4 ms·

It's curious that you find it necessary for us to share what "median" means, but then not share, but I guess you must have accidentally pressed the "Reply" butt

It's curious that you find it necessary for us to share what "median" means, but then not share, but I guess you must have accidentally pressed the "Reply" button before you were finished? We can do a simple thought experiment here. If 0% of the population have a degree, do you agree that the median income holder does not have a degree? If 100% of the population have a degree, do you agree that the median income holder does have a degree? So when the degree attainment rate crosses the 50% mark, do you agree that the median income holder must have a degree? My definition says yes. And since the degree brings a premium, how do you explain the median income not rising? Maybe the premium you are imagining is just hugs and kisses? I know, you think the median income has somehow always been filled by a degree holder, even when only a small segment of the population had a degree. But how is that possible when education influences lifetime earnings? Shouldn't those with education be making more than the median when those with education are a small segment of the population?

defrost 2mo ago
Not whom you questioned, but ... > We can do a simple thought experiment here. Yes, and Yes. > when the degree attainment rate crosses the 50% mark, do you agree that the median income holder must have a degree? No. I don't even agree that there is necessarily a single median income holder - there may well be a hundred, sixty with a degree and 40 without. Also possible that in a hypothetical population with 1,001 people that 1,000 people have a degree but the sole median income earner does not.
- win311fwg 2mo ago
  I don't question anyone in particular. This is a discussion forum, not a private one-on-one conversation. > there may well be a hundred, sixty with a degree and 40 without. So what you are suggesting is that attaining a degree lowers your earnings and then gives you back a commensurate premium, thus restoring you back to the same level as those without a degree? That's a take, I guess, but premium usually comes with certain connotations that isn't that. > Also possible that in a hypothetical population with 1,001 people that 1,000 people have a degree but the sole median income earner does not. Again, where is the premium? If the only person without a degree isn't the lowest earner then we know that the person with the least earnings has a degree, but it was asserted that the person with the least earnings is given a premium over those without a degree, so... Are your numbers omitting a space alien or fairy without a degree where we earlier considered them to be people? It's not clear how to resolve this discrepancy.
tptacek 2mo ago
I'm so confused by what you think the "median" means here. Take the set "1 5 9". "1" goes to college and gets a 60% income improvement; generously, round that up to 2. What's the before/after median?
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- win311fwg 2mo ago
  You seem to be missing the part about assuming college graduates are given a premium above those who are not college graduates, which was seemingly what the discussion was about earlier. So what you are saying is that someone who is the lowest paid person can remain the lowest paid person by going to college? We'll take your word for it since that has never been considered interesting enough for anyone else to study — remaining the lowest paid person isn't usually a goal one strives for — but what's the significance of that to have mentioned it earlier?
  - tptacek 2mo ago
    You can make other arguments about the connection between college and lifetime income, certainly! But they aren't the mathematically closed argument you made early, the one you preceded with "We can make this real simple". It appears --- and I'm sorry to belabor this point --- that it was "real simple" because it was based on an unconventional definition of a central tendency statistic. I'm still curious about what that definition might have been?
    - win311fwg 2mo ago
      Right, we made it simple and assumed that college brought a premium, as was earlier told was the case. Therefore, in the simple model, all college graduates occupy the top earning spots. So when >50% of the earning population are college graduates then the median earner must have a college degree. Now that you're saying that in reality college graduates don't see a premium over non-college graduates and actually occupy the lowest income class then obviously the simplified model breaks. Thems the breaks when you try to simplify. A simplified model will always be just that: a simplification. It remains unclear what non-standard definition of median you are thinking of? You said you needed to share it earlier but still haven't...

defrost 2mo ago

Not whom you questioned, but ... > We can do a simple thought experiment here. Yes, and Yes. > when the degree attainment rate crosses the 50% mark, do you agree that the median income holder must have a degree? No. I don't even agree that there is necessarily a single median income holder - there may well be a hundred, sixty with a degree and 40 without. Also possible that in a hypothetical population with 1,001 people that 1,000 people have a degree but the sole median income earner does not.

win311fwg 2mo ago
I don't question anyone in particular. This is a discussion forum, not a private one-on-one conversation. > there may well be a hundred, sixty with a degree and 40 without. So what you are suggesting is that attaining a degree lowers your earnings and then gives you back a commensurate premium, thus restoring you back to the same level as those without a degree? That's a take, I guess, but premium usually comes with certain connotations that isn't that. > Also possible that in a hypothetical population with 1,001 people that 1,000 people have a degree but the sole median income earner does not. Again, where is the premium? If the only person without a degree isn't the lowest earner then we know that the person with the least earnings has a degree, but it was asserted that the person with the least earnings is given a premium over those without a degree, so... Are your numbers omitting a space alien or fairy without a degree where we earlier considered them to be people? It's not clear how to resolve this discrepancy.

tptacek 2mo ago

I'm so confused by what you think the "median" means here. Take the set "1 5 9". "1" goes to college and gets a 60% income improvement; generously, round that up to 2. What's the before/after median?

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
win311fwg 2mo ago
You seem to be missing the part about assuming college graduates are given a premium above those who are not college graduates, which was seemingly what the discussion was about earlier. So what you are saying is that someone who is the lowest paid person can remain the lowest paid person by going to college? We'll take your word for it since that has never been considered interesting enough for anyone else to study — remaining the lowest paid person isn't usually a goal one strives for — but what's the significance of that to have mentioned it earlier?
- tptacek 2mo ago
  You can make other arguments about the connection between college and lifetime income, certainly! But they aren't the mathematically closed argument you made early, the one you preceded with "We can make this real simple". It appears --- and I'm sorry to belabor this point --- that it was "real simple" because it was based on an unconventional definition of a central tendency statistic. I'm still curious about what that definition might have been?
  - win311fwg 2mo ago
    Right, we made it simple and assumed that college brought a premium, as was earlier told was the case. Therefore, in the simple model, all college graduates occupy the top earning spots. So when >50% of the earning population are college graduates then the median earner must have a college degree. Now that you're saying that in reality college graduates don't see a premium over non-college graduates and actually occupy the lowest income class then obviously the simplified model breaks. Thems the breaks when you try to simplify. A simplified model will always be just that: a simplification. It remains unclear what non-standard definition of median you are thinking of? You said you needed to share it earlier but still haven't...