7 ms·

Mapping Income Distribution by Religious Belief

99 points by shrikant 16y ago

diziet 16y ago
Here's the original report: http://pewforum.org/Income-Distribution-Within-US-Religious-Groups.aspx http://pewforum.org/Income-Distribution-Within-US-Religious-... And a breakdown of the unaffiliated grouping: (The sample size is said to be 35,000) Atheist: 100k+: 28% 50-100k: 31% 30-50k: 20% <30k: 21% Agnostic: (whatever the difference in reporting means) 100k+: 25% 50-100k: 35% 30-50k: 22% <30k: 18% I think in this example, religions affiliation is mostly an indicator of social and economic class, educational trends and the economic reality of immigration opportunities (like in the case of most Hindus) rather than the prevalence of certain religions to earn more. It's also interesting to note that the makers of the graph choose to include such small groups such as Hindu and Buddhist (At .4% and .7% of the population) and attribute the atheist and agnostic population to 1.6% and 2.4% Further differences in these statistics are the age breakdowns of the different groups and the cultural and social trends that influence the senior members to remain working a longer time. There are differences between religious belief between age groups, and differences in income as well (generally getting higher with age). The study goes into detail, comparing the educational levels of the different religious groups. Compared to the national average of 11% with post-grad degrees, Jewish and Hindu practitioners are at 35 and a staggering 48%. Atheists and agnostics are a about tied for fourth at 20%, after Buddhists at 26%. Gender seems to play an issue as well, for example atheists are more than twice as likely to be men.
- guelo 16y ago
  The graph on that page is actually easier to understand than the infographic since it's sorted in a rational way and it's not round.
- GrandMasterBirt 16y ago
  Atheists: Does not believe in god or gods. Possibly even no belief in the supernatural. Agnostic: Does not follow any particular religion, does believe in god or gods.
  - gjm11 16y ago
    Uh, no. There's some dispute about the best place to draw the line between atheist and agnostic, but no one draws it there. "Agnostic" means either "doesn't claim to know whether a god or gods exist" or "claims that whether a god or gods exist is unknowable". Or, occasionally and when it's clear from context, "doesn't claim to know whether some particular other thing is true or not". ("I'm agnostic about whether there will be human-level AI within fifty years", for instance.) Someone who believes in a god or gods is not agnostic in any usual sense. (They might be agnostic on particular questions: "I believe there's some sort of god, but I'm agnostic as to whether it's the one believed in by Christians" or whatever.)
    - alextgordon 16y ago
      Best way to look at it is as a person's view on the probability of any god existing. Theists are of the opinion that the probability that god exists is likely, in say 50-100% Agnostics are of the opinion that the probability that god exists is uncertain, in say 33-66% Atheists are of the opinion that the probability that god exists is unlikely, in say 0-50% One gotcha is that, if you account for the greater number of theists, the distribution is not symmetric. Atheists tend to be less certain (more agnostic) than theists.
      - adamzap 16y ago
        For the theist, probability has nothing to do with it. I would hope the same is true or the atheist/agnostic. Edit: I was considering the Christian theist.
      - rue 16y ago
        Why come up with such a convoluted scheme? The "I'm not atheist, I'm an agnostic" argument always sounds smug and disingenuous. Theism is belief in god. Atheism is lack thereof. Agnostics claim that gods' existence is unknowable. To co-opt Gervais' skiing simile: we have people who go skiing, those who do not, and then people who maintain it's impossible to know whether skiing actually occurs.
- diziet 16y ago
  I really hoped we'd talk about the economic issues more than the definitions of atheist vs agnostic... since they have no effect on the welfare of people as much as the stark class imbalance does.
known 16y ago
if Caste == Religion there is No Hinduism. It is better to disclose income distribution as per Caste.
nivertech 16y ago
They should exclude immigrants and first generation of immigrants. Immigrants are hungry for success, it's explains why they earn more.
- DougBTX 16y ago
  An alternative to simply excluding people would be to include a "confidence index", possibly based off the number of people in each group. The more people in the group in the US, the more likely that that group is representative of the entire group around the world. (Hand waving: the null hypothesis is that there are actually no differences between the religious groups. So, the more people you include in each group, the closer you will get to the overall average.) When you have lots of people in each group, relative to the total population, but still see differences, then that is interesting. This fits with what you are trying to exclude, because your immigrants are likely a small percentage of their respective religious groups, so we can be uncertain about the conclusions we draw from a small sample.
- hackermom 16y ago
  "No, I can't take a job now, I'm too busy praying."
- oiuytuikolikuhy 16y ago
  No - with current policies you are only letting in people with very highly paid jobs. It's like claiming that flying first class makes people hungry for success - because everybody that arrives by first class is rich
te_chris 16y ago
Did no one else notice that this is affiliated to the University of Phoenix? How can anyone take them seriously, even if Pew is involved
- eru 16y ago
  What's so worrying about that University?
  - jarin 16y ago
    Having had a bunch of friends who went there, it's not exactly a bastion of rigorous study and research. It seems to only exist to allow people to collect the GI Bill housing allowance.
ez77 16y ago
FYI: published in January 2008.
- detst 16y ago
  Another FYI after browsing the report: questions were asked in 2007 about income in 2006.
paolomaffei 16y ago
How comes the Hindus are so rich? Only the Jewish are comparable, I wasn't expecting that
- known 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_caste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_caste
  - ajays 16y ago
