we do. In essence then, what those Occupy movement protesters were fighting for.... was already something impossible to achieve.

Frankly, I thought this was the best "anti-wealth redistribution" argument I've heard so far (and I'm a leftist). Basically, why bother trying to redistribute when the distribution curve will always remain the same? But I'm not a stats or economics guy so I'm not sure whether there are any flaws in this argument or not.

So could some smart people confirm whether the argument is sound or not? if there are flaws, can someone explain briefly (and simply) how this argument is flawed?

I've briefly browsed around the web but am still unsure of the answer. This guy thinks it's true and we just have to accept it:

The Pareto Principle and Wealth Inequality | Pragmatic Capitalism

But another guy doesn't seem to think so (and he doesn't really explain why). He mentioned that the distribution inside the US has now already deviated from the 80/20 rule moving closer to 90/20 (but still close enough???):

Where the Pareto Principle falls short | PandoDaily

So, any smart people here care to explain this phenomena, whether it can truly be applied to wealth distribution or not?

 

[Faiez]

OK, can some stats nerd or economics guru please help explain something for me...

Back in high school, I was taught something called the 80/20 phenomena. It's basically the Pareto principle (Pareto principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which can be observed in all kinds of sitiation in this world. We don't know how or why it is so, it just is. A phenomena, I was told.

Anyway, I remember I once had a discussion with some friends about wealth inequality and the Pareto principle was used. One argument against wealth redistribution was that...it is just a fact that around 80% of the global wealth will ALWAYS be controlled/owned by only 20% of the global population. It is dictated by the Pareto principle. It is what it is...a phenomena that cannot be explained, nor can it be changed, no matter what we do. In essence then, what those Occupy movement protesters were fighting for.... was already something impossible to achieve.

Frankly, I thought this was the best "anti-wealth redistribution" argument I've heard so far (and I'm a leftist). Basically, why bother trying to redistribute when the distribution curve will always remain the same? But I'm not a stats or economics guy so I'm not sure whether there are any flaws in this argument or not.

So could some smart people confirm whether the argument is sound or not? if there are flaws, can someone explain briefly (and simply) how this argument is flawed?

I've briefly browsed around the web but am still unsure of the answer. This guy thinks it's true and we just have to accept it:

The Pareto Principle and Wealth Inequality | Pragmatic Capitalism

But another guy doesn't seem to think so (and he doesn't really explain why). He mentioned that the distribution inside the US has now already deviated from the 80/20 rule moving closer to 90/20 (but still close enough???):

Where the Pareto Principle falls short | PandoDaily

So, any smart people here care to explain this phenomena, whether it can truly be applied to wealth distribution or not?

There will always be humans who lead and humans who simply follow. The stronger, more intelligent, more capable man will always outrun the not so strong, intelligent man. So there will always be inequality in everything. It is impossible to self-sustain a wold where all humans are perfectly equal. There always will be income/wealth inequality and for a good reason. Those who fight for equality simply don't understand science and are victims of class-warfare propaganda from communists, socialists etc.

I don't know if the 80/20 has any science behind it. But I've explained why there always has been and always will be income inequality and why fighting against it is fighting against the natural process of evolution.

Income equality simply doesn't work.

 

[William Hung]

There will always be humans who lead and humans who simply follow. The stronger, more intelligent, more capable man will always outrun the not so strong, intelligent man. So there will always be inequality in everything. It is impossible to self-sustain a wold where all humans are perfectly equal. There always will be income/wealth inequality and for a good reason. Those who fight for equality simply don't understand science and are victims of class-warfare propaganda from communists, socialists etc.

I don't know if the 80/20 has any science behind it. But I've explained why there always has been and always will be income inequality and why fighting against it is fighting against the natural process of evolution.

Income equality simply doesn't work.

Hi bro thanks for your comment. I understand what you've said, but what boggles my mind is this:

Even if this earth turns into a utopia where everyone is genuinely super nice, caring, treating each other equally, etc... But still, the Pareto principle will dictate that even in this utopia, 80% of global wealth will still be controlled by 20% of the global population. (Assuming that the economic system, including money, credits, labor, etc, are still run the same).

