3 ms·

This headline formulation is statistical malpractice that news companies do to get clicks. It's defines a "record" that will get regularly broken by default eve

by Terr_ 10mo ago

This headline formulation is statistical malpractice that news companies do to get clicks. It's defines a "record" that will get regularly broken by default even when nothing interesting changes. What we should be tracking and concerned-about is the proportional distribution of the total wealth among groups, which the article touches upon here: > The top 1% held 29% of total household wealth in the second quarter, compared with 28% in 2000. > The top 10% held 67% of total household wealth in the quarter while the bottom 90% held 33%.

grunder_advice 10mo ago
That's only because you're using broad strokes. If you look at the top 0.1% and the top 0.01% and the top 0.001% you'll see that as you go to the extreme end the share of the total household wealth does tend upwards. Please see my other post for some numbers.
m463 10mo ago
I wonder if there could be a way to measure things like prosperity or civilization level. like % of people with: - a washing machine - access to clean water - more than one car or house - measures of access to health care, mental health care, etc I think there might be increases or declines most people don't realize
- anon291 10mo ago
  Isn't this HDI?
  - philipkglass 10mo ago
    HDI captures some of these attributes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index The Human Development Index (HDI) is a statistical composite index of life expectancy, education (mean years of schooling completed and expected years of schooling upon entering the education system), and per capita income indicators, which is used to rank countries into four tiers of human development. A lot of the time I'd prefer to see "HDI recalculated without income" because income per capita doesn't seem like a direct indicator of human development. It's more of a proxy measure. Of course, I could say the same thing about how it measures education. Educational outcomes (like highly developed literacy) are better than how many years of schooling someone has. But these better measurements are also probably harder to collect across a broad group of countries.
atmavatar 10mo ago
If you're interested, the federal reserve has a page tracking that kind of information over time: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
bigbadfeline 10mo ago
> This headline formulation is statistical malpractice You provided zero evidence for that claim. Let's look at the raw numbers, percentages first, as you suggested: : share of wealth of top 0.1% : 2000 - 10.35%, 2025 - 14.4% share of wealth of top 10% : 2000 - 62.6%, 2025 - 68.01% share of wealth of bottom 50% : 2000 - 3.2% , 2025 - 2.4% > It's defines a "record" that will get regularly broken by default even when nothing interesting changes. This claim is mathematical malpractice - the numbers clearly show that the top is going up while the bottom is going down... percentage-wise! Mathematically, the up-side is limited by 100% and the down-side by 0%, there's no way this can be "regularity broken", ad infinitum, it will end with the top at 100 and the bottom at 0, aka nothing left to trickle up. > What we should be tracking and concerned-about is the proportional distribution of the total wealth among groups... [a couple of selective and confusing quotes] I did what you urged us to do, but the conclusion is the opposite of your "nothing interesting to see here".
- Terr_ 10mo ago
  Wow, I-don't-even. My short comment contained only two claims: 1. Nominal dollars held is a "record" that will get regularly broken by default even when nothing interesting happens, therefore it being "broken" tells us very little. 2. Instead, what we should be tracking and concerned-about is the proportional distribution. I didn't expect either to be controversial, but somehow you've created something wildly different in your mind in order to be excitedly outraged over it. ____________________________________________________________ > You provided zero evidence for that claim. In a thread about economics, you should already be aware that (A) inflation is typical and (B) the American economy is typically growing rather than shrinking. If you need to cry "SOURCE!?" over these concepts, then something is wrong. > the numbers clearly show that the top is going up while the bottom is going down... percentage-wise! Yes, looking at proportional amounts is exactly what I told you to do, and it's consistent with the numbers I quoted from the article showing an uptick for the 1%. I just don't know why you're acting like it's a surprise. > there's no way [percentage records] can be "regularity broken", ad infinitum Oh, I see, you've just imagined-up a dumb thing nobody said. I explicitly referred to the headline, and headline is in dollars, not percentages. Incidentally, you're also wrong: There are infinitely-many opportunities to exceed a real-number by infinitely small amounts. (As you go from ~17% to 100%.) > the conclusion is the opposite of your "nothing interesting to see here". *looks down at notepad* Is the "conclusion" inside the room with us now? Can you point to it's exact-words, so that the rest of us can see it?