    Any time there's a discussion of Indians or Hindus, why do people bring in caste? Do US universities admit students based on caste? Does the visa officer in the US consulate admit only people of a certain caste? Does a company hiring in the US ask for the applicants caste? Most of India doesn't care about caste; it's time that people _outside_ India stopped caring about Indians' caste too.
    - known 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poona_Pact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poona_Pact
- shrikant 16y ago
  See nivertech's comment below: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2038790 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2038790
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- paraschopra 16y ago
  I think this data is for Hindus in US which would be primarily families who have immigrated from India. Primarily the families who immigrate already in upper-bracket of income in India and furthermore their education level would be superior to most Hindus too (think IITs, etc.). I don't think the Hindu group considered here is representative of global Hindu group.
xentronium 16y ago
Couldn't hide my smile when I saw the Jehovah witnesses' column.
- NathanKP 16y ago
  Just so you know I'm not the one that downvoted you, but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses myself I feel compelled to comment on one incorrect aspect of your comment. It is "Jehovah's Witnesses" not "Jehovah Witnesses" or "Jehovahs". The apostrophe followed by an "s" is meaningful because it shows that these Witnesses belong to Jehovah. This idea is taken from the passage at Isaiah 43:10 which says: "YOU are my witnesses", is the utterance of Jehovah, "even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me". One of the core beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses is that just as you and I have names, God has a name as well and it is important to use that name in worship and prayer. Therefore we find it mildly offensive to be called "Jehovahs" as that is like saying we are gods, and "Jehovah Witnesses" makes the name of God sound like an adjective. We prefer to be called by our name "Jehovah's Witnesses" or as a shortened form just "Witnesses". I assume your smile was humor about the fact that members of the Jehovah's Witnesses have on average a lower income than members of many other religions. I could comment on possible explanations for why, but this comment is already getting long.
  - mcantor 16y ago
    If you (Witnesses) are happy and fulfilled with that income, then OP's schadenfreude is misguided, anyway.
    - NathanKP 16y ago
      I think there are several reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses generally have lower incomes. First of all, we do our evangelical work everywhere, to both rich and poor individuals, but in general people who are poor or immigrants or minorities are more interested in religion when compared to someone who has a high paying job and feels they are already very satisfied with their life. Second of all, Jehovah's Witnesses advocate a simple life. The idea is that it doesn't take a lot of money to live a nice life, its how you use that money. For example, a baptized Witness is not be a smoker, gambler, alcoholic, etc. By quitting the smoking or drug habit many individuals have lowered their expenses, allowing them to live better lives without raising their income. To some extent the pursuit of high education is not encouraged. Although many Witnesses will get an Associates Degree, it is generally not encouraged that they go on to higher education. This does also limit income. But to go along with your comment, yes I feel happy and fulfilled. I spend roughly half my time at the computer doing freelance web development work or working on my startup Bookflavor. The rest of the time I spend with friends or doing door to door preaching. It is actually very interesting. Imagine going door to door one weekend in an affluent neighborhood where a security guard takes down your license plate before allowing you to enter, then the next week going door to door in the ghetto where you have to watch where you step to avoid trash and used condoms. Jehovah's Witnesses get to talk to people of all sorts. As someone who is deeply interested in psychology and sociology I enjoy this communication with people from different cultural and economic backgrounds. Our door to door work is fascinating not only from that perspective, but also from the perspective of practicing real world sales skills. I would dare say any decent Jehovah's Witnesses would make a great salesman/woman. I would say that my life is very interesting, and I wouldn't be any happier if I worked more hours so that I could make more money. Indeed if I worked more hours to make more money I wouldn't have time to work on my startup.
chegra 16y ago
Could I get an explanation as to why the Jews are in the higher income brackets?
- nazgulnarsil 16y ago
  strong cultural norms that are education and success oriented along with high IQ's. edit: before I get people bitching at me http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/high_iq_does_no.html http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/high_iq_does_no.html
  - martin 16y ago
    Also, the fact that they (okay, we) are concentrated in large cities like New York where wages for professional jobs are above national averages could drive the numbers up.
    - endtime 16y ago
      That wouldn't explain why the other ethnic groups also prevalent in New York don't have comparable wages there.
  - wyclif 16y ago
    Also an emphasis on the importance of family and how that relates to business, e.g. handing down family owned businesses to sons.
    - beefman 16y ago
      Also an emphasis on having your family be genetically related to you; hence your increased willingness to hand down the business, and their more likely ability to take it up.
  - borism 16y ago
    edit: before I get people bitching at me http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/high_iq_does_no.html http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/high_iq_does_no.html this is a great link since we had this argument here before with about half HNers thinking that income somehow correlates to IQ. however this link doesn't explain why you think jews (as practitioners of judaism, not as a nationality) have higher IQs?

