What has Joe done to me?

[australopithecus]

Ah, the constant cry of the bully, that the target is just taking things too seriously.

Nothing in this thread has even remotely constituted bullying. Just saying.

 

[kenandkids]

Ah, the constant cry of the bully, that the target is just taking things too seriously.

Nothing in this thread has even remotely constituted bullying. Just saying.

We disagree with conservative dogma, ergo bullying.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Yes, excuse me. Here you go.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell050503.asp

What does it take to reach the top 20 percent in income? In 2001, it took a little less than $85,000 -- for a whole household!

To reach the top 5 percent, you need an income of about $150,000 -- again, for a whole household. A middle-aged couple who have worked their way up in middle-class jobs, over a period of decades, can reach this peak -- and have much of it taxed away.

This is exactly my point, Arthur. The gap is widening. The 80th percentile barely got anything out of Bush's tax cuts (80th!), and if you go much lower than 80th then they got nothing at all. The 95th percentile still doesn't make that much - not enough to reap the largest benefits of Republican tax policies. This author took "tax cuts for the rich" out of context of the actual tax cuts. If I'm complaining about the Bush tax cuts (JGTRRA) only benefitting the obscenely rich, then pointing out how poor the 95th percentile is strengthens my case. All this at a time when the obscenely rich were already on a better trajectory than the working class. The whole idea is at a right angle with reality.

 

[televator]

@ Arthur: As expected all you managed to do was rationalize your way out of your contradictions. Even at the expense of contradicting yourself even further.

First you make a fuss about how it's so wrong for the government to (and I paraphrase) "steal your money from you under threat of force." Now say that it's all good an dandy as long as the government program is producing good results... that's pretty much the position that I and many others here have been holding....welcome comrade? :?

Yes, there will be programs that may backfire at times. Most often, not everything will live up to high standards all the time. It's still better than the alternative of having the government not try anything at all. Even creating slightly fewer jobs than expected from a program is definitely a much better result than not creating any jobs at all.

And since it seems that everything has inevitably been draged out, here's my response to ohcac:

Why *should* a fat-ass, lazy, irresponsible dufus who has inherited his fathers money in a situation akin to Billy Madison have more of his money extracted from him just because he doesn't work hard? Does the quality of not working hard mean that one forfeits their property to the state more than a poor person who works his ass off every day? I think the notion "Robin Hood property rights" (rich to poor "wealth transfer") is probably a fallacy.

Lets look at it in the context of the broader conversation. The common defense for why the rich should absolutely not be burdened in the slightest is because they are deemed to be the sacrosanct cherished individuals who will drive our economy to great heights by creating jobs and blessing us with more jobs out of their kindness of their hearts. With their divine patriotic grace, they shall endow the citizenry of this country with good health and modest living standards.

Plenty of them don't quite live up to the high pedestal they are set upon. So there really is no reason why they should not have to pay proportional amounts of tax for the needs of society like the rest of us do.

I really don't understand why members of a board called the "League of Reason" can can bring themselves to believe that large scale government programs are generally a good thing that are of generally high quality.

I really don't understand why members of a board called the "League of Reason" can can bring themselves to make such straw men arguments. And what do you mean by "high quality"?

In reality, however, public schools are an utterly poisonous entity that needs to be put to an end.

It is actually quite easy to see why funding via taxation leads to terrible quality *in general*. Whenever a school performs poorly in providing the service of education to students, one hears outcries to give the school *more money* via taxation. In free markets, institutions that manage their structures of production in such a way that the service is poor should get punished by their consumers and receive less money so that superior competition prevails. Whatever your opinions on free markets or competition based economic structures, it is abundantly clear that public schools are terrible because they have no incentive to provide a higher quality service. The same is probably true of other government programs deemed "essential" by the generally ignorant general public.