I don't know the real science behind this Pareto principle (80/20 phenomena) but it is supposedly accepted to be something observable almost everywhere. I myself aren't sure though, because I'm not an economics/stats major.

Supposedly, economists and statisticians are very familiar with this Pareto principle.

@alaungphaya @LeveragedBuyout, @Edison Chen, @Gauss, @FairAndUnbiased, @Viet can you give a brief comment whether it's true or not for us non-finance guys?

Update: someone else told me the last article about the US deviating from the Pareto principle is incorrect. They ranked the top earner to the lowest earner to get the 90/10 distribution. BUT if they rearrange their ranking, by taking out a few guys from the top 10 and replace them with more lower earning guys, then we could theoretically still get the 80/20 distribution. So the Pareto principle is still true for the US. Is this correct?

 

[Faiez]

Hi bro thanks for your comment. I understand what you've said, but what boggles my mind is this:

Even if this earth turns into a utopia where everyone is genuinely super nice, caring, treating each other equally, etc... But still, the Pareto principle will dictate that even in this utopia, 80% of global wealth will still be controlled by 20% of the global population. (Assuming that the economic system, including money, credits, labor, etc, are still run the same).

I don't know the real science behind this Pareto principle (80/20 phenomena) but it is supposedly accepted to be something observable almost everywhere. I myself aren't sure though, because I'm not an economics/stats major.

Supposedly, economists and statisticians are very familiar with this Pareto principle.

@alaungphaya @LeveragedBuyout, @Edison Chen, @Gauss, @FairAndUnbiased, @Viet can you give a brief comment whether it's true or not for us non-finance guys?

Update: someone else told me the last article about the US deviating from the Pareto principle is incorrect. They ranked the top earner to the lowest earner to get the 90/10 distribution. BUT if they rearrange their ranking, by taking out a few guys from the top 10 and replace them with more lower earning guys, then we could theoretically still get the 80/20 distribution. So the Pareto principle is still true for the US. Is this correct?

I don't know if this principle always holds true..

But I've told you why income equality is not sustainable. Look for communism vs free-market debates, you'll understand why income equality doesn't work. Now I don't know where this principle of 80/20 came from...But I'm sure there are countries with much different ratios...They can't all be the exact same...

 

[William Hung]

I don't know if this principle always holds true..

But I've told you why income equality is not sustainable. Look for communism vs free-market debates, you'll understand why income equality doesn't work. Now I don't know where this principle of 80/20 came from...But I'm sure there are countries with much different ratios...They can't all be the exact same...

Well, the point is that if this Pareto principle holds true, then even the communism VS free-market debate won't matter at all in terms of global wealth equality.... if I'm interpreting it correctly. It seems like the world is determined in an exact certain way and no one can really do anything about it.

In terms of income equality, this pareto principle can be used against both communism and capitalism. ... and whatever -ism there is. No matter what economic and political system we try to propagate around the world, whether it is communism or capitalism, there will always be the same income inequality. And perhaps the same distribution of political power? If this is true, then it really is a zero sum game? (@Genesis ?)

It also applies to the right-left welfare state debate... according to the PP, ~80% of the national income will always be generated by ~20% of the population. So no matter what kind of policy a country adopts regarding welfare handouts and tax system, there will always be a small portion of the population (~20%) who does most of the work (generate ~80% of the national income).

However, I've just briefly checked the income distribution of Pakistan and one report said around 20% of the population owns ~45% of the wealth so maybe the Pareto principle is not true? I don't know. Or maybe those top 20% has huge black money accounts in Switzerland which has never been publically disclosed?

 

[Faiez]

Well, the point is that if this Pareto principle holds true, then even the communism VS free-market debate won't matter at all in terms of global wealth equality.... if I'm interpreting it correctly. It seems like the world is determined in an exact certain way and no one can really do anything about it.

In terms of income equality, this pareto principle can be used against both communism and capitalism. ... and whatever -ism there is. No matter what economic and political system we try to propagate around the world, whether it is communism or capitalism, there will always be the same income inequality. And perhaps the same distribution of political power? If this is true, then it really is a zero sum game? (@Genesis ?)

