5 ms·

Our economy has become so overwhelmingly top heavy that the majority of the population is losing the ability to take part in it. The middle class used to be the

by orclev 6y ago

Our economy has become so overwhelmingly top heavy that the majority of the population is losing the ability to take part in it. The middle class used to be the mean income, but these days the mean has drifted so far from the mode that the distinction between middle class and lower class has all but vanished. Just taking a brief look at the 2014 census numbers, the mode income was centered around $22,000 a year while the mean was $75,000. Let that sink in. The largest percentage of the US population makes less than $25,000 a year.

macinjosh 6y ago
This information is only useful if it is contrasted against the number of people who want/need/are able to work. People like the retired, teenagers, stay-at-home parents, college students, etc. all may make some small amount of income each year but generally speaking don't work full time. This isn't evidence of people struggling. It is evidence of people exercising their personal rights which include not being a worker.
- orclev 6y ago
  You're suggesting that the retired, teenagers, stay-at-home parents, and college students make up the majority of the US working population? Yeah, not buying that one at all. The US economy is fucked right now, we've been madly spinning the plate to try to keep it going, but it's starting to wobble badly. Unless something major is done soon it's only a question of when not if things start to implode.
  - macinjosh 6y ago
    > You're suggesting that the retired, teenagers, stay-at-home parents, and college students make up the majority of the US working population? Yeah, not buying that one at all. No where did I say this. What are you talking about?
    - orclev 6y ago
      My point was that the mode income, that is the income reported by the largest number of people was incredibly low. You claim that's because there are a bunch of people that don't really need/want to work, so they don't make much. That implies that that group represents the majority of the working population (in order to be the mode income). You're point might have been correct if we were talking about the mean income being very low, but in this case it's exactly the opposite.
kortilla 6y ago
The mode is meaningless with such a huge continuous range. A huge chunk of people are right at that income level because of minimum wage. 50% of the people still make more than 50k. Look at a distribution graph to help visualize it: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2015/demo/distribution-of-household-income--2014/_jcr_content/map.detailitem.950.high.png/1459361951239.png https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2015/demo/dist...
- orclev 6y ago
  That chart is s great example of exactly what I'm talking about. Look at that 95th percentile line. It's LEFT of the center. 95% of the population is making less than HALF of the top earners.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Do you even know what point you’re trying to make? Because I don’t think this chart is saying what you’re trying to imply. All this chart shows is that there is a long tail of possible incomes to the right. It doesn’t tell you how much that 5 percent is making in aggregate compared to the 95 percent. Put another way, you could stuff everyone on the right into a single >250k column and it wouldn’t be as tall as that 90th percentile column. This chart doesn’t really say anything about wealth inequality (which is what “point” I think you were trying to make) and neither does the mode of the incomes.
anonunivgrad 6y ago
Mode is a preposterous and arbitrary measurement to use. Median is what you’re looking for, but it doesn’t support your narrative as well.
- orclev 6y ago
  Median is just the arbitrary mid point between the two extremes, that doesn't actually mean anything useful to the average person. If you picked someone at random from the subset of the US population that reports an income (presumably the working population) and asked them what their income is, the most likely answer is the mode value, or in 2014 about $22,000. That's reality. That's why that is important. The median income ($53,000) is literally pointless except as yet another indicator of how unbalanced the economy is. If the economy was perfectly balanced the median and mean would be the same, but they're nowhere near that. The median was $53,000, while the mean was $75,000. An incredibly large chunk of the US is making significantly less than a handful of massive earners. And that's not even factoring in all the dirty tricks that the richest use to hide their wealth like offshoring bank accounts and shifting most of their assets into capital gains.
  - anonunivgrad 6y ago
    Median is significant because half make more and half make less. That over half of America makes over 50k is very meaningful. Mode is just the exact number that appears most often in the distribution. Salaries are a continuous range, except for the various minimum wages. That is why the mode is so low. It doesn’t tell you anything.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    >and asked them what their income is, the most likely answer is the mode value, or in 2014 about $22,000. That's reality. That's why that is important. FFS no. That’s not what the mode means. Mode does not imply that’s the majority probability, it’s just the single highest probability out of the possible outcomes. Statistically speaking, if you asked random people what their income was, the majority would not have an income of $22k. Let that sink in. Your whole mental model of this is deeply flawed. “Mode” != “majority”. Consider this distribution: 1,2,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 What is the mode? Do you see why the mode is meaningless shit when discussing what the distribution looks like?

