5 ms·

Personally, I like to check the ratio of median to mean household income as a crude measure of socio-economic polarization. It's not pretty: https://i.imgur.co

by cygx 8y ago

Personally, I like to check the ratio of median to mean household income as a crude measure of socio-economic polarization. It's not pretty: https://i.imgur.com/58MIBxB.png https://i.imgur.com/58MIBxB.png edit: here's an alternative version for those who think letting the y-axis start at 70 is too confusing: https://i.imgur.com/zSNjZY2.png https://i.imgur.com/zSNjZY2.png

klipt 8y ago
Enlightening, but terrible choice of axes ... I thought it was trending down to 0 at first!
- cygx 8y ago
  Letting the y-axis start at 0 loses too much detail.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    If you’re interested in the yearly swings, convert it to a annual % change graph (and start that at 0). What you really means is that using an honest scale makes the trend look less dramatic.
    - cygx 8y ago
      I just googled the data[1], removed the duplicate entry for 2013 from the Excel spreadsheet when the methodology changed (shoddy on my part, I know) and made a graph from it that was readable in the five minutes before I posted my comment. Feel free to post a better presentation of the data. [1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/demo/income-poverty/p60-263.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/demo/income-poverty/...
      - chmln 8y ago
        The parent post has a point. Five minutes or not, it is ultimately deceptive. What really is a ~22% drop since 1970s looks like a 100% drop on first sight.
        cygx 8y ago
        By all means, make a better graph, so I can tell you what you really meant by your choice of presentation after the fact :p
        rojobuffalo 8y ago
        For real. > terrible choice of axis > honest scale > deceptive Be kind ya'll.
        klipt 8y ago
        I didn't know OP made the graph. If I had I would have been less upfront, e.g. "I would have chosen different axes".
    - camgunz 8y ago
      > If you’re interested in the yearly swings Why would they be? They certainly didn't say they are. > What you really means is that using an honest scale makes the trend look less dramatic. I think "honest" is a loaded term here. It's a well known fact that income inequality has been growing in the US for decades now, and the trend is dramatic and undeniable. Are there ways to minimize it visually in a graph? Sure, you could blow out the axes, or you could do yearly deltas which wouldn't have the line moving past a few percent ever. Both of these suggestions would flatten this phenomena, and coincidentally both have been suggested here. But the phenomena itself is not flat, and therefore it is the flat representation that, by definition, would be misleading.
- camgunz 8y ago
  Why would a value of 0 be helpful for this graph? If the ratio between median and mean of household incomes is anything close to zero it's hugely bad. It's like having absolute zero on the 5 day forecast.
ummonk 8y ago
Why not just use a 0-100% scale? It would make it clear how big a drop there has been. (Technically, you could get a ratio higher than 100% but it still seems like a reasonable upper bound in actuality.)
- cygx 8y ago
  Because the graph becomes illegible, and the reference value of interest to me is not where the median vanishes, but where median and mean are equal. As I said repeatedly, if you don't like the graph, post a better one!
- ekianjo 8y ago
  Because the graph has an agenda and it shows.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
ekianjo 8y ago
So rich guys are getting richer faster. Big news! They have access to instruments folks with median income dont. You are missing the point that everyone s situation seems to be improving - the median income is a better metric to measure that.
- cygx 8y ago
  I consider socio-economic polarization an existential threat to democracy: Money buys political influence, so I would argue there's a legitimate fear of capitalist societies turning into oligarchies.
  - Denzel 8y ago
    I agree with you about polarization being a threat. And I'm guessing you've had more time to think about this than I have. Hypothetically: what're some solutions that a monied person could implement to stymie the runaway feedback loop? I know it may sound odd but is it possible to use money to stop the purchase of political power for both yourself and everyone else?
    - cygx 8y ago
      And I'm guessing you've had more time to think about this than I have. Not necessarily - I just like to muse about big-picture problems with society from time to time. Contrasting median and mean income (a flawed measure for various reasons) was just the first idea I had when I was trying to sanity-check the common-sense idea that because it's easier to get money if you already have money, social polarization is likely to grow. As far as the US is concerned, campaign finance reform often gets mentioned as the most immediate step to improve upon the current situation. As to the big-picture problems, frankly, I'm not sure humanity as a species is enlightened enough to overcome self-interest and inertia to ever fix the systemic problems present in the current way we organize society. Hope for benevolent robot overlords, I guess ;)
    - iamnothere 8y ago
      Organized nonpartisan groups like Represent.us are working to remove money from politics, at least to the degree that it is possible. Campaign finance reform is a part of their strategy, as is broad anti-corruption legislation. Investing in groups like this would be a good way for someone with resources to apply them positively.
refurb 8y ago
The ratio alone isn’t necessarily concerning. You could have a group getting wealthier, say 2nd quintile moving to 4th quintile (not super wealthy) and you’d see the % drop below 100%.
IkmoIkmo 8y ago
I'm personally not a big fan of households as a unit of analysis, at least not in isolation of any context. As far as I'd understand it, they hide meaningful issues. For example, if everyone had high personal income and an abundance of space, they'd likely live privately. Whereas if you've got no income, you risk homelessness, you may live with someone you'd rather not. e.g. bad marriages, domestic violence etc is often tolerated due to a lack of financial power to move out. As such you may find the median household income overstates wealth. It may be considerable simply because multiple people live there, who are too poor to live by themselves. In this sense, household income may hide poverty and overstates affluence. Particularly when you consider that there's a negative correlation between income and birth rates, you end up seeing large families (and possibly considerable household income) who are poor, in the data. But just reporting on household income doesn't do that justice. Similarly, this creates an apples/oranges comparison with median/average household income. The median household in the US today is 2 people. In the 1960s it was 3 people. (close to 4, even!) But it's different from the average household size, which has dropped too. As such, you may just be observing that the median household relative to the average household size has been dropping. That could have nothing to do with polarization, it may just mean there's a shift in living preferences. I'm not asserting anything here, just that there are alternative explanations for the observation you make, and that just looking at these averages without context, controlling for confounding variables or any theoretical basis may lead you to incorrect conclusions.

