So for a specific example, in a world in which (say) 50% of people earn a dollar a day, and 50% a hundred dollars a day, and we are judging two potential policies: 1), that reduces the number of people on a dollar a day to 25%, so that now 75% of people earn a hundred dollars a day; or 2) that means that no one is an a dollar a day, but that everyone is now on 50 dollars a day. Rawls would say go to option 2, where plenty of people are worse off, but now no one is terribly off. Is that a fair example? Net, the situation is worse; but now no one is destitute.