The societal domains

The measure as written

The rule of THE UNJUSTIFIED BURDEN AND ITS IMPLICATIONS:

“Being a participant of the society, an individual must not be a burden on the society.”

The people are divided by their Participation to Burden ratio:

To efficiently grasp the whole concept, we must understand what participation actually is and how we can divide the people around us into different domains according to their participation to burden ratio.

and counts both of its sides in the same unit, the net work done:

(Both participation and burden are measured in the same unit, i.e. the net work done: participation is the work an individual contributes towards the NEPs, and burden is the work of others that he draws from the societal pool in the form of resources; this is why wealth is called a compressed form of the net work done (see RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE WEALTH).)

Those who hold wealth hold it as guardians, as RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE WEALTH says:

The individuals that possess TAP are actually the guardians of wealth. In an ideal society, the guardians are obliged to maintain the balance of resources in the society, or in other words, more wealth means a bigger obligation. There are two ways to discharge this duty.

and says who fails that role:

In our society, the individuals at high levels commonly have excess wealth; those who retain it for status and divert it to fulfil their own desires, instead of keeping its flow, fail to fulfil the role of guardian (see Negative Participation). TAP is an obligation, not a status to enjoy.

UNABATED WITNESS IS THE PROOF says what the guardian is trusted with:

The one who has it is only its guardian (see RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE WEALTH), and the resources he holds are there just to prevent flooding (see Draining the TAP). Hence, neither trading in worthless things nor using trade to exploit one’s status is legitimate; even trading money for money is exploitation, because that money was never his in the first place, i.e. he is only trusted to keep its flow.

For an individual, the ratio places him in his domain, while the worth level is the value of more concern:

The second consideration is the Participation to Burden ratio of an individual. The equation is the same as for the Societal case, but the result interpretation is in accordance with the specific domain to which the individual belongs. At this level, the value of more concern is actually the Worth level of an individual. The Participation to burden ratio is simply to determine the exact status of the individual in the society, and that is purely for management purposes. Meanwhile, we can determine the destructiveness of an individual by making some modifications to the original formula.

Under "Societal Domains", the measure is given:

(In practice, individuals are placed in the domains below by applying these very definitions to their measured ratios, openly, so that anyone can check the placement.)

and the domains themselves. First the ideals:

The individuals that either suffice for (bear) their own burden (by tuning their participation accordingly) or participate more than the burden they apply (to the society), subsequently bearing the burden of other individuals.

of two kinds, the normal ideals,

Those who suffice for their own burden

and the worthful ideals, forced or voluntary:

Those who bear their own as well as others’ burden; ...

Then the non-ideals:

The individuals that have less participation than the burden they apply to the society (can be low, zero or negative)

of two kinds, the intrinsic non-ideals,

They lack the natural capability to participate.

the natural ones among them being

Children, old persons, the disabled from birth etc.

and the extrinsic non-ideals:

They have the natural capability but refuse to participate efficiently.

Under "Negative Participation", the worst of the extrinsic non-ideals are named:

Have a negative participation to burden ratio (stolen participation is assigned a negative sign).

Individuals who habitually fulfil their evil desires

The wealthy people who fail to fulfil the role of guardian and instead divert wealth to fulfil their own desires, with greed to extract money from people irrespective of the way they choose – even destructive or oppressive ways

The people in public posts who want status rather than public benefit etc.

It sets the balance between the domains in a note:

NOTE: NATURE SUSTAINS MORE WORTHFUL IDEALS THAN INTRINSIC NON-IDEALS

and, under "Most destructive persons", names the most destructive:

EXTRINSIC NON-IDEALS WITH A NEGATIVE PARTICIPATION TO BURDEN RATIO ARE THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE FORM OF NON-IDEALS

(i.e. the individuals in the list above: they have the capability, yet they not only refuse to participate but also steal the participation of others)

ARE YOU A WORTHFUL PERSON?, under "The Caretakers", gives the balance nature keeps and the limit it sets:

Normally, nature maintains their level greater than that of intrinsic non-ideals (i.e. in a society left to its natural balance, the Caretakers always outnumber the intrinsic non-ideals, so that everyone who cannot participate has someone to participate on his behalf; just think of a newborn, who comes into a family with parents and relatives ready to care for him).