99 points by shrikant 16y ago

Here's the original report: http://pewforum.org/Income-Distribution-Within-US-Religious-Groups.aspx http://pewforum.org/Income-Distribution-Within-US-Religious-... And a breakdown of the unaffiliated grouping: (The sample size is said to be 35,000) Atheist: 100k+: 28% 50-100k: 31% 30-50k: 20% <30k: 21% Agnostic: (whatever the difference in reporting means) 100k+: 25% 50-100k: 35% 30-50k: 22% <30k: 18% I think in this example, religions affiliation is mostly an indicator of social and economic class, educational trends and the economic reality of immigration opportunities (like in the case of most Hindus) rather than the prevalence of certain religions to earn more. It's also interesting to note that the makers of the graph choose to include such small groups such as Hindu and Buddhist (At .4% and .7% of the population) and attribute the atheist and agnostic population to 1.6% and 2.4% Further differences in these statistics are the age breakdowns of the different groups and the cultural and social trends that influence the senior members to remain working a longer time. There are differences between religious belief between age groups, and differences in income as well (generally getting higher with age). The study goes into detail, comparing the educational levels of the different religious groups. Compared to the national average of 11% with post-grad degrees, Jewish and Hindu practitioners are at 35 and a staggering 48%. Atheists and agnostics are a about tied for fourth at 20%, after Buddhists at 26%. Gender seems to play an issue as well, for example atheists are more than twice as likely to be men.