by cygx 8y ago

klipt 8y ago

Enlightening, but terrible choice of axes ... I thought it was trending down to 0 at first!

cygx 8y ago
Letting the y-axis start at 0 loses too much detail.
- rayiner 8y ago
  If you’re interested in the yearly swings, convert it to a annual % change graph (and start that at 0). What you really means is that using an honest scale makes the trend look less dramatic.
  - cygx 8y ago
    I just googled the data[1], removed the duplicate entry for 2013 from the Excel spreadsheet when the methodology changed (shoddy on my part, I know) and made a graph from it that was readable in the five minutes before I posted my comment. Feel free to post a better presentation of the data. [1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/demo/income-poverty/p60-263.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/demo/income-poverty/...
    - chmln 8y ago
      The parent post has a point. Five minutes or not, it is ultimately deceptive. What really is a ~22% drop since 1970s looks like a 100% drop on first sight.
      - cygx 8y ago
        By all means, make a better graph, so I can tell you what you really meant by your choice of presentation after the fact :p
        rojobuffalo 8y ago
        For real. > terrible choice of axis > honest scale > deceptive Be kind ya'll.
        klipt 8y ago
        I didn't know OP made the graph. If I had I would have been less upfront, e.g. "I would have chosen different axes".
  - camgunz 8y ago
    > If you’re interested in the yearly swings Why would they be? They certainly didn't say they are. > What you really means is that using an honest scale makes the trend look less dramatic. I think "honest" is a loaded term here. It's a well known fact that income inequality has been growing in the US for decades now, and the trend is dramatic and undeniable. Are there ways to minimize it visually in a graph? Sure, you could blow out the axes, or you could do yearly deltas which wouldn't have the line moving past a few percent ever. Both of these suggestions would flatten this phenomena, and coincidentally both have been suggested here. But the phenomena itself is not flat, and therefore it is the flat representation that, by definition, would be misleading.
camgunz 8y ago
Why would a value of 0 be helpful for this graph? If the ratio between median and mean of household incomes is anything close to zero it's hugely bad. It's like having absolute zero on the 5 day forecast.