Naturally, there exists a slight margin so that extrinsic non-ideals are accommodated, but the space is not huge; hence the ideal society suppresses the number of extrinsic non-ideals as much as possible.

This sub-section places the people of each society in these domains as they were given, by their measured ratios (the hours they work in the NEPs against the hours of others' work they draw, used at once or held), tests the two statements on the balance: that nature sustains more worthful ideals than intrinsic non-ideals, and that the margin for the extrinsic non-ideals is slight, and asks whether the richest hold their wealth as true guardians.

What it measures, in plain words

The people are divided "into different domains according to their participation to burden ratio". The ratio decides the domain: one who suffices for his own burden, or bears more, is an ideal; one who participates less than the burden he applies is a non-ideal. The worth level comes after, inside the domain; for the individual, the ratio is "simply to determine the exact status of the individual in the society". The measure asks, for each society, in which domain each group of its people stands, and whether the balance between the domains is the one that was given.

Nature suffices for the non-ideals, but the rich are extrinsic non-ideals, and this uptaking burden has a narrow limit. The Caretakers participate on behalf of the intrinsic non-ideals, and "nature maintains their level greater than that of intrinsic non-ideals". Those who "have the natural capability but refuse to participate efficiently" are accommodated only in "a slight margin", and "the space is not huge".

For guardians, at least 90 percent of the wealth should be serving the NEPs, which means the NEP-linked assets should be at least 90 percent to qualify as a GUARDIAN; profit generation should be no more than 2.5% of the original asset. The burden counts all the work of others that a group draws, used at once or held, because wealth is "a compressed form of the net work done". Holding wealth is a trust: the guardian "is only trusted to keep its flow", and the one who keeps it for his own desires fails that role. The test shows which of the two the richest are.

What is measured.

· The groups. The adults of each society, ranked by their household's income per adult within that society, in the four groups of Part 2: the poorer half, the middle 40%, the next 9% and the richest 1%. Money is used only to rank people inside one society.

· Participation. The hours a week that the group's capable adults (aged 20 to 64) work in the NEPs: paid work in the NEP activities of Part 3, along with unpaid care and housework.

· Burden. The hours of others' work the group draws, used at once or held, a week for each adult, as Part 2 counts it: the public services, shared equally, along with the rest of all that the society uses, by the group's share of its income after taxes and transfers.

· The domain. Above 1, worthful ideals; at 1, normal ideals; below 1, non-ideals. Capable adults below 1 are extrinsic non-ideals; children and old persons are intrinsic non-ideals.

· The two tests. First, the share of all residents who are worthful ideals against the share who are intrinsic non-ideals (children under 15 and old persons aged 65 and over). Second, the margin: the hours given beyond their own burden by all who stand above it, less the hours the old draw beyond their own; the hours the extrinsic non-ideals draw beyond their own NEP hours are then set against that margin.

· The true guardians. For the richest group: the share of its wealth in assets that serve the NEPs (land and businesses in Part 3's NEP activities, and homes that give shelter), against at least 90%; and what its wealth earns in a year, against at most 2.5% of its original value.

Read in hours of work. Both sides are read in hours of work a week for each adult, inside each society; no money figure is used as a scale.

How to read the result.

· A group is placed by the ratio of its average capable adult; groups are placed, never persons.

· A group above 1 carries others; a group below 1 is carried by them.

· The first test holds when the worthful ideals outnumber the intrinsic non-ideals. The second holds when what the extrinsic non-ideals draw beyond their own work fits inside the margin; the share of the margin they take shows how slight the space left is.

· The richest group holds its wealth as true guardians only when both conditions hold; it is read as a group, never as persons.

How we measured it

Two of the seven societies are measured: Brazil and the United States, the two whose surveys give, for the same households, the hours of work and the household's income. The guardian test is measured for the United States, the one society of the seven whose wealth figures show the richest group's wealth by kind of asset. The United States is also measured about fifty years back, in 1975, so that its balance can be set against itself.

The groups. In Brazil, the adults aged 20 and over, ranked by their household's income per adult, in the four groups of Part 2; a person on a boundary is split between the two groups. In the United States, the time-use survey gives each household's income only in bands, so the groups there are households ranked by household income: the poorer 50%, the middle 30% and the top 20%, cut at the consumer expenditure survey's own limits between its tenths of households. There, the next 9% and the richest 1% cannot be told apart; this is a limit of the data. Where a household's work is counted, it is shared equally among its adults.