guelo 16y ago
The graph on that page is actually easier to understand than the infographic since it's sorted in a rational way and it's not round.
GrandMasterBirt 16y ago
Atheists: Does not believe in god or gods. Possibly even no belief in the supernatural. Agnostic: Does not follow any particular religion, does believe in god or gods.
- gjm11 16y ago
  Uh, no. There's some dispute about the best place to draw the line between atheist and agnostic, but no one draws it there. "Agnostic" means either "doesn't claim to know whether a god or gods exist" or "claims that whether a god or gods exist is unknowable". Or, occasionally and when it's clear from context, "doesn't claim to know whether some particular other thing is true or not". ("I'm agnostic about whether there will be human-level AI within fifty years", for instance.) Someone who believes in a god or gods is not agnostic in any usual sense. (They might be agnostic on particular questions: "I believe there's some sort of god, but I'm agnostic as to whether it's the one believed in by Christians" or whatever.)
  - alextgordon 16y ago
    Best way to look at it is as a person's view on the probability of any god existing. Theists are of the opinion that the probability that god exists is likely, in say 50-100% Agnostics are of the opinion that the probability that god exists is uncertain, in say 33-66% Atheists are of the opinion that the probability that god exists is unlikely, in say 0-50% One gotcha is that, if you account for the greater number of theists, the distribution is not symmetric. Atheists tend to be less certain (more agnostic) than theists.
    - adamzap 16y ago
      For the theist, probability has nothing to do with it. I would hope the same is true or the atheist/agnostic. Edit: I was considering the Christian theist.
    - rue 16y ago
      Why come up with such a convoluted scheme? The "I'm not atheist, I'm an agnostic" argument always sounds smug and disingenuous. Theism is belief in god. Atheism is lack thereof. Agnostics claim that gods' existence is unknowable. To co-opt Gervais' skiing simile: we have people who go skiing, those who do not, and then people who maintain it's impossible to know whether skiing actually occurs.
diziet 16y ago
I really hoped we'd talk about the economic issues more than the definitions of atheist vs agnostic... since they have no effect on the welfare of people as much as the stark class imbalance does.

known 16y ago

if Caste == Religion there is No Hinduism. It is better to disclose income distribution as per Caste.

nivertech 16y ago

They should exclude immigrants and first generation of immigrants. Immigrants are hungry for success, it's explains why they earn more.

DougBTX 16y ago
An alternative to simply excluding people would be to include a "confidence index", possibly based off the number of people in each group. The more people in the group in the US, the more likely that that group is representative of the entire group around the world. (Hand waving: the null hypothesis is that there are actually no differences between the religious groups. So, the more people you include in each group, the closer you will get to the overall average.) When you have lots of people in each group, relative to the total population, but still see differences, then that is interesting. This fits with what you are trying to exclude, because your immigrants are likely a small percentage of their respective religious groups, so we can be uncertain about the conclusions we draw from a small sample.
hackermom 16y ago
"No, I can't take a job now, I'm too busy praying."
oiuytuikolikuhy 16y ago
No - with current policies you are only letting in people with very highly paid jobs. It's like claiming that flying first class makes people hungry for success - because everybody that arrives by first class is rich

te_chris 16y ago

Did no one else notice that this is affiliated to the University of Phoenix? How can anyone take them seriously, even if Pew is involved

eru 16y ago
What's so worrying about that University?
- jarin 16y ago
  Having had a bunch of friends who went there, it's not exactly a bastion of rigorous study and research. It seems to only exist to allow people to collect the GI Bill housing allowance.

ez77 16y ago

FYI: published in January 2008.

detst 16y ago
Another FYI after browsing the report: questions were asked in 2007 about income in 2006.

paolomaffei 16y ago

How comes the Hindus are so rich? Only the Jewish are comparable, I wasn't expecting that

known 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_caste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_caste
- ajays 16y ago
  Any time there's a discussion of Indians or Hindus, why do people bring in caste? Do US universities admit students based on caste? Does the visa officer in the US consulate admit only people of a certain caste? Does a company hiring in the US ask for the applicants caste? Most of India doesn't care about caste; it's time that people _outside_ India stopped caring about Indians' caste too.
  - known 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poona_Pact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poona_Pact
shrikant 16y ago
See nivertech's comment below: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2038790 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2038790
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
paraschopra 16y ago
I think this data is for Hindus in US which would be primarily families who have immigrated from India. Primarily the families who immigrate already in upper-bracket of income in India and furthermore their education level would be superior to most Hindus too (think IITs, etc.). I don't think the Hindu group considered here is representative of global Hindu group.

xentronium 16y ago

Couldn't hide my smile when I saw the Jehovah witnesses' column.

