Pop stars and media personalities, being at the top-tier of the economic class, have better financial stability than the people running the country: public servants. The reasons for the status quo are not only societal but also pertaining to financial opportunities. The said reasons and the impact of this divide are elucidated ahead.
Firstly, politicians' public relations are not as high as of celebrities'. Owing to the fact that their whole job is to appease the audience, the former is more liked by the people. Therefore, people not only advocate for larger paycheques for their ideals but also they make them more popular by word of mouth advertisement. This creates a feedback loop which makes already successful celebrities, richer. This is not the case for politicians; their individual self is not reflected in the work they do, leading to, them, getting not as much attention from the public, as their counterparts.
Secondly, the sources, from which the cheques come, are abundant for the celebs. Where the public servants can fulfil their monetary needs from just one node: the government, the former, because of their non-linear work, reap the benefits, of the same, from more sources: advertisements, promotions and the movies, they do. This branched income tree exponentially increases the funds, making celebrities' bank balance that much heavier.
However, this causes one serious implication to the economic structure: less engagement in politics. The fact that job seekers always attract towards the more monetarily compensating jobs, the very crucial jobs, like this one, do not get the attention it demands; consequently, this widens the vacancy bracket in the government offices, which is detrimental to the functioning of it. India, which has billionaire actors and middle-class politicians, speaks volumes to illustrate this point as its government runs at only 60% occupancy.
In conclusion, the fact that people like celebrities more than politicians, and they are faced with more income opportunities, they get more overall income. However, this is negative for the government as people do not value it that much.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, however, second, secondly, so, therefore, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 7.85571142285 13% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 24.0651302605 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 41.998997996 69% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1819.0 1615.20841683 113% => OK
No of words: 337.0 315.596192385 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39762611276 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92846017235 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575667655786 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 550.8 506.74238477 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 8.0 2.52805611222 316% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.4254447646 49.4020404114 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.6875 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0625 20.7667163134 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06120827912 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.212946595057 0.244688304435 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0720991001992 0.084324248473 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0402385863064 0.0667982634062 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123481646009 0.151304729494 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0513275704855 0.056905535591 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.0946893788 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.04 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.41 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 78.4519038076 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.