Participation. The hours a week that the group's capable adults (aged 20 to 64) work in the NEPs: work in a job whose activity is one of Part 3's NEP activities (agriculture, forestry and fishing; food, textiles, clothing and leather; electricity, water and waste; construction; public administration and defence; security; education; health and social work; work in households), along with the unpaid domestic and care work that Part 3 counts for the same society.

· Brazil: the continuous national household survey, the 2022 visit that asks every adult about care and housework (IBGE, PNAD Contínua): the hours actually worked in the week in a main or second job, and the hours of care of people and of household chores in the same week. Over the residents aged 15 to 64, this gives 10.7 hours of paid NEP work and 14.9 hours of care and housework a week, against Part 3's 11.2 and 14.7.

· The United States: the time-use survey of 2025 (BLS, American Time Use Survey): the minutes of one diary day, times seven: work at the main job, and household activities, purchases of goods and services and care of household members, each with its travel. Over people aged 15 and over, the unpaid work comes to 3.8 hours a day for women and 2.6 for men, against the 3.76 and 2.55 that BLS publishes and Part 3 uses.

Burden. The hours of others' work that each group draws, used at once or held, as Part 2 counts them. The hours of work contained in everything a society uses, for each adult in a year, are those of Part 2. The part spent on public services is shared equally among all adults; the rest is shared by each group's share of the society's income after taxes and transfers (World Inequality Database, as in Part 2). In Brazil, public services are 19.2% of all that the society spends and an adult draws 1,203 hours of work a year; the poorer half of the adults, holding 12.42% of the income, bears (0.192 × 1,203 + 0.808 × 1,203 × 12.42 ÷ 50) ÷ 52 = 9.1 hours a week for each adult.

· Brazil: the four groups' shares of income used in Part 2 (2024).

· The United States: the shares of income of the poorer 50%, the middle 30% and the top 20% of adults, from the same source and year as Part 2's.

The two tests. For the first, the worthful ideals are the capable adults of the groups above 1; the intrinsic non-ideals are the children under 15 and the old persons aged 65 and over; both are counted as shares of all residents. In the United States they are counted from the members of the households interviewed in the time-use survey, each household weighted by its interviewed member's weight shared among its members aged 15 and over. For the second, everything is read in hours a week for each adult: the margin is the hours given beyond their own burden by all who stand above it, less the hours the old draw beyond their own NEP hours; what the extrinsic non-ideals draw beyond their own NEP hours is then set against it.

The true guardians. For the richest 1% of adults in the United States, the World Inequality Database gives their wealth by kind of asset and the income that wealth brings in (2019, the latest year with wealth by kind of asset). The NEP-linked share counts every home, every business and every share in a company as serving the NEPs, the reading most favourable to the richest; deposits and bonds, money lent for money, are not counted. The profit a year is all the income that the wealth brings in, paid out or kept in the firms, against what the wealth is worth now; where its value has risen, its original value is lower, so the share of the original value is higher still. For the other six societies, the same source gives only each group's share of all wealth, not its kinds of assets or what it brings in, so the test is set out as the method.

The other societies. For China, Russia, Egypt, India and Nigeria, Part 2 gives each group's burden in hours. Their NEP hours by income group are not measured, so their groups are not placed; this is a limit of the data.

Then and now. For the United States, the same count is made for 1975. Participation: the labour survey of March 1976 (US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey), the hours actually worked in the week in a job whose activity is one of Part 3's NEP activities, and the time-use diaries of 1975–1976 (University of Michigan, as brought into one form by the Centre for Time Use Research, American Heritage Time Use Study) for the unpaid domestic and care work, with the same list of activities as in 2025; for 2025, the paid NEP hours are read in the same way, from the labour survey's records of the households of the time-use survey. The groups: households ranked by household income, in 1975 by the Census Bureau's own ranking in steps of 5%. Burden: Part 2's count, with the income shares of 1975 from the same source as Part 2's. No table gives the hours of other countries' work in what a society used in 1975, so both years are read on the hours of the society's own work; the hours of other countries' work are shown apart from 1995, the first year they are measured. The true guardians: the same source, 1975 against 2019. Checks: the income of households in the consumer expenditure surveys of 1972–1973 and of 2024 instead; income before taxes and transfers; the usual hours of the past year (1975); the list of diary activities.

