3 ms·
> Defined by the percentage of the population earning less than half of the median national income, I'm not sure I buy their definition of poverty. It speaks m
by eikenberry 7y ago
> Defined by the percentage of the population earning less than half of the median national income,
I'm not sure I buy their definition of poverty. It speaks more about the income disparity than people living in without basic food and shelter covered, which I think the term implies. It might be more meaningful if it were the mean, but as is a few really high income earners would skew the results. I don't think using the medium makes sense as a calculation of poverty giving modern wealth distribution.
- iguy 7y agoMedian is the 50th percentile, it's unaffected by Bill Gates. So half the median is a better measure than half the mean. However as you say it's still a measure of disparity, not an absolute level.
- eikenberry 7y agoThe median is the 50th percentile including outliers, so the Bill Gates of the world to impact it. The mean normally removes outliers to get a better idea of the real average.
- iguy 7y agoNo, I think you may have this backwards. The median really is unaffected by adding a zero (or ten zeros) to Bill's income. All that matters is that if half the population makes less than Joe the plumber, and half more, then Joe is at the median. (There's a chance that if you shot Bill, then Joe's brother who earned 0.1c less would become the median, but this will be tiny, tiny effect.) The mean would however be affected by such things.