Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Courtesy of the Detroit Free Press, courtesy of Washington Monthly, a map showing how median incomes have changed in the last six years:

I am on my treo and can't read this chart, so I don't know where WA falls, but mine has quadrupled so I am doing my part for the nation's economic stats........i am thankful to W for creating the economic conditions (out of the mess Clinton left behind) to facilitate this prosperity.....

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Thing is, it's not like the lefties here are even of a high quality of minour leaguer.....certainly not AAA....maybe A on their best days, but in fact for most of them their best days are behind them......

Honestly Hank, I wonder if we wouldn't be better off going and knocking heads at the DU...they may be fools but theys got game and street cred to boot...worde is Howard Dean posts there....

More bad news for Bush

there has been an increase of infinity in the percentage of Wild animal TV personalities killed in the last 6 years.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am on my treo and can't read this chart, so I don't know where WA falls, but mine has quadrupled so I am doing my part for the nation's economic stats........i am thankful to W for creating the economic conditions (out of the mess Clinton left behind) to facilitate this prosperity.....

2. And my friend Fringey has several limitations on what we can recommend she order for lunch or dinner BUT she has never mentioned any economic limitation- everyone i know is flush. who are these people dragging the numbers down?

How about some levity for the poor people?

Taxwonk and his dog are walking down the street, and his dog shits. Taxwonk cleans it up in a baggie. Right then an alien spaceship lands and a purple guy gets out-

he says "I can't believe you put up with the smell. is it worth it?"

Dog says "Barely. but he does shower every 3rd day. you just arrived at the end of a cycle."

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
More bad news for Bush

there has been an increase of infinity in the percentage of Wild animal TV personalities killed in the last 6 years.

2, but how did that post accomplish your new sig lines intent?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
2, but how did that post accomplish your new sig lines intent?

there's a Taxwonk insult in there. read again. many of them won't be superficial. the less obvious- often the more hurtful

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
there's a Taxwonk insult in there. read again. many of them won't be superficial. the less obvious- often the more hurtful

Well played, playa.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Courtesy of the Detroit Free Press, courtesy of Washington Monthly, a map showing how median incomes have changed in the last six years:

Ty you have a knack for posting deceptive and therefore useless statistics. This map might be relevant if it detailed the change in "average" incomes. However, since Bush was elected the economy has either been stagnant or growing (as far as I know it has never contracted - if it had that would have been huge news) therefore the average incomes across the country has increased. And yes, for all you liberals, that would hold even if other B.S. "progressive" propaganda is true. In other words, even if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer (which is not true), average incomes would still be higher if we have had positive growth. And since Bush has been in office the economy has grown.

The problem with the term "median" is it is open to interpretation, and therefore abuse by people producing "statistics". Average incomes have gone up, but according to this chart, median incomes have come down. In some basic statistical samplings the terms median and average can be used interchangeably. Therefore, although they are trying to make this seem like a simple calculation, it is clearly not because average and median incomes are different here. So what the hell do they mean by "median" incomes? Some pseudo-statisticians claim the median is the "center" of the bell curve. Since the center of the bell curve can mean different things to different people that just means they have chosen a spot on the curve to produce these stats.

Unless they explain what their definition of median is and how they came up with it, this chart is useless because no one really knows what it is saying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ty you have a knack for posting desceptive and therefore useless statistics. This map might be relevent if it detailed the change in "average" incomes. However, since Bush was elected the economy has either been stagnent or growing (as far as I know it has never contracted - if it had that would have been huge news) therefore the average incomes across the country has increased. And yes, for all you liberals, that would hold even if other B.S. "progressive" propagandada is true. In other words, even if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer (which is not true), average incomes would still be higher if we have had positive growth. And since Bush has been in office the economy has grown.

