4 ms·

About half earn more, about half earn less. Wouldn't that imply that the average earnings are about the same? If so, I don't know that I'd complain because that

by hajile 10y ago

About half earn more, about half earn less. Wouldn't that imply that the average earnings are about the same? If so, I don't know that I'd complain because that indicates stability.

matchagaucho 10y ago
Yeah, the title seems sensationalized relative to the actual data. It looks like a stable regression towards the mean.
- godelski 10y ago
  Was the title changed? Says "Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds Earn More Than Their Parents". Which is exactly what the article talks about... Though earning more than your parents was part of the American dream.
  - malisper 10y ago
    If you reword the title to "More than Half of 30-Year-Olds Earn More Than Their Parents" it sounds completely different.
    - godelski 10y ago
      This is true, but I wouldn't say the title is misleading. Especially when earning more than your parents is part of the American dream, that is social mobility. Which is discussed.
dlss 10y ago
> About half earn more, about half earn less. Wouldn't that imply that the average earnings are about the same? Actually no, though this is a fairly standard misunderstanding of statistics. For an easy counter-example imagine generation one being [0, 100] and generation two being [1, 2]. Average wealth goes down, while every element is higher than 50% of the previous generation.
- hajile 10y ago
  We know that the distribution of wealth is not that extreme (the 1% are not enough to make the 50% change required given that comparisons are relative to parents). I agree with you in principle, but I don't believe that it's a significant factor in this case.
- mywittyname 10y ago
  This depends entirely on the underlying distribution of the data. In your example, the distributions are not at all similar, so it makes sense that you can't compare medians or averages between those populations. I suspect that the distribution of incomes in the US remains fairly similar to what it was 40 years ago. Thus, if the median has remained the same, then the average probably also has.
  - dlss 10y ago
    > I suspect that the distribution of incomes in the US remains fairly similar to what it was 40 years ago. Thus, if the median has remained the same, then the average probably also has. If the distribution of income had gone unchanged, the spread of wealth would also be unchanged. But it has changed, see http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/ http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/ or the source of your choice. If the distribution of income had gone unchanged, the percentage of the population receiving minimum wage would have gone unchanged. But it has changed, see http://www.weeklystandard.com/bls-percentage-of-hourly-workers-earning-minimum-wage-or-less-in-2013-falls-to-4.3/article/786466 http://www.weeklystandard.com/bls-percentage-of-hourly-worke... or the source of your choice. I could go on... but I think that's probably sufficient. While I have you here, quick question: why did you let yourself get away with saying "I suspect" rather than just looking it up? It takes all of 10 seconds to do and once you get in the habit you'll be right way more often. > I suspect that the distribution of incomes in the US remains fairly similar to what it was 40 years ago. Thus, if the median has remained the same, then the average probably also has. The metric in question isn't the distribution's median. It's the percentage of children earning less than their parents. median: sup k : { Count(xi >= k) / Length(xi) <= 0.5 } earns more: Count(xi >= pi)/Length(xi) These are very different values. So while I'll need to think more about the idea that medians say something about distribution similarities, thankfully those thoughts don't pertain here. For another example, of "earns more" not behaving the way you're expecting: if you set the earnings of everyone's parents to their wage - $0.01, we'd have a 0% "earns more" but extremely similar distributions.
crdoconnor 10y ago
Only if you assume that there has been no wealth created by those people and no economic growth in that period.
mikeash 10y ago
Stability in worker incomes, while total wealth has grown substantially, means a lot of people are getting screwed. When you add in things like how health care costs are greatly outpacing inflation, it means a lot of people are really getting screwed.

by hajile 10y ago

About half earn more, about half earn less. Wouldn't that imply that the average earnings are about the same? If so, I don't know that I'd complain because that indicates stability.

matchagaucho 10y ago

Yeah, the title seems sensationalized relative to the actual data. It looks like a stable regression towards the mean.

godelski 10y ago
Was the title changed? Says "Barely Half of 30-Year-Olds Earn More Than Their Parents". Which is exactly what the article talks about... Though earning more than your parents was part of the American dream.
- malisper 10y ago
  If you reword the title to "More than Half of 30-Year-Olds Earn More Than Their Parents" it sounds completely different.
  - godelski 10y ago
    This is true, but I wouldn't say the title is misleading. Especially when earning more than your parents is part of the American dream, that is social mobility. Which is discussed.

dlss 10y ago

> About half earn more, about half earn less. Wouldn't that imply that the average earnings are about the same? Actually no, though this is a fairly standard misunderstanding of statistics. For an easy counter-example imagine generation one being [0, 100] and generation two being [1, 2]. Average wealth goes down, while every element is higher than 50% of the previous generation.

hajile 10y ago
We know that the distribution of wealth is not that extreme (the 1% are not enough to make the 50% change required given that comparisons are relative to parents). I agree with you in principle, but I don't believe that it's a significant factor in this case.
mywittyname 10y ago
This depends entirely on the underlying distribution of the data. In your example, the distributions are not at all similar, so it makes sense that you can't compare medians or averages between those populations. I suspect that the distribution of incomes in the US remains fairly similar to what it was 40 years ago. Thus, if the median has remained the same, then the average probably also has.
- dlss 10y ago
  > I suspect that the distribution of incomes in the US remains fairly similar to what it was 40 years ago. Thus, if the median has remained the same, then the average probably also has. If the distribution of income had gone unchanged, the spread of wealth would also be unchanged. But it has changed, see http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/ http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/ or the source of your choice. If the distribution of income had gone unchanged, the percentage of the population receiving minimum wage would have gone unchanged. But it has changed, see http://www.weeklystandard.com/bls-percentage-of-hourly-workers-earning-minimum-wage-or-less-in-2013-falls-to-4.3/article/786466 http://www.weeklystandard.com/bls-percentage-of-hourly-worke... or the source of your choice. I could go on... but I think that's probably sufficient. While I have you here, quick question: why did you let yourself get away with saying "I suspect" rather than just looking it up? It takes all of 10 seconds to do and once you get in the habit you'll be right way more often. > I suspect that the distribution of incomes in the US remains fairly similar to what it was 40 years ago. Thus, if the median has remained the same, then the average probably also has. The metric in question isn't the distribution's median. It's the percentage of children earning less than their parents. median: sup k : { Count(xi >= k) / Length(xi) <= 0.5 } earns more: Count(xi >= pi)/Length(xi) These are very different values. So while I'll need to think more about the idea that medians say something about distribution similarities, thankfully those thoughts don't pertain here. For another example, of "earns more" not behaving the way you're expecting: if you set the earnings of everyone's parents to their wage - $0.01, we'd have a 0% "earns more" but extremely similar distributions.

crdoconnor 10y ago

Only if you assume that there has been no wealth created by those people and no economic growth in that period.

mikeash 10y ago

Stability in worker incomes, while total wealth has grown substantially, means a lot of people are getting screwed. When you add in things like how health care costs are greatly outpacing inflation, it means a lot of people are really getting screwed.