It also applies to the right-left welfare state debate... according to the PP, ~80% of the national income will always be generated by ~20% of the population. So no matter what kind of policy a country adopts regarding welfare handouts and tax system, there will always be a small portion of the population (~20%) who does most of the work (generate ~80% of the national income).

However, I've just briefly checked the income distribution of Pakistan and one report said around 20% of the population owns ~45% of the wealth so maybe the Pareto principle is not true? I don't know. Or maybe those top 20% has huge black money accounts in Switzerland which they have never publically disclosed?

Buddy this was the first time I've heard of this principle and looked it up a little on the internet....This is just business studies mumbo jumbo......Not much science behind it...

If you read books on management, business etc....you'll find a whole lot of other non-scientific non-sense...This is the kind of crap that a business student (MBA etc) is taught in some/many of his courses...

 

[Edison Chen]

Anyway, I remember I once had a discussion with some friends about wealth inequality and the Pareto principle was used. One argument against wealth redistribution was that...it is just a fact that around 80% of the global wealth will ALWAYS be controlled/owned by only 20% of the global population. It is dictated by the Pareto principle. It is what it is...a phenomena that cannot be explained, nor can it be changed, no matter what we do. In essence then, what those Occupy movement protesters were fighting for.... was already something impossible to achieve.

Look at the income Gini coefficient of the world and the west, the overall trend is continuously rising, developing countries like China as well where the social inequality is more obvious. But the developed countries like the States where the share of total income earned by the top 1 percent of families was less than 10 percent in the late 1970s but now exceeds 20 percent as of the end of 2012.

It will never change, as long as the private ownership of the means of production still exists, which is the foundation of capitalism, and we cannot simply skip this stage to an equally distributed social system. But it seems like the developed countries are more socially stable than developing countries like BRICS and some others, of course it doesn't mean the social contradictions is eliminated, the boom of total sum of wealth makes it possible that the bottom class at least get a share of the prosperity, the inequality is largely diluted by the resultant force of market's self regulation and the transition and development of government's role. It seems like the protesters get nothing, but they've obtained some opportunities to maker their livings better.

For instance, the individual tax system of the U.S. is relatively pro the low income earners. First they include all the income earned from whatever sources, from salaries, capital gains, pensions, to stocks and real properties. This is the best solution to never let a speculator to escape from illegal tax avoidance with extremely high income from a single income source like real property in China, because all the income are sumed up together to be taxed, unlike China the tax items are individually listed with fixed tax rate, and thus makes a loophole to accelerate the accumulation of wealth to a small group. After that they can claim personal, standard or business deductions, the taxpayers can maximize their income by legal tax avoidance because the system is flexible. They have many tax credits to help the poor to mitigate the living pressure like child credit, child and dependent care credit, refundable credit like earned income tax credit. The more kids or old people a family have or take care, the lower tax they have to pay. I just took one tax class before, but I was surprised to find the U.S. tax system human very caring and human nature oriented, 50% of the US rich families account for more than 97.3% of the US individual tax. Also the US tax deduction is adjusted every year according to the CPI. I'm a noob of the complicated tax system, @LeveragedBuyout may have more professional comment here.

So the 80/20 law is real, it will always be out there, nothing will change, but we can make the total wealth bigger and figure out a perfect distribution mechanism with the consent of all the citizens. Even there is always some extremely poor guys, we can guarantee there is a opportunity that any people could live peacefully without fear of illness, education and food through his own endeavor.

 

[William Hung]

Look at the income Gini coefficient of the world and the west, the overall trend is continuously rising, developing countries like China as well where the social inequality is more obvious. But the developed countries like the States where the share of total income earned by the top 1 percent of families was less than 10 percent in the late 1970s but now exceeds 20 percent as of the end of 2012.

It will never change, as long as the private ownership of the means of production still exists, which is the foundation of capitalism, and we cannot simply skip this stage to an equally distributed social system. But it seems like the developed countries are more socially stable than developing countries like BRICS and some others, of course it doesn't mean the social contradictions is eliminated, the boom of total sum of wealth makes it possible that the bottom class at least get a share of the prosperity, the inequality is largely diluted by the resultant force of market's self regulation and the transition and development of government's role. It seems like the protesters get nothing, but they've obtained some opportunities to maker their livings better.

