IAP Political Forum

1973 Median yearly earnings*:             $25,980
   Hourly earnings:            $12.99
1970 Median housing cost (adj. $):         $65,300

Median housing, in units of median hours worked:   5027
   Years worked:               2.51


2005 Median yearly earnings*:             $28,580
   Hourly earnings:            $14.29
2005 Median housing cost:            $213,900

Median housing, in units of median hours worked:   14,968
   Years worked:               7.48


Percent change in housing cost as a function of hours worked:   +197.8%
         Or
Cost of housing as a function of percentage of hours worked:   297.8%


A person or family in 2005 has to work three times as long and/or three times as hard to afford the same sort of housing as they would have in the early 1970s.

Link?

Using Median instead of Mean is an old and dishonest trick. Now go find the REAL average.

As fas as inflation...there's milk, and gas....and that's it...Your 1000 dollars changed much more from 87-97 than it did from 97-07

well here is an interesting web article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

How is using median dishonest?

"Mean" income is less meaningful in the U.S. because the rich are so much richer than the rest of us. An example from the late Molly Ivins:

"If Bill Gates walked into a soup kitchen with a nun and 40 homeless people, the mean net worth of all the people in the room would be $1,000,000,000. But there would still be one rich person and 41 poor people."

Median is therefore far more meaningful, because half of the population make more and half makes less. What is dishonest about that?

All of these figures may be found from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I didn't provide a link because there are multiple sources.

Yes, that is houshold income. My figures were based on single earner income, to illustrate the amount of work one person would require to pay for an average house.

You didn't cut and paste enough of the original content to mean anything.  The table you used will have additional language following an asterisk.

Conditions have changed quite a bit since '73, including but not limited to more people living in enormous homes.  I'm not sure you would want to go back.


A tangentially related and light-hearted picture.

(http://www.imagechan.org/img/images/Shipment.jpeg)

Yes, I summarized - god forbid! As I said, the original figures are available for anyone to look up (http://www.bls.gov).

Why is the middle class dying?

In a word, GLOBALISM!!!!!

"The only cure for the SICKNESS of GLOBALISM is PATRIOTISM."


Which has everything to do with the devaluation of our American dollars through the unrelenting printing of more and more worthless dollars to pay for an illegal/immoral war in Iraq and Afganistan, combined with nightmarish ramifications of "Free Trade" agreements like NAFTA/CAFTA, SPP, FTAA.  All a part of the globalist effort to unify world trade under a ONE WORLD GOVERNMEN with a one world Bank and a elite ruling class making all the pertinate decisions. 

The AMERICAN middle class, along with AMERICAN freedoms and values are being dissolved 5/95 into the two classes, rich elitists who bow cowardly to international powers and sell our country out, and the poor peasant class kept around exclusively to serve the elitist needs.  Contiuation of GLOBALIST polcies will only force the average American into harsher and harsher living condidtions paid for by worsening and worsening job conditions, pay, and benefits.  It won't be long before there is NO DIFFERENCE between a peasant Mexican living far below the poverty level, and the peasant American doing the same.

But your definitely on the right track.

FreeinTX

I would vote SOCIALISM, I believe is a better option than PATRIOTISM, because patriotism could lead to FANATICISM, a kind of what is happening right now across U.S.

The median income of the room you describe would be ZERO..., then you're using a dishonest trick, because that is NOT the average.

If 90 people have 1 dollar and ten people have 100 dollars. (90*1 + 10*100)= 1090
The mean, or average...would be 10.9 dollars/person
The Median would be 1 dollar/person

Dishonest when meant to describe the average person. applied stats 101

a astronomer, a truck driver and a statistician go hunting...they see a deer...the astronomer takes a shot and misses to the left...thge truck driver takes a shot and misses to the right..."We hit it!" exclaims the statistician.

Well played.

And socialism leads to communism

While I am NOT a socialist, I personnally prefer capitalism and the open and free market, (which we do NOT have in America today because of socialist and communist policies being forced illegally on Americans), I don't believe that socialism and patriotism are counter to one another.