Checks. All set before the count, except the last, which was added after the first count of the United States:

· The groups ranked by income per head (Brazil) or per adult (the United States) instead.

· The usual hours of work instead of the hours actually worked (Brazil); the minutes of second jobs added (the United States).

· Part 2's own other counts of the burden: all of a society's use divided by income, with no equal share of public services; income before taxes and transfers; the money of the top commanding only half as many hours (Brazil); income before taxes and transfers (the United States).

· The burden shared by the income of households in the consumer expenditure survey of 2024, ranked as the time-use groups are (the United States).

· Each adult placed by his own NEP hours against his group's burden, instead of by the group's average (Brazil, first test only; one diary day does not give a person's week).

· Brazil grouped as the United States is: households ranked by household income, 50%, 30% and 20%.

· Every adult with any difficulty in hearing, seeing, walking, remembering, self-care or living alone counted as an intrinsic non-ideal (the United States).

· The guardian test with pensions counted as NEP-linked as well; with the profit of the NEP-linked assets alone; with only what is paid out (dividends, interest and income from houses and land, and then with the gains on assets sold, 2014 and 2015); and in each year from 2014 to 2019.

· The first test counted from the consumer expenditure survey's own table (the United States), which gives the people in each tenth of households to one decimal place only.

Years. Brazil: shares of income 2024, NEP hours 2022. The United States: shares of income 2024, NEP hours 2025, the richest 1%'s wealth by kind of asset 2019. Then and now: shares of income 1975, NEP hours 1975–1976 against 2025, the richest 1%'s wealth 1975 against 2019. Both: the hours of work in what a society uses and the share spent on public services as Part 2 counts them.

Limits of the data. Three things the counts cannot see; they limit the reading, not the domains:

· The disabled from birth, who are intrinsic non-ideals, cannot be told apart: Brazil's survey does not ask, and the United States' survey asks about any difficulty, from birth or later, so it is counted both ways.

· In the United States, one diary day does not give a person's week, so the first test is read for groups only.

· The forced and the voluntary worthful ideals cannot be told apart; both are counted as worthful ideals.

What the seven societies show

Both sides are in hours of work a week for each adult: the burden of each group, against the hours its capable adults work in the NEPs.

Brazil

The United States

In both societies, the richest groups stand below 1, and the rest carry them. In Brazil, the next 9% draw the work of about three times the NEP hours they give, and the richest 1% about fourteen times; in the United States, the top 20% draw nearly three times what they give, and the middle 30% a little more than they give. The groups above 1 give beyond their own burden, and it is they who carry the difference. A group is placed by its average capable adult; groups are placed, never persons.

The richest do not give fewer NEP hours; they draw more. In Brazil, the capable adults of every group work between 26.0 and 28.9 hours a week in the NEPs, while the burden runs from 9.1 to 418.7; in the United States, between 32.8 and 34.7, while the burden runs from 19.5 to 94.0. The richer do more of their NEP work in a paid job and less of it at home (in Brazil, the poorer half 9.2 hours paid and 16.8 unpaid; the richest 1% 18.0 paid and 10.9 unpaid), but the sum stays close. What places them below 1 is all that they draw, used at once or held.

The first test holds in Brazil and fails in the United States. In Brazil, the worthful ideals are 55.7% of all residents, against 30.9% who are intrinsic non-ideals; with each adult placed by his own NEP hours, 37.4% against 30.9%. In the United States, the worthful ideals are only the capable adults of the poorer 50%: 22.5% of all residents, against 35.7% who are intrinsic non-ideals; counted from the consumer expenditure survey's own table, 20.5% against 40.6%; with every adult who has any difficulty counted as an intrinsic non-ideal, 19.6% against 40.0%. There, the worthful ideals do not outnumber the intrinsic non-ideals in any count.