For instance, the individual tax system of the U.S. is relatively pro the low income earners. First they include all the income earned from whatever sources, from salaries, capital gains, pensions, to stocks and real properties. This is the best solution to never let a speculator to escape from illegal tax avoidance with extremely high income from a single income source like real property in China, because all the income are sumed up together to be taxed, unlike China the tax items are individually listed with fixed tax rate, and thus makes a loophole to accelerate the accumulation of wealth to a small group. After that they can claim personal, standard or business deductions, the taxpayers can maximize their income by legal tax avoidance because the system is flexible. They have many tax credits to help the poor to mitigate the living pressure like child credit, child and dependent care credit, refundable credit like earned income tax credit. The more kids or old people a family have or take care, the lower tax they have to pay. I just took one tax class before, but I was surprised to find the U.S. tax system human very caring and human nature oriented, 50% of the US rich families account for more than 97.3% of the US individual tax. Also the US tax deduction is adjusted every year according to the CPI. I'm a noob of the complicated tax system, @LeveragedBuyout may have more professional comment here.

So the 80/20 law is real, it will always be out there, nothing will change, but we can make the total wealth bigger and figure out a perfect distribution mechanism with the consent of all the citizens. Even there is always some extremely poor guys, we can guarantee there is a opportunity that any people could live peacefully without fear of illness, education and food through his own endeavor.

Wow thanks brother, I will read this carefully and give my reply another time. It is now almost my bed time.

What intrigued me was that even if the total wealth grows, the proportion of upper/lower class and hard workers/lazy workers will always be the same ratio. This changes my perspective on the world, and life, seriously.

 

[Faiez]

Wow thanks brother, I will read this carefully and give my reply another time. It is now almost my bed time.

What intrigued me was that even if the total wealth grows, the proportion of upper/lower class and hard workers/lazy workers will always be the same ratio. This changes my perspective on the world, and life, seriously.

It shouldn't....
Everyone gets a chance at getting rich in life. Some make it, some don't. So if you're poor right now, that's not how you'll stay the rest of your life....

On the other hand, if you're stupid............................................

Also, the 80/20 does not exist. It's just a made up thing....don't believe in this non-sense.

How ever, income inequality will always stay there, as that is the only sustainable way, but not necessarily in 80/20 ratio

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

@Yorozuya

As @Edison Chen detailed, the way the taxation system is set up (to favor capital with lower tax rates vs tax on income earned from labor) is certainly one major factor in the accumulation of wealth in a few hands. I'm sure you have read articles about how partnerships in private equity are able to achieve 5% tax rates or lower, or how corporations are often able to escape taxes altogether, through arrangements with names like "double Irish with a Dutch sandwich."

The other major cause discussed here is the difference in humanity (different ability, different work ethic, different education, different opportunities, etc.) that leads to a segmentation of society. We can see this effect everywhere in society, from an elite of income earners, to an elite (self-appointed, perhaps) of culture-makers.

There is a hierarchy in everything, because intelligence, drive, education, and experience matter; naturally, an older person will have more experience than a younger person, and through that experience, will have earned more income. Does it make sense to say that because the younger person doesn't have as much wealth as the older person, that somehow "the system" is unfair? Do you think it's coincidence that there is a demographic pyramid (relatively more young people, relatively fewer old people) to mirror an inverted wealth pyramid?

One more factor leads to the concentration of wealth: the returns on capital compound, but the returns on labor do not. The left is pre-occupied with destroying math (i.e. compounding), which is impossible. What they should instead be focused on is enabling the laboring class to become capitalists (capital holders), and share in the returns that capital provides.

After all, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? But ideology prevents many from embracing pragmatism. The 80% would rather do what is "fair" and easy (i.e. expropriate the property of others, and redistribute it to themselves) rather than do what is "right" and difficult (work hard, invest, and be patient), which is practiced by the 20%.