For example, Dennis Kucinich is openly SOCIALIST.  He will not only acknowledge his socialist bent in public, but will consitently defend socialist principals all the while, calling them socialist principals.  However, noone would dare deny that Dennis Kucinich is a true PATRIOT.  His PATRIOTISM is demonstrated by his love for our country and his recognition that it is our differences from every other country in the world that made our country the greatest country in the world.  He carries a pocket Constiutution.  Now, that's love for your country and its distinctions.

Now, I am not sure why you would think that a, "chicken in every pot," -ism has anything to do with the, "love of our country," -ism much less be a choice that must be made between the two.

You can be a patriotic socialist, a patriotic communist, and a patriotic capitalist.  I mean the guys over in Russia, during the cold war, loved their "Mother Russia," very much, and would NEVER have shown support for the dissolution of Russian power.  They were certainly PATRIOTIC although COMMUNIST.

Same in this country.  PATRIOTISM is the love for one's country.  Understand, the GLOBALIST agenda is to dissolve the borders of each country and recreate new borders as regions.  Here in the North America, there are more troops on Mexico's 150 mile wide southern border with Guatemala, than there are on our 1,500 mile wide southern border with Mexico.  That border is wide open, despite the claims that there is a, "War on Terror," and that we have a DHS dedicated to stopping terrorists.  Wanna take a guess at where the GLOBALISTS want to place their border for the NAU?

In the dissolution of the US borders, will also be the disolution of the US Constitution and US Soverignty.  The only way to fight against a group of people that seek to dissolve your country's borders, is to show these people just how important those borders are.  I.e. showing love for your country.  Showing that, for you, the good of your country, the good 'ole USofA, is MORE IMPORTANT than the needs or the good of another country.

And everyone should keep in mind, that Mexico, is probably the most corrupt government in the Western Hemisphere.  Not only is the Mexican government heavily involved in illegal activities like narco-trafficking and sex/child sex trafficking, Mexico itself has 3 times the natural resources of the United States, yet the country's people have a poverty problem that floods millions into America each year.  

Now, if we simply removed the free trade agreements and pressured the elitist 10% of Mexico that holds 90% of Mexico's wealth, to share the countries resources through the use of tax incentives, you might find your solution to the illegal imigration problem.  However, the GLOBALISTS don't want a solution to illegal immigration, they want a blending that will bring the American poor down to the level of the Mexican poor, and simultaneously rid the elitists of the middle class along with middle class wages and work benefits.  

Hell, if we just demanded that Mexico adopt our Bill of Rights, and allow these peasant farmers the right to purchase and own weapons.  You would see a government come correct faster than you could possibly imagine.  Instead, the GLOBALISTS errode our 2nd Amendment rights, so they can treat us like Mexican peasant farmers without fear of being shot.

But I digress......

So, go on and continue to be a socialist.  I would love to debate those principals and the benefits of a capitalist and a Constitutionalist over socialism, but whether you are capialist, socialist, communist, anarchist, crack-pot-ist, it doesn't matter, LOVE YOUR COUNTRY.  Even if your country is Canada or Mexico, LOVE YOUR COUNTRY.  If you are here in the US, take the time to understand the differences from other countries that made the US the greatest country in the world and demand that the GLOBALIST not interfere with those differences for the sake of increased efficiency and cheaper prices.  Get to really understand why this Constitutional Republic is rarity and not easily created or kept.  Understand why it is important to maintain vigilence in the protection of our rights, and keeping our rights away from the nutjobs in our government, especially when they seek to infringe upon thoze rights.

This government did NOT give us our rights, this government does NOT protect our rights for us.  The only thing this government can do with our rights, is TAKE THEM FROM US.  In fact, in today's REAL WORLD, the only group of people in the world that can possibly take away our rights, our liberties, and our freedoms, is this government.  Not the terrorists, not the fanatics, not the crazies, or the Muslims, or the gays, or jews, ONLY OUR GOVERNMENT.  It's up to YOU to help protect our rights from this government.