by orclev 6y ago

macinjosh 6y ago

This information is only useful if it is contrasted against the number of people who want/need/are able to work. People like the retired, teenagers, stay-at-home parents, college students, etc. all may make some small amount of income each year but generally speaking don't work full time. This isn't evidence of people struggling. It is evidence of people exercising their personal rights which include not being a worker.

orclev 6y ago
You're suggesting that the retired, teenagers, stay-at-home parents, and college students make up the majority of the US working population? Yeah, not buying that one at all. The US economy is fucked right now, we've been madly spinning the plate to try to keep it going, but it's starting to wobble badly. Unless something major is done soon it's only a question of when not if things start to implode.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  > You're suggesting that the retired, teenagers, stay-at-home parents, and college students make up the majority of the US working population? Yeah, not buying that one at all. No where did I say this. What are you talking about?
  - orclev 6y ago
    My point was that the mode income, that is the income reported by the largest number of people was incredibly low. You claim that's because there are a bunch of people that don't really need/want to work, so they don't make much. That implies that that group represents the majority of the working population (in order to be the mode income). You're point might have been correct if we were talking about the mean income being very low, but in this case it's exactly the opposite.

kortilla 6y ago

The mode is meaningless with such a huge continuous range. A huge chunk of people are right at that income level because of minimum wage. 50% of the people still make more than 50k. Look at a distribution graph to help visualize it: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2015/demo/distribution-of-household-income--2014/_jcr_content/map.detailitem.950.high.png/1459361951239.png https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2015/demo/dist...

orclev 6y ago
That chart is s great example of exactly what I'm talking about. Look at that 95th percentile line. It's LEFT of the center. 95% of the population is making less than HALF of the top earners.
- kortilla 6y ago
  Do you even know what point you’re trying to make? Because I don’t think this chart is saying what you’re trying to imply. All this chart shows is that there is a long tail of possible incomes to the right. It doesn’t tell you how much that 5 percent is making in aggregate compared to the 95 percent. Put another way, you could stuff everyone on the right into a single >250k column and it wouldn’t be as tall as that 90th percentile column. This chart doesn’t really say anything about wealth inequality (which is what “point” I think you were trying to make) and neither does the mode of the incomes.

anonunivgrad 6y ago

Mode is a preposterous and arbitrary measurement to use. Median is what you’re looking for, but it doesn’t support your narrative as well.

orclev 6y ago
Median is just the arbitrary mid point between the two extremes, that doesn't actually mean anything useful to the average person. If you picked someone at random from the subset of the US population that reports an income (presumably the working population) and asked them what their income is, the most likely answer is the mode value, or in 2014 about $22,000. That's reality. That's why that is important. The median income ($53,000) is literally pointless except as yet another indicator of how unbalanced the economy is. If the economy was perfectly balanced the median and mean would be the same, but they're nowhere near that. The median was $53,000, while the mean was $75,000. An incredibly large chunk of the US is making significantly less than a handful of massive earners. And that's not even factoring in all the dirty tricks that the richest use to hide their wealth like offshoring bank accounts and shifting most of their assets into capital gains.
- anonunivgrad 6y ago
  Median is significant because half make more and half make less. That over half of America makes over 50k is very meaningful. Mode is just the exact number that appears most often in the distribution. Salaries are a continuous range, except for the various minimum wages. That is why the mode is so low. It doesn’t tell you anything.
- kortilla 6y ago
  >and asked them what their income is, the most likely answer is the mode value, or in 2014 about $22,000. That's reality. That's why that is important. FFS no. That’s not what the mode means. Mode does not imply that’s the majority probability, it’s just the single highest probability out of the possible outcomes. Statistically speaking, if you asked random people what their income was, the majority would not have an income of $22k. Let that sink in. Your whole mental model of this is deeply flawed. “Mode” != “majority”. Consider this distribution: 1,2,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 What is the mode? Do you see why the mode is meaningless shit when discussing what the distribution looks like?