According to the New York Times, people in the top 1% are three times more likely to work more than 50 hours a week, they are more likely to be self-employed, and they earn a fifth of their income as capital income. The five most common professions among the top 1% are managers, physicians, administrators, lawyers, and teachers--not hedge fund managers, or investment bankers, or the other grotesque stereotypes the left has created about the wealthy. This is a straightforward indication that education and hard work are decisive factors in wealth creation (more specifically, capital formation, which leads to wealth creation).

It's easier to believe that the world is unfair and that others are stealing what is rightfully yours. It's much harder to just do the hard work that is necessary to build the wealth. That is why only a minority of the population is able to achieve that level of wealth.

 

[Gauss]

@Yorozuya

In am not a stats or economics guy but I agree with the general principle. A few people will always have most of the wealth. Although putting the principle in a rigid frame of 80/20 is not necessary.

Consider a hypothetical town that specializes in making shoes. Assume that there are five shoe factories in the town. Those five factories are owned by the five main families of the town. Now that’s an even distribution of the town’s wealth. But what will happen overtime? The most intelligent family will excel the most. It will develop better technology and invent new techniques which will reduce the costs of production and improve the quality of the product. The sales and profits of that family will increase. It will gain greater market share. Market share of the other families will reduce and their profits will decrease. After some time the family that’s least intelligent in its business will sell its factory to this most intelligent family. Because this successful family will have handsome amount of money it accumulated overtime through its healthy profits, while the least intelligent family would likely be in debt due to its persistent losses. The most intelligent family would now have doubled its wealth while the least intelligent family will have nothing and will drop down into the salary class.

Today if we were to redistribute the global wealth evenly, the story of this town will be played out overtime. The wealth of the most intelligent people will increase. A rich class will emerge naturally. While the common people will lose their wealth and go back to being the average salarymen. This happens because the intelligent people are better with the money/wealth in their hands. Just like how the intelligent family in the town was better at making shoes. The less intelligent people will fail to make profits from the wealth they have. Will run losses, get in debts and will end up selling what they have to the intelligent people who will buy it using the profits they have accumulated overtime.

That’s the whole idea of uneven distribution of wealth. Nature gives more of it to people who use it better. Wealth in the hands of intelligent people grows the most. If we want to maximize the increase in global wealth, its better to have most of it in the hands of the most able people.

PS: If the Pareto principle is to hold true in the town then the most intelligent family will end up owning 4 factories.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

@Yorozuya

As @Edison Chen detailed, the way the taxation system is set up (to favor capital with lower tax rates vs tax on income earned from labor) is certainly one major factor in the accumulation of wealth in a few hands. I'm sure you have read articles about how partnerships in private equity are able to achieve 5% tax rates or lower, or how corporations are often able to escape taxes altogether, through arrangements with names like "double Irish with a Dutch sandwich."

The other major cause discussed here is the difference in humanity (different ability, different work ethic, different education, different opportunities, etc.) that leads to a segmentation of society. We can see this effect everywhere in society, from an elite of income earners, to an elite (self-appointed, perhaps) of culture-makers.

There is a hierarchy in everything, because intelligence, drive, education, and experience matter; naturally, an older person will have more experience than a younger person, and through that experience, will have earned more income. Does it make sense to say that because the younger person doesn't have as much wealth as the older person, that somehow "the system" is unfair? Do you think it's coincidence that there is a demographic pyramid (relatively more young people, relatively fewer old people) to mirror an inverted wealth pyramid?

One more factor leads to the concentration of wealth: the returns on capital compound, but the returns on labor do not. The left is pre-occupied with destroying math (i.e. compounding), which is impossible. What they should instead be focused on is enabling the laboring class to become capitalists (capital holders), and share in the returns that capital provides.

After all, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? But ideology prevents many from embracing pragmatism. The 80% would rather do what is "fair" and easy (i.e. expropriate the property of others, and redistribute it to themselves) rather than do what is "right" and difficult (work hard, invest, and be patient), which is practiced by the 20%.

According to the New York Times, people in the top 1% are three times more likely to work more than 50 hours a week, they are more likely to be self-employed, and they earn a fifth of their income as capital income. The five most common professions among the top 1% are managers, physicians, administrators, lawyers, and teachers--not hedge fund managers, or investment bankers, or the other grotesque stereotypes the left has created about the wealthy. This is a straightforward indication that education and hard work are decisive factors in wealth creation (more specifically, capital formation, which leads to wealth creation).