Now, the reason you are seeing an increased level of "fanatisism" is a simple reason.  In 2006, the country voted into power the democrats.  They overwhelmingly went to the polls and shifted the balance of power over to the dems in both the House and Senate.  The American people did so for one simple unmistakable reason.  THEY WANTED A CHANGE.  Not just Iraq, and the "War on Terror," but civil liberties, torture policies, etc....

The Dems pushing the elections were saying we need a, "change."  When the Dems won, it was, "now, we will make some changes."  Has anything changed?  It's actually gotten worse, right?  I mean if you went to the polls in 2006, and voted for "change" would you say that there has been a significant "change" since the elections?  I sure would not.

So, despite the will of the people, the law-makers, and the law-enforcement, continue their overwhelmingly unpopular policies.  The government should fear its people, is there any indication that this government fears its people?  Is there any indication that the governent gives a sh-t one way or another about the "will of the people?"  

The "top tiered" candidates ALL support the, "War on Terror," the occupation of Iraq and Afganistan, the escilation of war in the Middle East, NAFTA, CAFTA, the FTAA, the SPP, increased involvement in the UN, increased involvement in the WHO, the world bank, the IMF, even though the overwhelming majority of America are against every single one of these issues.  To restate for dramatic effect.  ALL of the "top tiered" candidates support policies that the overwhelming majority of America do NOT support, yet, "top tiered" candidates continue to get elected and support these policies.

Of course that is going to cause, "fanatisism."  That's good honest Americans getting pissed off that the government is not paying attention to the needs of good honest Americans.  When that happenes, people start quoting our fore-fathers because they had a solution to the problem of a government not listening to its people.

FreeinTX  

This government did NOT give us our rights, this government does NOT protect our rights for us.  The only thing this government can do with our rights, is TAKE THEM FROM US.  In fact, in today's REAL WORLD, the only group of people in the world that can possibly take away our rights, our liberties, and our freedoms, is this government.  Not the terrorists, not the fanatics, not the crazies, or the Muslims, or the gays, or jews, ONLY OUR GOVERNMENT.  It's up to YOU to help protect our rights from this government.
 
Yet we continue to vote for bigger and bigger government in control of the most important, most expensive aspects of our lives...go cipher.

Now, the reason you are seeing an increased level of "fanatisism" is a simple reason.  In 2006, the country voted into power the democrats.  They overwhelmingly went to the polls and shifted the balance of power over to the dems in both the House and Senate.  The American people did so for one simple unmistakable reason.  THEY WANTED A CHANGE.  Not just Iraq, and the "War on Terror," but civil liberties, torture policies, etc....

The Dems pushing the elections were saying we need a, "change."  When the Dems won, it was, "now, we will make some changes."  Has anything changed?  It's actually gotten worse, right?  I mean if you went to the polls in 2006, and voted for "change" would you say that there has been a significant "change" since the elections?  I sure would not.

a change in Iraq could have meant nuking the joint and throwing a parade.
We also voted in 2000 because we wanted to steal an election, then again in 04 because we were wacked-out religious fanatics looking for some morality...only in 06 did the will of the people become important...and the more open, honest, ethical, bipartisan government they promised was just as big a lie

So, despite the will of the people, the law-makers, and the law-enforcement, continue their overwhelmingly unpopular policies.  The government should fear its people, is there any indication that this government fears its people?  Is there any indication that the governent gives a sh-t one way or another about the "will of the people?" 

The "top tiered" candidates ALL support the, "War on Terror," the occupation of Iraq and Afganistan, the escilation of war in the Middle East, NAFTA, CAFTA, the FTAA, the SPP, increased involvement in the UN, increased involvement in the WHO, the world bank, the IMF, even though the overwhelming majority of America are against every single one of these issues.  To restate for dramatic effect.  ALL of the "top tiered" candidates support policies that the overwhelming majority of America do NOT support, yet, "top tiered" candidates continue to get elected and support these policies.

top-tiered, as in having the most support?
don't confuse intelligence with common sense...which is a sense of the community, which I think you're lacking.

