4 ms·
> "In 1966, the average per-capita income of greater Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was only $87 less than that of New York City and its suburbs" And that is a 5% differe
by strictnein 11y ago
> "In 1966, the average per-capita income of greater Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was only $87 less than that of New York City and its suburbs"
And that is a 5% difference? 25% difference? 55%? Is that number inflation adjusted?
I hate stats like this. When they show up they make me really assume the rest of the article is junk as well.
- nostromo 11y agoTo give them some credit, they link to the source, so you can dig in all you like. Here, I've done it for you. 1966 average income: $3,962 - New York City area $3,875 - Cedar Rapids area So, 2% less.
- humanrebar 11y agoAdjusted for cost of living, Cedar Rapids sounds much better than NYC with those numbers.
- maldusiecle 11y agoExcept that literally the next paragraph has a bunch of percentage comparisons (as does the preceding paragraph). These aren't cherrypicked stats; the article cites a range of comparisons to create a broad, meaningful picture of the situation. But yes, by all means, dismiss a long and carefully researched article because it irks you the way a single figure is cited.
- strictnein 11y agoSo then we agree that they should have also provided a percentage along side the (meaningless without context) absolute value. But my point was about articles in general that do these sort of absolute value comparisons without providing any context, which is what I wrote.
- Florin_Andrei 11y ago> When they show up they make me really assume the rest of the article is junk as well. Sounds like you stopped reading at the first page and didn't bother to check the rest.