The problem with the term "median" is it is open to interpretation, and therefore abuse by people producing "statistics". Average incomes have gone up, but according to this chart, median incomes have come down. In some basic statistical samplings the terms median and average can be used interchangeably. Therefore, although they are trying to make this seem like a simple calcuation, it is clearly not because average and median incomes are different here. So what the hell do they mean by "median" incomes? Some psuedo-statisticians claim the median is the "center" of the bell curve. Since the center of the bell curve can mean different things to different people, that just means they have chosen a spot on the curve to produce these stats.

Unless they explain what their definition of median is and how they came up with it, this chart is uselss because no one really knows what it is saying.

As far as I know, the term "median" could not be more clear here. See the second definition here, which corresponds with what I learn in grade school. How do you think it's confusing?

There's no inconsistency at all between the observation that mean incomes are rising but median incomes are falling. You have to make an argument as to why people should disregard the latter in favor of the former.

eta: I think the data in this chart is stunning. I knew generally that the most affluent were capturing the benefits of economic growth, but not to this degree.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Well played, playa.

Exactly. like the insult in that post. or the insult in this post.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

eta: I think the data in this chart is stunning. I knew generally that the most affluent were capturing the benefits of economic growth, but not to this degree.

I assume by the last 6 years you are trying to make a point- but don't you need to also show what happened over the 20 years prior for it to make the point you would like?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I assume by the last 6 years you are trying to make a point- but don't you need to also show what happened over the 20 years prior for it to make the point you would like?

I didn't go looking for a map showing the last six years as opposed to the last twenty. I stumbled across this as I surfed, and I thought it was interested. If you looked at comparable data for the last twenty years, I am pretty sure that it would show median income falling relative to mean income (i.e., either falling in absolute terms or growing more slowly), because my understanding is that inequality has been growing since the 1970s. The impression I have is that this has gotten worse in the last six years.

If you'd like to find some data instead of just carping about what I've posted, that would be fine, too.

eta: The map is also interesting for what it shows about different parts of the country. I'm surprised about those big blue states in the upper Mountain West -- not what I would have expected there.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
To my fellow Republicans:

....

ahem.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I of course was the cash register ringer from 2 big ole cases last year- plus, as I'm sure is obvious, my legal skills are profound AND recognized, so my income has soared.

Problem though is that with the gradual decline around me, the wine stores are stocking fewer wines in the 30-50$ per bottle range. To get much variety I have to drop below $20, and I haven't gone below $20 per pop since Wonk's sister found religion.

This is the work of a big-league player? Suck it, bush-league.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
This is the work of a big-league player? Suck it, bush-league.

As a moderator and inventor of the predecessor in interest to this board, I thought that was one of Hank's best posts yesterday.

short f/u posts of the sort you responded with are career enders for guys in A ball. No offence.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ty you have a knack for posting deceptive and therefore useless statistics. This map might be relevant if it detailed the change in "average" incomes. However, since Bush was elected the economy has either been stagnant or growing (as far as I know it has never contracted - if it had that would have been huge news) therefore the average incomes across the country has increased. And yes, for all you liberals, that would hold even if other B.S. "progressive" propaganda is true. In other words, even if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer (which is not true), average incomes would still be higher if we have had positive growth. And since Bush has been in office the economy has grown.

The problem with the term "median" is it is open to interpretation, and therefore abuse by people producing "statistics". Average incomes have gone up, but according to this chart, median incomes have come down. In some basic statistical samplings the terms median and average can be used interchangeably. Therefore, although they are trying to make this seem like a simple calculation, it is clearly not because average and median incomes are different here. So what the hell do they mean by "median" incomes? Some pseudo-statisticians claim the median is the "center" of the bell curve. Since the center of the bell curve can mean different things to different people that just means they have chosen a spot on the curve to produce these stats.

Unless they explain what their definition of median is and how they came up with it, this chart is useless because no one really knows what it is saying.

2. Typically deceptive and useless. Not to mention any economic data for the last six years is skewed by the data from the previous 8 which is problematic given the illusory nature of the expansion that Clinton presided over, including the tech bubble his friends in Sillyvalley swindled us with and the corporate crimes and book cooking that occured on his watch.