3 ms·

I'm more curious as to why you chose to omit the critically important data behind the study. What exactly is your motivation there? First, let's look at how th

I'm more curious as to why you chose to omit the critically important data behind the study. What exactly is your motivation there? First, let's look at how they define the income brackets: -Poor and near-poor $0 $29,999 -Lower middle class $30,000 $49,999 -Middle class $50,000 $99,999 -Upper middle class $100,000 $349,999 -Rich $350,000 None A quote from the publication: "The study did not adjust for regional differences in the cost of living, the underreporting and exclusion of certain sources of material support, or taxes." As with all statistics it is incredibly easy to look at one and yell out 'The economy is doing FINE!' while ignoring the economic realities for many people. Income levels may rise, but the average costs for middle-class workers has skyrocketed as well. Someone living in SF earning over 100k would count as upper-middle despite likely barely being able to survive.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Indeed. And similarly, as the paper mentions, there are many places in the US where someone earning just under $100k would only be counted as middle class, even though they'd be well into the upper middle class. So the important question then is there a big bias in one direction or another? The paper concludes that the answer to this is no. So why would they use such an ostensibly broad metric in the first place? The paper also goes into this. The reason is that on a micro level there are often extreme quality of living differences that are not accurately reflected by any data. For instance the CPI inflation rate of San Francisco, according to California, is only 11% higher than the US average. By any metric you'll be able to point to various little bubbles throughout the nation and indicate, accurately, that the macro level data does not hold true. So you need to try to pick aggregate data that most likely balances out the biases so much as possible. Do you think this fails to do so?

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

Indeed. And similarly, as the paper mentions, there are many places in the US where someone earning just under $100k would only be counted as middle class, even though they'd be well into the upper middle class. So the important question then is there a big bias in one direction or another? The paper concludes that the answer to this is no. So why would they use such an ostensibly broad metric in the first place? The paper also goes into this. The reason is that on a micro level there are often extreme quality of living differences that are not accurately reflected by any data. For instance the CPI inflation rate of San Francisco, according to California, is only 11% higher than the US average. By any metric you'll be able to point to various little bubbles throughout the nation and indicate, accurately, that the macro level data does not hold true. So you need to try to pick aggregate data that most likely balances out the biases so much as possible. Do you think this fails to do so?