The second test fits in Brazil, but the extrinsic non-ideals take three quarters of the margin; in the United States it does not fit. In Brazil, those above their own burden give 11.1 hours a week for each adult beyond it; the old draw 1.4 hours beyond their own NEP hours, which leaves a margin of 9.7. The extrinsic non-ideals draw 7.3 hours beyond their own NEP hours (the next 9%, 4.0; the richest 1%, 3.3): 75% of the margin, and 79% with each adult placed by himself. In the United States, those above their own burden give 5.2 hours beyond it and the old draw 2.2 beyond their own, which leaves a margin of 3.0; the extrinsic non-ideals draw 12.9 hours beyond their own NEP hours (the top 20%, 12.2; the middle 30%, 0.7): more than four times the margin. They are accommodated only in "a slight margin"; in Brazil they fill most of it, and in the United States they go far beyond it.

The true guardians: the richest 1% of the United States meet neither condition. At most 63.4% of their wealth serves the NEPs, even with every home (16.5%), every business (11.2%) and every share in a company (35.7%) counted as serving them; deposits and bonds, money lent for money, are 25.6%, and pensions 11.0% (74.4% with pensions counted). Their wealth brings in 6.3% of its worth in a year: 3.6% from shares in companies, 1.3% from the capital in their own businesses, 0.8% from interest and 0.5% from homes, against no more than 2.5% of the original asset. Every year from 2014 to 2019 reads the same: between 60.2% and 63.4% NEP-linked, and between 6.1% and 6.5% a year. Only the part paid out to them in hand, dividends, interest and income from houses and land, stays below 2.5% (0.8%, as reported on tax returns in 2014 and 2015); the rest of the profit stays in the firms and adds to the wealth they hold. By both conditions, the richest 1% of the United States do not hold their wealth as true guardians; this is read for the group, never for persons.

Fifty years apart, in the United States: the shift. Read both years on the hours of the society's own work, so that 1975 and 2025 are counted in the same way (hours a week for each adult):

The capable adults of every group give between 33 and 38 hours a week in the NEPs in both years; what has changed is what the top draws. What the extrinsic non-ideals draw beyond their own NEP hours has grown from 1.7 to 5.6 hours a week for each adult, from 15% of the margin to 54%, and the space left in the margin has halved, from 9.6 hours to 4.7. The intrinsic non-ideals persist: 35.3% of all residents in 1975, 35.7% in 2025. The count of worthful ideals against intrinsic non-ideals does not narrow on the society's own hours (39.3% against 35.3% in 1975, 42.5% against 35.7% in 2025); the "shift in this balance" shows in the margin. Every check moves the same way: with the income of households in the consumer expenditure surveys, the top 20% stood above 1 in 1972–1973 (1.09), with no extrinsic non-ideals at all, and below it in 2024 (0.72); with income before taxes and transfers, 0.76 and 0.48. With the hours of other countries' work in what the society uses, measured only from 1995 (the work of 1.35 jobs used for each job of its own people in 1995, 1.64 in 2005 and 1.40 in 2020), 2025 reads 1.68, 0.93 and 0.36, as in the table above. The richest 1% failed both conditions of the true guardians in 1975 too: at most 70.4% of their wealth served the NEPs, against 63.4% in 2019, and it brought in 10.0% of its worth in a year, against 6.3%; in the same years, their share of all wealth grew from 23.7% to 34.8%. This is one society; the other measured society has no survey of the 1970s that asks about care and housework, so it cannot be set against itself; this is a limit of the data.

The checks do not move any group across 1, except the United States' middle 30%, which stands on the line. Across all the checks, the ratios stay between:

The United States' middle 30% rises above 1 only when the burden is shared by income before taxes and transfers (1.02); in that count the first test holds narrowly, by 1.2 points (by 6.9 counted from the household members), and the second still does not fit (3.1 times the margin). Grouped as the United States is, Brazil reads 2.97, 1.77 and 0.38: its top 20% stand below 1 as the United States' do (0.36), while its middle 30% stand well above 1. Where the margin is counted in the checks, the share of it that the extrinsic non-ideals take stays between 25% and 79% in Brazil; in the United States they draw between 2.8 and 5.5 times the margin.

The other societies: the burden only. For China, Russia, Egypt, India and Nigeria, each group's burden is the one in Part 2; there, the richest 1% draw between 24 and 57 times as many hours as the poorer half (in Brazil 46, in the United States 27). Where each group stands against its own NEP hours cannot be read until those hours are measured; this is a limit of the data.