4 ms·
The average is frankly, fairly uninteresting given what the distribution looks like. It's not a "typical" income, or the 50th percentile. It's just basically th
by tomkarlo 15y ago
The average is frankly, fairly uninteresting given what the distribution looks like. It's not a "typical" income, or the 50th percentile. It's just basically the sum of income divided by the number of earners.
Reminds me of the old saw about how when Bill Gates walks into a bar, everyone turns into a millionaire, on average.
- protomyth 15y agoWell, I was interested because 2009 is the only dip year in their data. The distribution data is not as interesting to me given what they ignore in income and location.
- tomkarlo 15y agoYeah, but you don't know if it's a dip because the typical person made less, or the richest 1% made less. Given that 2009 was a recession, you'd expect average to be down either way (since population didn't change appreciably.) That's the problem with averages.
- protomyth 15y agoThat's the thing though, it is the only dip in their data. I am really curious how other recession periods didn't have the dip.
- tomkarlo 15y agoCould just be a timing issue. Recessions are measured on quarterly performance, this is annual. So you could have two quarters of negative growth in a row (a recession) and still have overall positive growth for the year. Also, wages/employment are sticky because of the friction in changing them... companies will generally change comp slower than the change in sales (in both directions.)