ummonk 8y ago

Why not just use a 0-100% scale? It would make it clear how big a drop there has been. (Technically, you could get a ratio higher than 100% but it still seems like a reasonable upper bound in actuality.)

cygx 8y ago
Because the graph becomes illegible, and the reference value of interest to me is not where the median vanishes, but where median and mean are equal. As I said repeatedly, if you don't like the graph, post a better one!
ekianjo 8y ago
Because the graph has an agenda and it shows.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

ekianjo 8y ago

So rich guys are getting richer faster. Big news! They have access to instruments folks with median income dont. You are missing the point that everyone s situation seems to be improving - the median income is a better metric to measure that.

cygx 8y ago
I consider socio-economic polarization an existential threat to democracy: Money buys political influence, so I would argue there's a legitimate fear of capitalist societies turning into oligarchies.
- Denzel 8y ago
  I agree with you about polarization being a threat. And I'm guessing you've had more time to think about this than I have. Hypothetically: what're some solutions that a monied person could implement to stymie the runaway feedback loop? I know it may sound odd but is it possible to use money to stop the purchase of political power for both yourself and everyone else?
  - cygx 8y ago
    And I'm guessing you've had more time to think about this than I have. Not necessarily - I just like to muse about big-picture problems with society from time to time. Contrasting median and mean income (a flawed measure for various reasons) was just the first idea I had when I was trying to sanity-check the common-sense idea that because it's easier to get money if you already have money, social polarization is likely to grow. As far as the US is concerned, campaign finance reform often gets mentioned as the most immediate step to improve upon the current situation. As to the big-picture problems, frankly, I'm not sure humanity as a species is enlightened enough to overcome self-interest and inertia to ever fix the systemic problems present in the current way we organize society. Hope for benevolent robot overlords, I guess ;)
  - iamnothere 8y ago
    Organized nonpartisan groups like Represent.us are working to remove money from politics, at least to the degree that it is possible. Campaign finance reform is a part of their strategy, as is broad anti-corruption legislation. Investing in groups like this would be a good way for someone with resources to apply them positively.

refurb 8y ago

The ratio alone isn’t necessarily concerning. You could have a group getting wealthier, say 2nd quintile moving to 4th quintile (not super wealthy) and you’d see the % drop below 100%.

IkmoIkmo 8y ago

I'm personally not a big fan of households as a unit of analysis, at least not in isolation of any context. As far as I'd understand it, they hide meaningful issues. For example, if everyone had high personal income and an abundance of space, they'd likely live privately. Whereas if you've got no income, you risk homelessness, you may live with someone you'd rather not. e.g. bad marriages, domestic violence etc is often tolerated due to a lack of financial power to move out. As such you may find the median household income overstates wealth. It may be considerable simply because multiple people live there, who are too poor to live by themselves. In this sense, household income may hide poverty and overstates affluence. Particularly when you consider that there's a negative correlation between income and birth rates, you end up seeing large families (and possibly considerable household income) who are poor, in the data. But just reporting on household income doesn't do that justice. Similarly, this creates an apples/oranges comparison with median/average household income. The median household in the US today is 2 people. In the 1960s it was 3 people. (close to 4, even!) But it's different from the average household size, which has dropped too. As such, you may just be observing that the median household relative to the average household size has been dropping. That could have nothing to do with polarization, it may just mean there's a shift in living preferences. I'm not asserting anything here, just that there are alternative explanations for the observation you make, and that just looking at these averages without context, controlling for confounding variables or any theoretical basis may lead you to incorrect conclusions.