NathanKP 16y ago
Just so you know I'm not the one that downvoted you, but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses myself I feel compelled to comment on one incorrect aspect of your comment. It is "Jehovah's Witnesses" not "Jehovah Witnesses" or "Jehovahs". The apostrophe followed by an "s" is meaningful because it shows that these Witnesses belong to Jehovah. This idea is taken from the passage at Isaiah 43:10 which says: "YOU are my witnesses", is the utterance of Jehovah, "even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me". One of the core beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses is that just as you and I have names, God has a name as well and it is important to use that name in worship and prayer. Therefore we find it mildly offensive to be called "Jehovahs" as that is like saying we are gods, and "Jehovah Witnesses" makes the name of God sound like an adjective. We prefer to be called by our name "Jehovah's Witnesses" or as a shortened form just "Witnesses". I assume your smile was humor about the fact that members of the Jehovah's Witnesses have on average a lower income than members of many other religions. I could comment on possible explanations for why, but this comment is already getting long.
- mcantor 16y ago
  If you (Witnesses) are happy and fulfilled with that income, then OP's schadenfreude is misguided, anyway.
  - NathanKP 16y ago
    I think there are several reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses generally have lower incomes. First of all, we do our evangelical work everywhere, to both rich and poor individuals, but in general people who are poor or immigrants or minorities are more interested in religion when compared to someone who has a high paying job and feels they are already very satisfied with their life. Second of all, Jehovah's Witnesses advocate a simple life. The idea is that it doesn't take a lot of money to live a nice life, its how you use that money. For example, a baptized Witness is not be a smoker, gambler, alcoholic, etc. By quitting the smoking or drug habit many individuals have lowered their expenses, allowing them to live better lives without raising their income. To some extent the pursuit of high education is not encouraged. Although many Witnesses will get an Associates Degree, it is generally not encouraged that they go on to higher education. This does also limit income. But to go along with your comment, yes I feel happy and fulfilled. I spend roughly half my time at the computer doing freelance web development work or working on my startup Bookflavor. The rest of the time I spend with friends or doing door to door preaching. It is actually very interesting. Imagine going door to door one weekend in an affluent neighborhood where a security guard takes down your license plate before allowing you to enter, then the next week going door to door in the ghetto where you have to watch where you step to avoid trash and used condoms. Jehovah's Witnesses get to talk to people of all sorts. As someone who is deeply interested in psychology and sociology I enjoy this communication with people from different cultural and economic backgrounds. Our door to door work is fascinating not only from that perspective, but also from the perspective of practicing real world sales skills. I would dare say any decent Jehovah's Witnesses would make a great salesman/woman. I would say that my life is very interesting, and I wouldn't be any happier if I worked more hours so that I could make more money. Indeed if I worked more hours to make more money I wouldn't have time to work on my startup.

chegra 16y ago

Could I get an explanation as to why the Jews are in the higher income brackets?

nazgulnarsil 16y ago
strong cultural norms that are education and success oriented along with high IQ's. edit: before I get people bitching at me http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/high_iq_does_no.html http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/high_iq_does_no.html
- martin 16y ago
  Also, the fact that they (okay, we) are concentrated in large cities like New York where wages for professional jobs are above national averages could drive the numbers up.
  - endtime 16y ago
    That wouldn't explain why the other ethnic groups also prevalent in New York don't have comparable wages there.
- wyclif 16y ago
  Also an emphasis on the importance of family and how that relates to business, e.g. handing down family owned businesses to sons.
  - beefman 16y ago
    Also an emphasis on having your family be genetically related to you; hence your increased willingness to hand down the business, and their more likely ability to take it up.
- borism 16y ago
  edit: before I get people bitching at me http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/high_iq_does_no.html http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/high_iq_does_no.html this is a great link since we had this argument here before with about half HNers thinking that income somehow correlates to IQ. however this link doesn't explain why you think jews (as practitioners of judaism, not as a nationality) have higher IQs?