3 ms·

The bottom 90% are also younger than they were in 1987. [+] (People really do not have a good intuitive understanding of how claims comparing statistical distr

by patio11 12y ago

The bottom 90% are also younger than they were in 1987. [+] (People really do not have a good intuitive understanding of how claims comparing statistical distributions over time map to facts about individuals in the world.) [+] I'm having a smidgen of trouble sourcing this soundbyte, so if you'd prefer, you can rewrite it as "Americans are on average 6 years older than they were 30 years ago", which is conveniently demonstrable via Census data. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0007.pdf http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0007.p...

fennecfoxen 12y ago
Yes, and as long as we're pointing out that, let's note that this graph measures (real) wealth, not income (and certainly not transfer-adjusted incomes). Also it shows that (real) wealth for everyone tanked in the recession (surprise, surprise) while the headline itself plays up the "bottom 10%" impact. Clickbait for a certain crowd.
- vidarh 12y ago
  > Also it shows that (real) wealth for everyone tanked in the recession (surprise, surprise) It also points out that the reason for this is that most people have most of their assets in property. And so most likely saw little to nothing of the large increase in paper-wealth before the recession, or in fact in many cases saw it negatively affect them due to higher mortgages.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    You have a strange definition of everyone - one that conveniently ignores the massive gains in wealth made by the 1%. The age difference is a nitpick, and almost entirely irrelevant to the obvious political and economic implications.
e40 12y ago
Doesn't your footnote say the opposite of what you want it to? We're 6 years older than 30 years. Today 90% are younger than 30 years ago.
- patio11 12y ago
  Both claims are about population statistics and demonstrate things which are clearly impossible if you reason about population statistics like you reason about people. No group of countable persons is younger than they were 30 years ago, nor is any group of countable persons only 6 years older than they were 30 years ago, but people jump straight from "the poorest 90% of Americans are less wealthy than they were in 1987" to thinking a) there is a group of individuals being discussed and b) bad stuff has happened to them. (Neither is true.)
mijustin 12y ago
The study's authors make a few references to age: "While wealth is getting older on aggregate, in the top 0.1% of the distribution wealth is getting younger: the share of top 0.1% wealth held by elderly households is lower in 2012 (39%) than in 1962 (46%). In 1962, top wealth was significantly older than average, while today it is about as old as average. This finding is consistent with the results of Edlund and Kopczuk (2009) showing that there were relatively more widowed women in top wealth groups in the 1960s than in the 1990s." Source: http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014.pdf http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014.pdf, Section 5.3, page 25

by patio11 12y ago

fennecfoxen 12y ago

Yes, and as long as we're pointing out that, let's note that this graph measures (real) wealth, not income (and certainly not transfer-adjusted incomes). Also it shows that (real) wealth for everyone tanked in the recession (surprise, surprise) while the headline itself plays up the "bottom 10%" impact. Clickbait for a certain crowd.

vidarh 12y ago
> Also it shows that (real) wealth for everyone tanked in the recession (surprise, surprise) It also points out that the reason for this is that most people have most of their assets in property. And so most likely saw little to nothing of the large increase in paper-wealth before the recession, or in fact in many cases saw it negatively affect them due to higher mortgages.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  You have a strange definition of everyone - one that conveniently ignores the massive gains in wealth made by the 1%. The age difference is a nitpick, and almost entirely irrelevant to the obvious political and economic implications.

e40 12y ago

Doesn't your footnote say the opposite of what you want it to? We're 6 years older than 30 years. Today 90% are younger than 30 years ago.

patio11 12y ago
Both claims are about population statistics and demonstrate things which are clearly impossible if you reason about population statistics like you reason about people. No group of countable persons is younger than they were 30 years ago, nor is any group of countable persons only 6 years older than they were 30 years ago, but people jump straight from "the poorest 90% of Americans are less wealthy than they were in 1987" to thinking a) there is a group of individuals being discussed and b) bad stuff has happened to them. (Neither is true.)

mijustin 12y ago

The study's authors make a few references to age: "While wealth is getting older on aggregate, in the top 0.1% of the distribution wealth is getting younger: the share of top 0.1% wealth held by elderly households is lower in 2012 (39%) than in 1962 (46%). In 1962, top wealth was significantly older than average, while today it is about as old as average. This finding is consistent with the results of Edlund and Kopczuk (2009) showing that there were relatively more widowed women in top wealth groups in the 1960s than in the 1990s." Source: http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014.pdf http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014.pdf, Section 5.3, page 25