No we did NOT.  Remember Bush's initial election was based on a humble foreign policy.  One of NOT nation building.  Remember that?  The 2000 election went to Bush because he LIED and promised SMALLER GOVERNMENT not larger government.

When the immigration bill came before Congress, Congressmen were directly threatened by their constituents, to the point where many of the supporters withdrew their support, and voted against it.  Now they are back-dooring it as riders on spending bills, because they know the people HATED that Amnesty Bill.

No, we want a smaller, more controlled government, NOT an intrusive government making evry decision that affects our lives for us.



NO, the President would have NEVER been allowed to nuke Iraq.  Remember, this whole time we have invaded and occupied Iraq, this administration has said time and time again, this is about liberating Iraq, helping the Iraqi, not against the Iraqi.  You can't leberate a country and spread freedom, win the hearts and minds of a people by nuking them.  He would have NEVER been given any kind of authorization to go to war against the country and the people of Iraq.

Now, the rest of this comment is weird.  Bush and religion have NOTHING to do with each other.  I know he said he talks to God, and that God told him to attack Afganistan and Iraq, but he is a LIAR.  A puppet spouting out crap like you would expect in your typical puppet show. 

Are you going to deny that Gore won in 2000?  That the Supreme Court simply upheld that Florida cast its delegates for Bush, and it doesn't matter that the count was wrong?  I don't know who voted in 2000 to steal elections, but it was clear that an effort was made by a few to hand the election to Bush despite the Gore win.

In 2004, you were given a choice between Bush and Kerry?  Not really any different that the choice you will be given when Hillary and Obama team up and run against what ever loser you pick from the top tier of the Republican side of the aisle.  Kerry could NOT have done a poorer job of running for President.  Almost as if, a group, like Bilderberg, or the CFR, asked him to poop on his election bid.  I doubt very seriously, however, if religion had anything to do with the Bush 2004 win.  Especially, when you consider that people are in prison, right now, after pleading guilty to charges of RIGGING THE ELECTION FOR BUSH!!!!!

And the BIG LIE is my point.  I guess you are still lost in the game.  The FALSE LEFT RIGHT PARADIGM.  No, the 2006 elections were NOT more important.  Just ike in 2000 and 2002 and 2004, in 2006 people voted to change things because they did NOT like the way things were going, the government, however, refuses to listen. 

The government refusing to listen to it's people, in a country where the PEOPLE are supposed to control the government, Fanatisism will develop.  This is NOT about Republicans ignoring people or democrats ignoring the people, it is about GLOBALISTS on both sides of the aisle ignoring the average American citizen!!




Ohh is that what GLOBALISM is about?  Community?  Well, yea, I am NOT a Communist, so I don't believe that what is best for the entire community should be forced on the individual.  I don't believe that the community determines what is best for me and the people I work to support.  I don't believe that the government is better able to determine ANYTHING in my best intrest.  The government should be limited to NATIONAL DEFENSE and SECURING OUR BORDERS.  This nonsense of getting involved in every aspect of life and making rules and regulations about every aspect of doing business, making decisions at federal levels about things that affect only the local community, does absolutely nothing to benefit the AVERAGE AMERICAN. 

Name one thing that our federal government does good.  The very idea of a buracracy is equivelent with red-tape, and inefficiency.  Yet the GLOBALISTS seek to add another layer of government, which we don't need, to the regulation and enforcement of policies that will do nothing more than add more and more levels of buracracy red-tape and inefficiency to an already complex set of laws imposed on us by other GLOBALIST leaders.

And no, I don't want the government of MEXICO with all their narco-terrorosts and child sex traffickers to have any say, whatsoever, on how we do business, on how we trade, on how we traffick consumer goods into our country, on ANY ASPECT OF MY LIFE WHATSOEVER, not one iota of input into the workings and goings on in my life.  Do you?

is that your idea of community?  Giving the drug dealers and the pimps a right to determine policies that affect your life?

FreeinTX

Show me one recount in Florida that Gore won. The closest was Dan Rather calling it for him with an hour left in voting that absolutely cost BUSH votes.