by Terr_ 10mo ago

grunder_advice 10mo ago

That's only because you're using broad strokes. If you look at the top 0.1% and the top 0.01% and the top 0.001% you'll see that as you go to the extreme end the share of the total household wealth does tend upwards. Please see my other post for some numbers.

m463 10mo ago

I wonder if there could be a way to measure things like prosperity or civilization level. like % of people with: - a washing machine - access to clean water - more than one car or house - measures of access to health care, mental health care, etc I think there might be increases or declines most people don't realize

anon291 10mo ago
Isn't this HDI?
- philipkglass 10mo ago
  HDI captures some of these attributes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index The Human Development Index (HDI) is a statistical composite index of life expectancy, education (mean years of schooling completed and expected years of schooling upon entering the education system), and per capita income indicators, which is used to rank countries into four tiers of human development. A lot of the time I'd prefer to see "HDI recalculated without income" because income per capita doesn't seem like a direct indicator of human development. It's more of a proxy measure. Of course, I could say the same thing about how it measures education. Educational outcomes (like highly developed literacy) are better than how many years of schooling someone has. But these better measurements are also probably harder to collect across a broad group of countries.

atmavatar 10mo ago

If you're interested, the federal reserve has a page tracking that kind of information over time: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...

bigbadfeline 10mo ago

> This headline formulation is statistical malpractice You provided zero evidence for that claim. Let's look at the raw numbers, percentages first, as you suggested: : share of wealth of top 0.1% : 2000 - 10.35%, 2025 - 14.4% share of wealth of top 10% : 2000 - 62.6%, 2025 - 68.01% share of wealth of bottom 50% : 2000 - 3.2% , 2025 - 2.4% > It's defines a "record" that will get regularly broken by default even when nothing interesting changes. This claim is mathematical malpractice - the numbers clearly show that the top is going up while the bottom is going down... percentage-wise! Mathematically, the up-side is limited by 100% and the down-side by 0%, there's no way this can be "regularity broken", ad infinitum, it will end with the top at 100 and the bottom at 0, aka nothing left to trickle up. > What we should be tracking and concerned-about is the proportional distribution of the total wealth among groups... [a couple of selective and confusing quotes] I did what you urged us to do, but the conclusion is the opposite of your "nothing interesting to see here".

Terr_ 10mo ago
Wow, I-don't-even. My short comment contained only two claims: 1. Nominal dollars held is a "record" that will get regularly broken by default even when nothing interesting happens, therefore it being "broken" tells us very little. 2. Instead, what we should be tracking and concerned-about is the proportional distribution. I didn't expect either to be controversial, but somehow you've created something wildly different in your mind in order to be excitedly outraged over it. ____________________________________________________________ > You provided zero evidence for that claim. In a thread about economics, you should already be aware that (A) inflation is typical and (B) the American economy is typically growing rather than shrinking. If you need to cry "SOURCE!?" over these concepts, then something is wrong. > the numbers clearly show that the top is going up while the bottom is going down... percentage-wise! Yes, looking at proportional amounts is exactly what I told you to do, and it's consistent with the numbers I quoted from the article showing an uptick for the 1%. I just don't know why you're acting like it's a surprise. > there's no way [percentage records] can be "regularity broken", ad infinitum Oh, I see, you've just imagined-up a dumb thing nobody said. I explicitly referred to the headline, and headline is in dollars, not percentages. Incidentally, you're also wrong: There are infinitely-many opportunities to exceed a real-number by infinitely small amounts. (As you go from ~17% to 100%.) > the conclusion is the opposite of your "nothing interesting to see here". *looks down at notepad* Is the "conclusion" inside the room with us now? Can you point to it's exact-words, so that the rest of us can see it?