It's easier to believe that the world is unfair and that others are stealing what is rightfully yours. It's much harder to just do the hard work that is necessary to build the wealth. That is why only a minority of the population is able to achieve that level of wealth.

Oh I hate getting into quarrels with LeverageBuyout...

I agree with your assessment on who the 1% are.
However this is simply common math logic. To get to 1% you need over a million households (114M households in the US) so obviously there are not that many hedge fund managers, investment bankers, etc. So you are going to have step down a notch in order to fill that 1%.

So yes not everybody in the top 1% makes a zillion dollars a year...but let's not compare apples with oranges.

US Income Inequality At Record High: Top 1% Earned A Fifth Of Total Income In 2012
"The top 1 percent is defined as households with incomes above $394,000 in 2012."

That's "household income". So yes two wage earners can pop you into the group. Your single typical teacher or family physician by himself/herself..definitely not.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Income inequality probably serves the purpose of pushing society forward. If a job exists where a person arranges flowers all day and one runs a 100,000 person company and they pay exactly the same maybe people would be less inclined to do the more stressful one.


Oh I hate getting into quarrels with LeverageBuyout...

I agree with your assessment on who the 1% are.
However this is simply common math logic. To get to 1% you need well over a million people so obviously there are not that many hedge fund managers, investment bankers, etc. So you are going to have step down a notch in order to fill that 1%.

So yes not everybody in the top 1% makes a zillion dollars a year...but let's not compare apples with oranges.

Sure, and the OP isn't even asking about the top 1%, but rather the top 20%. At 20%, it's even easier to understand why wealth is concentrated; just as there are fewer employers than employees, or fewer physicians than patients, or fewer bankers than companies, or fewer generals than soldiers, there are fewer wealthy individuals than non-wealthy individuals. Even under Communism, we simply see the field reconfigured, not eliminated, with merit as the arbitrator of wealth distribution replaced by corruption and political connections as the determining factor. As we can agree, it's simple math, and that's why every leftist attempt to thwart it (socialism, communism, "social justice," etc.) have failed and will fail.

 

[William Hung]

@Faiez @LeveragedBuyout @Gauss @Peter C thanks for the indepth replies. I've only skimmed through them but will read it more thoroughly later during my breaks to give them a proper reply. Btw, my former PDF name was @BlackFlag, just had it changed recently to this new one.

The crux of my theory is that it seems like this world has been "rigged" to follow a certain distribution pattern (80/20). And by that, I don't mean it is rigged by a group of human elites, illuminati, etc. I mean it has been rigged by a law of nature, or by a Divine Being perhaps.

So on a certain level, we can explain this 80/20 distribution by observing human traits, human society, political system, etc. But on another level, the distribution of wealth (and other social distribution) is simply following the Pareto principle and will never deviate too heavily from 80/20 no matter how we try to change society? Just like how a lot of growth pattern of flowers, plants and trees are simply "following" the fibonacci sequence because they have been "rigged" by nature to grow that way, so to speak. In a sense, this will imply a kind of fatalistic/deterministic worldview.

To me, this seems mysterious or even supernatural (the 80/20 rule is called a phenomena afterall). But perhaps, like some of you have already mentioned, it is all just basic maths and common sense. I will read the replies more thoroughly and think more on it.

Thanks.

Btw, I'm not trying to discredit the left or right. Well, it kind of discredit all attempts (whether from right or left) at social reform. We can increase the overall wealth (and well being?), but we can never do anything to change the proportion of upper/lower class, hard worker/lazy worker. This is what really intrigues me.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

this distribution actually stems from statistical thermodynamics. it is what happens to any system where particles exchange conserved things. molecules exchange energy and momentum, which are conserved in collisions (interactions ) just like in an ideal economy people exchange money of fixed value and don't get to print money. what makes markets an interesting physics problem is that the conservation laws of statistical physics go out the window while retaining its tools .

the reason it follows a power law and not an exponential is likely due to perturbations from these real world factors. I'll pull up a report on this later I am traveling right now.