And how would an exclusively free market "solution" make it any better while covering the same broad percentage of the population that public schools currently do with basic substantive education? In free markets the intended public goal is not the incentive. It's the money. The competition wouldn't necessarily create better education -- just better money making schemes. So you might just end up with nothing more than an abundance of diploma mills on every street corner which might be the only way for the vast majority of people to get their hands on diplomas. Which would completely destroy the idea that people actually learn anything on the path to get a diploma.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Or, you know, getting older, gaining experience, moving into better paying positions. Go into a typical minimum wage job site and look around - the people there are going to be younger then people doing engineering or management. You are assuming that people do not change and improve on their own - blatantly false from everything behavioral psychology tells us.

WOW! Millions of Americans are going to be very heartened that even though they used to have good jobs before those jobs were outsourced or the unions busted and they had to take minimum wage or $10 per hour jobs, all they have to do is get older to go back to having living wage jobs. Thanks Arthur, you provided a much needed feeling of relief.

Meanwhile, back in RealityLand, more and more people of all ages are working at minimum wage, or slightly higher waged, jobs because decent wages are so scarce. McDonalds just hired 50k people, most of whom were NOT kids. Walmart is the number one employer, and most people make slightly over minimum wage. The overwhelming majority of jobs in most regions are market, retail, or food, and these jobs do not pay well, nor are they filled exclusively by young people.

Nice way to use an emotional argument - except that it's wrong.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

The average household income in 2009 (the most recent data available) was ~$50 thousand, about the same as in 2008 and down from the peak of ~$52 thousand in 1999. This is about three times minimum wage.

And, of course, this is per household; and the size of the average household has been steadily shrinking. On a per-PERSON basis income has actually been rising.

Also note: the income level where the head-of-household is 45 - 54 is double that of head-of-household 15-24, once again demonstrating my point.

 

[devilsadvocate]

Are those inflation corrected amounts? It's kind of meaningless to compare dollar amounts between relatively long stretches of times unless you correct them for inflation. For reference total amount of inflation from June 1999 to June 2011 is ~35%.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Are those inflation corrected amounts? It's kind of meaningless to compare dollar amounts between relatively long stretches of times unless you correct them for inflation. For reference total amount of inflation from June 1999 to June 2011 is ~35%.

If you would have read the FIRST PAGE, you would see that all figures are in 2009 dollars.

 

[Andiferous]

:|

 

[kenandkids]

Why do I have the feeling that this is like the old joke:

Bill Gates walks into a bar with 20 labourers, on average they were all billionaires.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Why do I have the feeling that this is like the old joke:

Bill Gates walks into a bar with 20 labourers, on average they were all billionaires.

Because that's exactly what Arthur's presented.

A joke.

The problem is that he's the only one that doesn't see the punch line.

 

[devilsadvocate]

If you would have read the FIRST PAGE, you would see that all figures are in 2009 dollars.

Well, I didn't . I might have though, had I knew before hand information I was seeking was on the first page and not buried 50 or so pages in. In any case, thanks for answering and keeping this thread a bit more factual rather than just mud-slinging party.

Why do I have the feeling that this is like the old joke:

Bill Gates walks into a bar with 20 labourers, on average they were all billionaires.

Those figures Arthur posted were median incomes (unlike Arthur mistakenly wrote), not averages.


Distribution of income in the U.S:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Distribution

 

[Aught3]

Those figures Arthur posted were median incomes (unlike Arthur mistakenly wrote), not averages.

Median is a type of average.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Those figures Arthur posted were median incomes (unlike Arthur mistakenly wrote), not averages.

Median is a type of average.

No.
Mean is the Average.
Median is the direct middle number in a set. If it's an even-numbered set, then it's the average of the two middle numbers.
Mode is the number that is mostly used in a set.

3rd grade, kids.

ex.
1 2 2 3 4
Mean = (1+2+2+3+4) / 5
Mean = 12 / 5

Mean = 2.4
Median = 2
Mode = 2

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Why do I have the feeling that this is like the old joke:

Bill Gates walks into a bar with 20 labourers, on average they were all billionaires.

Because that's exactly what Arthur's presented.

A joke.

The problem is that he's the only one that doesn't see the punch line.

