Hmm, I understood it as being the exact middle of what people were paid, not the point where exactly 50% make more than that and 50% less. I admit this may be wrong, but it’s interesting no one seems to use modal averages for wages isn’t it?
Median is the number in the middle - 50% of people are above 50% below.
Mean is the sum divided by the count.
Mode doesn’t really work for salaries because it would resemble randomness. If you grouped people in $500 or $1000 ranges it might be that the most common salary is $24,000 and the next is $55,000 and the next is $32,000.
For income, Median is the best of the three. I’m not sure that it’s very useful, though. I’m more interested in the 20th percentile than the 50th.
6 Likes
If you’re going to insist that my paycheck didn’t get smaller, that my cost of living hasn’t gone up, and that my friends aren’t out of work, then we really don’t have anything to talk about.
I know what a fact is, and I know what a politically motivated talking point is. My pay is a fact.
6 Likes
FYI, I’m totes stealing that, because Locutus of borg…
5 Likes
One thing for certain, even though he did his best, the real reason we didn’t have any real change is because the Congress been hijacked by NeoLiberals.
1 Like
I don’t believe he truly “did his best”, but nonetheless I can’t argue with the latter part of your statement. The root cause of the problem was not POTUS.
7 Likes
Yeah, I did some reading. I was wrong. Been a looong time since double maths on a monday… Though, I’d argue, if you pick someone at random & ask their salary, it’d be a good bet they’re poor which was kinda my point, honest. 
ETA: and the answer to ‘What statistic should you use?’ appears to be ‘What do you want to prove?’ Mark Twain was right.
3 Likes
I was very encouraged by this until I downloaded the median incomes from 1994 to 2014 by state from the census bureau.
If you do a population weighted average the democrat controlled states and average the republican controlled states then the democratic average is higher, but that’s not because democratic states have done really well, it’s because California has done really well. It kind of throws things, and it misrepresents the picture for everyone who isn’t in California (and probably for a lot of people in California. 3.2% increase accumulated over six years is not great). But even if I do that calculation, I get 0.3% growth in median income in democrat states and flat median income in republican states - I wouldn’t call that “astonishingly higher” (I would call it “maybe indistinguishable from randomness”).
If you average the growth percentages, democrat controlled states do the worst. If you count the number of states that have grown versus the number that have shrunk, democratic controlled states do the worst. If you look at the country overall, the economy is not in great shape, and if you look at states individually, only 20 have had median income rise since 2008 (one of those being a democrat state).
So I’m not sure what calculation you are referring to, but I don’t see how to get that result from these data.
7 Likes
Just checking in after Mrs Clinton’s defeat last night. I’m surprised to see y’all still arguing with that bot! Or maybe it’s a shill. Also surprised it’s still allowed to violate community guidelines against astroturfing by posting here.
4 Likes
Sanders has to steamroll Hillary at this point, and it’s just not going to happen. Her lead is going to stay a few hundred above Bernie and unless he steamrolls California he has no hope - even winning tens of delegates over Hillary in middle America.
My worthless prediction:
Bernie wins: Oregon, North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota
Hillary wins: West Virginia, Kentucky, California, New Jersey, New Mexico, DC
All of them will be close, but Sanders won’t be the nominee. Trump clinching the GOP means Sanders is even worse off because of the fear of “something new” versus Trump (not a good strategy, just the way people react to things). The better question is what would happen if Sanders chose an independent run. Would it mean an independent GOP candidate trying to capitalize on a split vote? Would it mean Trump for president because of split Dems?
So nothing matters but who wins the horse race?
I’m more concerned about what happens to the awareness and energy that Sanders has generated if he loses the nomination than in whether Evil B loses in the general to Evil A.
7 Likes
Not going to happen. He’s said he’s not going to, he knows what the consequences would be and I’m not sure he could even get on the ballot in every state now anyway.
The Green party will ramp up their campaign to pick up disaffected Sanders supporters, just like the Libertarians are trying to get #nevertrump ers.
Sanders is still trying to win, because he still can; but if (as seems likely), he doesn’t, he’s running to have as much influence over the Democrat platform as he can - and with 45% of the pledged delegates, he clearly represents an awful lot of Dem voters, so they would be well advised to listen to him.
I don’t see that. I think Clinton is absolutely the worst candidate against Trump. She represents everything he’s been railing against - and if she thinks that Sanders has been harsh on her…
(OTOH, Trump will have to practically sweep straight white men, because he’ll lose pretty much every other demographic)
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699
6 Likes
3 Likes
Characterizing Hillary as the same “evil” as Trump is probably mistaken. More of the same is nowhere near as bad as something like a new Reagan - both in the near and far term. And the present election is still pretty important even if you hate both candidates.
I hope that Sanders is a part of splitting the established parties, just like I hope the TEA Party does too. There is little I would want over destroying the two-party system and opening the gates for many more. I’d love for the US to have 7 parties better representing the population. It’s the only way to get past the fanaticism and stone-walling.
[quote=“daneel, post:627, topic:72574”]
I don’t see that. I think Clinton is absolutely the worst candidate against Trump. She represents everything he’s been railing against - and if she thinks that Sanders has been harsh on her…
[/quote]I’m talking perception, not reality. In reality, part of Sander’s support is drawn on the same white guys that Trump draws from.
There’s almost no one I would know that would ever answer in absolutes in front of the media, hell most wouldn’t ever answer in absolutes while in a business meeting.
1 Like
Say what now?
Mrs. Clinton is more of a Republican than Reagan ever was. E.g.,
And oddly enough, while Trump bears Hitler comparisons all too well, he’s actually to the left of Clinton on a lot of issues. Which of them, for example, do you think is more likely to continue Obama’s pro-business, anti-worker push to pass the TPP?
2 Likes
I’m speaking impact.
Er, me too. The deleterious impacts of TPP passage on most American lives would be enormous.
4 Likes
Hey, never mind just American lives, this TPP shit is huger than that.
4 Likes
Oop! Indeed, sorry, forgot to take off my Murican Blinders™.
3 Likes