I'll sit back and wait...

The court was absolutely correct in striking down an over-reaching, Florida Supreme Court and the Supreme Court did that with a 7-2 vote.

Haha agreed. I'm going to have to use that joke some time.

Yeah, the Florida Supreme Court broke their own rules trying to rig it for Gore. But the bottom line is the real count said Bush was the winner, hence the reason the real court decided in his favor.

Oh really, that's the reason given in the affirmative opinion?  You better read that again.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

And here is what we know about the "real count."
Florida 2000 Election Fraud
http://liesofbush.com/2000election.shtml

And don't forget, they STOPPED THE RECOUNT, and that was a 5-4 decision.

The benefits of 40 years of CFR appointed judges.

FreeinTX

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   ;D

I can post links too!!

http://fraudfactor.com/ffef2kcountways.html

Yes, a 5-4 decision. And one of the five (Scalia, who espoused a doctrine of state's rights over federal interference all his career) had a son working for Bush's campaign, and another of the five (Thomas, who espoused a doctrine of state's rights over federal interference all his career) had a wife working for Bush's transition team.
Not that that should have caused them to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest. After all, then they would have lost the vote and Florida would have been allowed to decide their own state's election for itself.

In other words, for the median income to be meaningfully changed, you do NOT raise how much the average person is making, you raise how much the POOR are making but unfortunatly for society, more and more of the poor have no desire to better themselves or they have done stupid things and can NOT better themselves.

The other day I was driving through a less than affluent part of town and as I passed a buidling I noticed a large,,,,flock,,,of woman, most appearing to be in late teens, early tweenties but a few very obviously early to mid teens, all with atlesat one young child. Cursious, and wanting to take a closer look at a few who where good looking, I wqipped around the block and drove by slower. Looking at the name on the building I investgated and found out it is a support foundation for single poor mothers.

THAT is why the median income is going down faster than a whore on the pier when the Navy comes to town.

One solution is to raise the minimum wage. If you receive 500-600$ per month on wellfare, I don't believe you would want to work just to get 1000$ per month, do you? I will enjoy my free whatever government donation and let the suckers work for peanuts money, or let the illegal mexicans do the job  :D
You have to try thinking as poor people think, if you really want to help them.
But, as always, the blame will be shifted to the lazy, poor people, not to the fucking greedy few.
Welcome to America, land of opportunity (to win Lottery....one day....maybe...work harder sucker, you are just a slave with the "free man" sticker on your head).

Land of opportunity.....I hate that saying.

Most free countries are lands of such,,,,but it takes hard work, grueling, nearly back breaking woirk.

You know what most rich people who did not inherit thier money have in common Cat? They work 80plus hours per week and have no life outside of work.

The opportunity is there but NO ONE is going to just give it to you.

How did this thread go from a question about statistics, to agenda wielding BS?

Voltaire, some don't appreciate a point one tries to convey, however you must be careful about those who are readily available to debunk simple holes in arguments.
The asterisks used I believe indicate dollars in real terms? 

In proving that the middle class is dieing, all you were able to provide is that the same quintile of people have a relatively stagnant income.  That doesn't mean the middle class is dying. 

However if you looked at the real averages as well you would have noticed that there has been a significant increase in real income. 

What does this mean?

This explains the polarization, and the support for your argument that the middle class is dying.  What basically is happening is that the poor is staying on the bottom with relatively small change in income while the rest are getting ahead by receiving higher incomes.

However, it is also important to note that relative to the real value of income, many conservative foundations have found that the poor of this country (poverty line is around 17,000 I believe) have all the comforts that a highly industrialized nation has: microwaves, multiple TVs, washers and dryers, bigger homes and other household durable items as well as abundance of food, clothing, household staples like cleaning supplies and even entertainment products.

So there ya go, I filled the holes to your argument.  Now what does this mean...

Notice in my analysis that it does not include debt accrued by low income families, amount of savings accrued by low income families, health benefits, government subsidies that are otherwise not factored in, etc...  ;)

 

Let me try to make myself clear: first of all I am not against capitalism nor socialism. I think they can coexist together.

