5 ms·

Do you have a citation for that? The median is generally the most reliable metric to use specifically for income, since it isn’t impacted by outliers.

by bhupy 6y ago

swiley 6y ago
The median is often used for income, that doesn't make it "reliable."
- bhupy 6y ago
  It’s “reliable” insofar as it tells us how the “average” person is doing, and by definition the lower bound for the top half of the population.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Not reliable at all if you have a bimodal or multimodal distribution.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      That’s not true. As long as you’re taking into account the median purchasing power, it doesn’t matter what the shape of the distribution is. Real median income has increased regardless of the choice of inflation index.
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  How so its a much much better measure than the arithmetic mean ?
ghaff 6y ago
I generally agree with you. I suppose the argument--depending upon what the overall distribution looks like exactly--is that you can have a sizable minority clustered somewhere below what would have been considered a reasonable middle-class lifestyle while the median still looks reasonable. Also CPI doesn't really account for housing prices in many of the metros where the best jobs are or higher education prices.
- bhupy 6y ago
  By definition, the “cluster” below the median is exactly half, regardless of the shape of the distribution. > Also CPI doesn’t really account for housing prices Per my source, the median income is the highest it’s been since 1981, and the total compensation the highest it’s been since WW2 regardless of the inflation index you use. Also, the median number of years to recoup the cost of a bachelors degree, adjusted for inflation, has gone down since the 1980’s, from about 22 years to about 10 years -> https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/09/the-value-of-a-college-degree.html https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/09/the-va...
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    > By definition, the “cluster” below the median is exactly half, regardless of the shape of the distribution. Right, but that doesn't measure how for away from the median the upper and lower clusters are. > Also, the median number of years to recoup the cost of a bachelors degree, adjusted for inflation, has gone down since the 1980’s, from about 22 years to about 10 years That would be consistent with a hypothesis that real wages have increased for higher earners and decreased for lower earners, right?
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > Right, but that doesn’t measure how far away from the median the upper and lower clusters are. Well, it doesn’t particularly matter how far from the upper the median clusters are if their absolute standard of living has improved — and we measure that by accounting for inflation. Regardless of which inflation metric you use (some include housing prices, some don’t), median income has risen. As for the lower cluster, the most reliable metric to use there is the poverty rate...which has also substantially fallen -> https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1308790816937095169?s=20 https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1308790816937095169?s=... You can also look at the historic income trends divided up by quintile -> https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p... (Table H1, All Races, it's an Excel spreadsheet). Inflation adjusted income for the bottom two quintiles have also increased substantially. > That would be consistent with a hypothesis that real wages have increased for higher earners and decreased for lower earners, right? No, it would be consistent with a hypothesis that real wages have increased faster for higher earners than for lower earners, but demonstrates no evidence that it has decreased for lower earners. The empirical results show that real wages increased across all income levels, and between 2014-2019, it actually increased faster for lower earners -> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/low-wage-workers-are-getting-bigger-raises-than-bosses/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/low-wage-workers-are-getting-bi...
nicoburns 6y ago
You really want to be comparing distribution curves rather than looking at any single average.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Well, we're looking at the median here, which tells us what the lot of the "average American is". If you want to compare distribution curves, you can look at the income growth separated by quintile. That can be found here -> https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p... Click on "Income Limits for each Fifth and Top 5 percent", All Races. It's an Excel spreadsheet. The real income of the bottom 2 quintiles have also dramatically increased.
yndoendo 6y ago
Say you calculate the median income for all spectators at a football game at $40,000. Suddenly Bill Gates walks in and the median skyrockets creating a false reality of what all others actually make. Median can often over-simply and create erroneous information.
- zxcmx 6y ago
  Maybe you're thinking of the mean? BG shouldn't shift the median much in the situation you described unless the income distribution is really weird.
- stripline 6y ago
  You are confusing median and mean.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fifticon 6y ago
That sounds like it's also an effective tool to hide the money ending up in the billionairs' pockets. Much like bhupy's carpetbombing this entire discussion with walls of text makes it nearly impossible to see if anybody else is trying to say something.
- bhupy 6y ago
  I know! That bhupy person just won't stop addressing replies to their own comment(s) with relevant links to metrics and sources. The audacity, am I right?