Yeah, don't use facts or anything to counter my argument, just SAY I'm wrong without saying why. :roll:

Yes, I confused median and average, silly me, doesn't impact my point at all. It actually makes it a little better since a median is less skewed by extreme outliers.

 

[Aught3]

No.
Mean is the Average.
Median is the direct middle number in a set. If it's an even-numbered set, then it's the average of the two middle numbers.
Mode is the number that is mostly used in a set.

3rd grade, kids.

ex.
1 2 2 3 4
Mean = (1+2+2+3+4) / 5
Mean = 12 / 5

Mean = 2.4
Median = 2
Mode = 2

Okay, I suppose it depends on definitions. I was just making the point that it's not incorrect to describe a median as an average (i.e. a measure of central tendency). This is a relatively minor point anyway.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Because that's exactly what Arthur's presented.

A joke.

The problem is that he's the only one that doesn't see the punch line.

Yeah, don't use facts or anything to counter my argument, just SAY I'm wrong without saying why. :roll:

Yes, I confused median and average, silly me, doesn't impact my point at all. It actually makes it a little better since a median is less skewed by extreme outliers.

I would be more concerned with the Mode of a set, regardless. If there was a line required for economic survival, and the Median was JUST ABOVE that line, it is a cause for concern.
Even though, technically, the median places it in, a perspective where the middle of a set is - it doesn't include economic distribution. You need all three factors to take any number set into practice.

So, Arthur, do tell: What's the MODE for this set?

If it's minimum wage, you and I both know that you can't be economically secure working at Mickey D's. I'll post more after my PT test today.

 

[Welshidiot]

I have to support Hytegia here. From the point of view of demographics the median is rarely of great significance, the mean is much more useful, but if you want to get a good idea of how most people are actually living then it's the modal average that is most enlightening.

And so I echo Hytegia's question for Arthur: What's the MODE for this set?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I would be more concerned with the Mode of a set, regardless. If there was a line required for economic survival, and the Median was JUST ABOVE that line, it is a cause for concern.
Even though, technically, the median places it in, a perspective where the middle of a set is - it doesn't include economic distribution. You need all three factors to take any number set into practice.

So, Arthur, do tell: What's the MODE for this set?

If it's minimum wage, you and I both know that you can't be economically secure working at Mickey D's. I'll post more after my PT test today.

I have to support Hytegia here. From the point of view of demographics the median is rarely of great significance, the mean is much more useful, but if you want to get a good idea of how most people are actually living then it's the modal average that is most enlightening.

And so I echo Hytegia's question for Arthur: What's the MODE for this set?

... Wow. You guys are really clutching at straws here.

Anyway, here's what I found, where the mode is in the $50-75k range.
http://www.mybudget360.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/us-household-income-chart.png

I can tell you this; the income is tracked by household. The higher quintiles of income have a higher average household size then the lower quintiles. The number of people in the top quintile is about double that in the bottom quintile.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I can tell you this; the income is tracked by household.

Cool.
Since you're so fond of statistics, what's the last population cap of homeless people? I'm sure if you plotted those on this chart here, the Mean, Median, AND Mode would be significantly altered to the point where it would be more than an uncomfortable thought in the back of your head.

If the truth of the world is laden within straws, call them what you must. Just don't avoid the tough stuff with fluff and rainbows.

:lol:

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I can tell you this; the income is tracked by household.

Cool.
Since you're so fond of statistics, what's the last population cap of homeless people? I'm sure if you plotted those on this chart here, the Mean, Median, AND Mode would be significantly altered to the point where it would be more than an uncomfortable thought in the back of your head.

If the truth of the world is laden within straws, call them what you must. Just don't avoid the tough stuff with fluff and rainbows.

:lol:

Homelessness is obviously difficult to track, but Wikipedia puts it at about 0.5% of the population for 2008-2009. That's for everyone who was homeless during that period, including people who transitioned away from it. That doesn't change the mode at all. Homelessness isn't the same as having zero income, so I couldn't say how much it would influence the mean or the median; but my estimates say not all that far. The issue can safely be said to be extraneous to the current discussion.