While it's no doubt that hardcore capitalism is the currency of trade in America, I was trying to imply that there are other forms of capitalism as well. One example is Europe. Another one is the new emerging form of capitalism that is happening right now in China, which has ultimate goal of enriching its people as a whole society.

Do you know what is the real problem in America? America is not a nation, never has been, you cannot say "american people", because it doesn't exist such thing.
You can say America "land of the many" or America as a state.

America has always been a new land of "opportunity" for the british empire. After the slavery was abolished the rich white anglo-saxon elite needed new workers to work their land and their factories. That's why they started to bring immigrants in and encourage multiculturalism, on the surface, because deep down the immigrants are always seen as second class citizens.
After a while the immigrants started to realize the real farce they have been brought into: in fact replacing the black slaves. Now the slaves are of all colours of the world: white, yellow, red.

So the elite, begining to realize they loose the grip on people, go back to basics and bang: Globalization, bring back the jobs to thirld world countries, where they can pay dirt cheap for the labour.

Things like theese don't happen in Europe, because you know why?
The rich people in Spain, for example, they are rich spanish people. While they pursue their own interest to get fatter and fatter, they will still think to give some to their own poor people.
In America, if you are poor, you are a fucking liability, die you piece of shit!
Why? Because America doesn't belong to the family of nations of the world.

So...nobody came with any thoughts to this thing? I am just laughing my head off to see everybody here fending from such an issue.
It's too hard to digest? Or the truth hurts so bad, that you need some time off to lick the wound?

Ignoring the juvenile foolishness above...

Imagine if IAP cost $10/month...
...for people making 50K/yr.
now, a person making 10K/year should only have to pay $2/month....because we want to be fair.
A person making 1million/yr will have to pay 200/month for the same services. because we want to be fair.
But...the 10K/yr people cant afford internet access, so we'll have to shoulder that burden for them, it's only fair.. the people making 1 million per year will have to pay 95% of the internet access for the poor...because they have the money...they don't need it anyway..so, that makes it 250/month for a person making1M/yr to get IAP.
The next logical step would be to make other politicql discussion boards illegal in order to protect this fair deal we set up...we don't those subscribers running off to find the same service for less, do we?

Try it with hamburgers...it's great fun...being fair.

Your middle class dies when people realize that the IAP service is worth the same to them as it is to anybody else.

The Census Bureau takes the exact opposite of your view regarding median and mean as indicators of wealth in the US.


From:

Net Worth and Asset Ownership
of Households: 1998 and 2000

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-88.pdf (http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-88.pdf)


This is why summary files for census data tend to report and use median, not mean income. Summary File 3 and Summary File 4 are good places to browse for this type of data.

American Factfinder (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&_program=DEC&_lang=en)

The Census Bureau takes the exact opposite of your view regarding median and mean as indicators of wealth in the US.


From:

Net Worth and Asset Ownership
of Households: 1998 and 2000

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-88.pdf (http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-88.pdf)


This is why summary files for census data tend to report and use median, not mean income. Summary File 3 and Summary File 4 are good places to browse for this type of data.

American Factfinder (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&_program=DEC&_lang=en)

It works as long as you are willing to cite data as "skewed", and ignore it.

It DOES NOT work when applied to data that we all agree going in is "statistically average"

Make sense?

Do you understand what skewness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewed) means, in a statistical sense? The data is not being ignored.

It really isn't a subjective question. Income data for the US is skewed in the positive direction. This isn't Census Bureau spin, it's fact.

As far as what we all agree on, I would point to the US Census Bureau as an authority on what consensus has been reached regarding census data. They identify the median as the appropriate measure of central tendency in regard to income data, and give good reason for that decision.