Do you have a citation for that? The median is generally the most reliable metric to use specifically for income, since it isn’t impacted by outliers.

by bhupy 6y ago

Do you have a citation for that? The median is generally the most reliable metric to use specifically for income, since it isn’t impacted by outliers.

swiley 6y ago

The median is often used for income, that doesn't make it "reliable."

bhupy 6y ago
It’s “reliable” insofar as it tells us how the “average” person is doing, and by definition the lower bound for the top half of the population.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Not reliable at all if you have a bimodal or multimodal distribution.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    That’s not true. As long as you’re taking into account the median purchasing power, it doesn’t matter what the shape of the distribution is. Real median income has increased regardless of the choice of inflation index.
C1sc0cat 6y ago
How so its a much much better measure than the arithmetic mean ?

ghaff 6y ago

I generally agree with you. I suppose the argument--depending upon what the overall distribution looks like exactly--is that you can have a sizable minority clustered somewhere below what would have been considered a reasonable middle-class lifestyle while the median still looks reasonable. Also CPI doesn't really account for housing prices in many of the metros where the best jobs are or higher education prices.

bhupy 6y ago
By definition, the “cluster” below the median is exactly half, regardless of the shape of the distribution. > Also CPI doesn’t really account for housing prices Per my source, the median income is the highest it’s been since 1981, and the total compensation the highest it’s been since WW2 regardless of the inflation index you use. Also, the median number of years to recoup the cost of a bachelors degree, adjusted for inflation, has gone down since the 1980’s, from about 22 years to about 10 years -> https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/09/the-value-of-a-college-degree.html https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/09/the-va...
- nicoburns 6y ago
  > By definition, the “cluster” below the median is exactly half, regardless of the shape of the distribution. Right, but that doesn't measure how for away from the median the upper and lower clusters are. > Also, the median number of years to recoup the cost of a bachelors degree, adjusted for inflation, has gone down since the 1980’s, from about 22 years to about 10 years That would be consistent with a hypothesis that real wages have increased for higher earners and decreased for lower earners, right?
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > Right, but that doesn’t measure how far away from the median the upper and lower clusters are. Well, it doesn’t particularly matter how far from the upper the median clusters are if their absolute standard of living has improved — and we measure that by accounting for inflation. Regardless of which inflation metric you use (some include housing prices, some don’t), median income has risen. As for the lower cluster, the most reliable metric to use there is the poverty rate...which has also substantially fallen -> https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1308790816937095169?s=20 https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1308790816937095169?s=... You can also look at the historic income trends divided up by quintile -> https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p... (Table H1, All Races, it's an Excel spreadsheet). Inflation adjusted income for the bottom two quintiles have also increased substantially. > That would be consistent with a hypothesis that real wages have increased for higher earners and decreased for lower earners, right? No, it would be consistent with a hypothesis that real wages have increased faster for higher earners than for lower earners, but demonstrates no evidence that it has decreased for lower earners. The empirical results show that real wages increased across all income levels, and between 2014-2019, it actually increased faster for lower earners -> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/low-wage-workers-are-getting-bigger-raises-than-bosses/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/low-wage-workers-are-getting-bi...

nicoburns 6y ago

You really want to be comparing distribution curves rather than looking at any single average.

bhupy 6y ago
Well, we're looking at the median here, which tells us what the lot of the "average American is". If you want to compare distribution curves, you can look at the income growth separated by quintile. That can be found here -> https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p... Click on "Income Limits for each Fifth and Top 5 percent", All Races. It's an Excel spreadsheet. The real income of the bottom 2 quintiles have also dramatically increased.

yndoendo 6y ago

Say you calculate the median income for all spectators at a football game at $40,000. Suddenly Bill Gates walks in and the median skyrockets creating a false reality of what all others actually make. Median can often over-simply and create erroneous information.

zxcmx 6y ago
Maybe you're thinking of the mean? BG shouldn't shift the median much in the situation you described unless the income distribution is really weird.
stripline 6y ago
You are confusing median and mean.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

fifticon 6y ago

That sounds like it's also an effective tool to hide the money ending up in the billionairs' pockets. Much like bhupy's carpetbombing this entire discussion with walls of text makes it nearly impossible to see if anybody else is trying to say something.

bhupy 6y ago
I know! That bhupy person just won't stop addressing replies to their own comment(s) with relevant links to metrics and sources. The audacity, am I right?