cat_fta
Full Member
Karma: +3/-45
Posts: 101
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2007, 07:32:57 AM » |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Freedom just for us, not for all.
Democracy is OK as long as is my way.
|
|
|
|
5uperChicken
|
|
« Reply #31 on: October 18, 2007, 05:55:09 PM » |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
5uperChicken
|
|
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2007, 05:57:48 PM » |
|
Your middle class dies when people realize that the IAP service is worth the same to them as it is to anybody else.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,069
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2007, 06:38:00 PM » |
|
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
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? 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. 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.pdfThe 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. 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 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
5uperChicken
|
|
« Reply #34 on: October 18, 2007, 07:03:06 PM » |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,069
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2007, 07:35:10 PM » |
|
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 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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
5uperChicken
|
|
« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2007, 12:09:09 PM » |
|
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...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,069
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2007, 03:29:06 PM » |
|
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.  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. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 19, 2007, 03:32:52 PM by illy »
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
5uperChicken
|
|
« Reply #38 on: October 19, 2007, 04:07:46 PM » |
|
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
paincake
Newbie
Karma: +1/-1
Posts: 16
|
|
« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2007, 04:17:09 PM » |
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,069
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2007, 05:00:07 PM » |
|
"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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