You can ignore things, but they don't just go away.
And the issue here is not about money, have or not, but about the health of a nation, about being classified as a nation or not.
When a big majority of black people prefer to collect welfare cheques, instead of working their ass for white people, because they were slaves once and don't want to do that anymore (and don't tell me that a 20k job a year is not considered a slave's job, today), when you have all the multicultural ghettos all over big cities in America, I believe that America can not be considered as a nation.
Instead, it is what I said is: an expanded interest of the british empire, that is still very well, alive and kicking.
The smart immigrants started to realize this not a long time ago and I believe that if 10%-20% of them sell their assets and go back to their countries, probably we will have another big recession in America.

I fully understand skewed...that's the reason I identify the data presented as SKEWED....Negatively SKEWED...The more that incomes rise, the more people are pushed above the threshold and omitted from your equation....An equation that is meant to show how much incomes are rising or falling.
 
It is a statistical hoax....Q.E.D

There is a ceiling for your data on one end and not the other.
Of course 2 income homes make more than 1-income homes, people in their 50's make more than those in their 20's, so who knows how many people were included in the first set of data, only to be excluded from the last....We could easily figure it out....guess how...

If you identify the income data for the US as negatively skewed, I would say that no, you do not fully understand what skewed means.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Skew.png)

Again, this is not a subjective assessment, it is mathematical fact. Regarding income for the US, and pretty much anywhere else, there most certainly is a positive skew of the data. Data values on one end of the spectrum occurring much less frequently than data values on the other end of the spectrum is the very definition of skewness.

This is not a hoax. High data values occur much less frequently on the high end than on the low end in the dataset of income in the US.

Say what you will about the politics of the situation, but the fundamentals of the science of statistics aren't up for debate here. Many valid criticisms of the field of statistics have been presented, but statisticians confusing positive and negative skew on a regular basis is not one of them.

"If you identify the income data for the US as negatively skewed, I would say that no, you do not fully understand what skewed means."

I said the data presented...as in the topic at hand...which basically doesn't include the top 20 percentile, is negatively skewed.

Of course the average of those making 0-100 is less than the average of those making 0-1000. The more that incomes rose from 1970 to 2005, the greater chance those people had of being included in the first set, but excluded from the 2nd.

Wait.  I think the mode would 0.  Mode is the number most common.  Mean is the average.  Median is the middle of the range.  So the median would be 50.

Someone earlier said the median is where 1/2 the population is on either side.  That's not the case either.  I don't know what that's called.

On what basis do you claim that the uppermost quintile was excluded from the data?


Using the median, as opposed to the mean as a measure of central tendency does not exclude data from the analysis. The top 20% is in fact counted when calculating the median, which is based on the 50% mark, and I think you're misunderstanding what a median is, it is not calculated by taking the average of whatever values someone sees fit from the dataset.

If you have some specific proof that values in the upper range were excluded from the presented dataset, I would like to see it.






Here is a primer of means, medians and modes. Some of the statements in this thread seem to indicate that this is warranted



BTW 5uperchicken, this dataset is positively skewed as well. Skewness is a quantitative value than can be calculated. It will have either a positive or negative value depending on which way the data is skewed.

On what basis do you claim that the uppermost quintile was excluded from the data?


Using the median, as opposed to the mean as a measure of central tendency does not exclude data from the analysis. The top 20% is in fact counted when calculating the median, which is based on the 50% mark, and I think you're misunderstanding what a median is, it is not calculated by taking the average of whatever values someone sees fit from the dataset.

If you have some specific proof that values in the upper range were excluded from the presented dataset, I would like to see it.






Here is a primer of means, medians and modes. Some of the statements in this thread seem to indicate that this is warranted



BTW 5uperchicken, this dataset is positively skewed as well. Skewness is a quantitative value than can be calculated. It will have either a positive or negative value depending on which way the data is skewed.

On what basis do you claim that the uppermost quintile was excluded from the data?


Using the median, as opposed to the mean as a measure of central tendency does not exclude data from the analysis. The top 20% is in fact counted when calculating the median, which is based on the 50% mark, and I think you're misunderstanding what a median is, it is not calculated by taking the average of whatever values someone sees fit from the dataset.

If you have some specific proof that values in the upper range were excluded from the presented dataset, I would like to see it.

Here is a primer of means, medians and modes. Some of the statements in this thread seem to indicate that this is warranted



BTW 5uperchicken, this dataset is positively skewed as well. Skewness is a quantitative value than can be calculated. It will have either a positive or negative value depending on which way the data is skewed.

Here is a primer of means, medians and modes. Some of the statements in this thread seem to indicate that this is warranted



BTW 5uperchicken, this dataset is positively skewed as well. Skewness is a quantitative value than can be calculated. It will have either a positive or negative value depending on which way the data is skewed.

Here is a primer of means, medians and modes. Some of the statements in this thread seem to indicate that this is warranted



BTW 5uperchicken, this dataset is positively skewed as well. Skewness is a quantitative value than can be calculated. It will have either a positive or negative value depending on which way the data is skewed.

and if you have 300 million pieces of data to input? which method would you use? WHY???

This has been explained already.

On what basis do you claim that the uppermost quintile was excluded from the data?


Using the median, as opposed to the mean as a measure of central tendency does not exclude data from the analysis. The top 20% is in fact counted when calculating the median, which is based on the 50% mark, and I think you're misunderstanding what a median is, it is not calculated by taking the average of whatever values someone sees fit from the dataset.

If you have some specific proof that values in the upper range were excluded from the presented dataset, I would like to see it.
Here's my proof

every body makes 1 dollar in 1973...(100*1) 100
mean 1 / median 1
now incomes go up for 2005..(60*1 + 40*10) 460
mean 4.6 / median..........1
no change in income reported with a 400% increase in overall income...which is reflected in the average.

humor me....

From the census bureau.

Again.

The distribution of wealth in the
United States has a large positive
skew, with relatively few households
holding a large proportion of
the wealth. For this type of distribution,
the median is the preferred
measure of central tendency
because it is less sensitive than
the average (mean) to extreme
observations. The median is also
considerably lower than the average,
and provides a more accurate
representation of the wealth and
asset holdings of the typical
household. For example, more
households have a net worth near
the median of $55,000 than near
the average of $182,381.


And?

Where is data excluded? (btw, there would still be 100 people, 100, not 460 is what you would be dividing by)

And?

Where is data excluded? (btw, there would still be 100 people, 100, not 460 is what you would be dividing by)
[/quote]
Here's my proof

every body makes 1 dollar in 1973...(100*1) 100
mean 1 / median 1
now incomes go up for 2005..(60*1 + 40*10) 460
mean 4.6 / median..........1
no change in income reported with a 400% increase in overall income...which is reflected in the average.


[/quote]

And?

Where is data excluded? (btw, there would still be 100 people, 100, not 460 is what you would be dividing by)
[/quote]

The difference in the the median and average will tell you exactly what data was excluded.....a 460% increase in total income is not realized at all by the median.

oh...by the way...60 plus 40 people IS 100 people...and when you divide 460 among those 100 people you get 4.6......not 1!

Whatever.

If you had actually read mt post, you would see where I told you that there were still 100 people.

Go and find me something beside your opinion if you want to make a convincing argument. With all due respect, you just don't stack up against the Census Bureau when it comes to authority or consensus regarding statistical methods for census data.

Yes, the median is less sensitive to highly skewed data (like income data). Just bolding one part of the quote and disregarding the rest really isn't convincing at all.

You accused a poster of dishonesty for using the same measures when reporting census data that the census bureau does. All logic and firmly established mathematical principles in the world aren't sufficient against your opinions.

First you claim the median is a dishonest meaure. I show where it isn't with a substantial explanation from the US Census Bureau. Then you take issue with the explanation because you think it's negatively skewed, I showed where it isn't. Then You make wild claims using the median to exclude data without showing what values you're talking about, and claiming the median is an average of only part of the data. I show where neither is the case.

Now, you want to interpret the census bureaus explanation for the convention to to mean the exact opposite of what it says.


Whatever. 


I'm done with this "debate".

Typically, I charge by the hour for teaching math. Consider the schooling on central tendencies a freebie. I had it ready to go for the remedial math class I teach.

Forever...

OHH, good insult. Applauded