LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 389
0 members and 389 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-06-2018, 07:12 PM   #4321
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: Barcelona

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
you have adder on ignore?
That's a mean thing to say. Oops, median. That's a median thing to say.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:05 AM   #4322
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
Re: Barcelona

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
That's a mean thing to say. Oops, median. That's a median thing to say.
My very high level, beyond anyone else posting here's ability to understand, science degree came from two schools. When transferring credits I somehow convinced the final school that I already had statistics. I know fuck all.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 08:34 AM   #4323
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Barcelona

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
I'm back to needing you to demonstrate you understand math. Median Trump voter income was $72k. Median US income was $50k. And yet you said that quoted language above.
If the median Trump voter is at the national average, we can safely assume that Trump voters are not affluent. What the 50K national median tells you is that an awful lot of US citizens generally are impoverished.

That a shitload of this country earns a subsistence living does not undo the point that a typical Trump voter is likely struggling to keep up with cost of the American Dream. Those below him have no hope of achieving it. He is, OTOH, just deluding himself, and he's angry that he cannot achieve it. Instead of punching up, however, he is stupidly targeting those below him as the cause of his insecurity.

But, in fairness, he can't punch upward. Because the rich aren't the cause of his stagnancy either. It's just a conflation of economic conditions, policy decisions, and their own decisions, that are causing these Trumpkins to become redundant or obsolete.

And he can't rely on the Democratic Party to help him. That party cannot undo global economic conditions or automation. All it can offer him is more robust safety nets -- more transfers to him. And I'm not sure the Trump voter wants that. The angry Trump voter I see, and this is anecdotal, but keep in mind, I run into a fair number of them in this backwash state of mine, wants opportunity. He wants to be able to provide and feel like he's part of the economy.

So when faced with no hope of policy that will aid him, I think he decides to vote for Trump. And the calculation is simple: "This guy will either create some magic and change things in a way that will help me, or he'll just burn it all down."

I'm no anthropologist, but if people are given the option of either accepting defeat or blowing up the game, they pretty predictably pick the latter.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 10:25 AM   #4324
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Pennsylvania: where the men are ugly and all the children are below average

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
If the median Trump voter is at the national average, we can safely assume that Trump voters are not affluent.
HOW MUCH OF A TOTAL MORON ARE YOU?

You realize this has been corrected over and over again. This isn't Fox, repeating incorrect information over and over again doesn't make anyone believe it more.

Get a clue.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:16 AM   #4325
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Pennsylvania: where the men are ugly and all the children are below average

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
HOW MUCH OF A TOTAL MORON ARE YOU?

You realize this has been corrected over and over again. This isn't Fox, repeating incorrect information over and over again doesn't make anyone believe it more.

Get a clue.
The median Trump voter is 72k. The average US income is 75k. Adder’s correction was to a statement that the average Trump voter’s income was 72k. He’s right. That’s actually the median.

So if the median, or mid-point, of Trump incomes is 72k, and that is close to the US average income, although a rough estimate, it can be safely said that it is unlikely that the majority of Trump voters are affluent.

ETA: Again, 2/3 of Trump voters were under $100k: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-trump...ou-might-think How far does 100k get you these days? Is that affluent? (This stat alone refutes the argument that Trump voters trended economically comfortable or affluent.)
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 12-07-2018 at 11:27 AM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:40 AM   #4326
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,113
Re: Barcelona

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
If the median Trump voter is at the national average, we can safely assume that Trump voters are not affluent.
Translation: I do not understand math.

ETA: Apparently I'm avoiding work again, so let's play with very basic statistics.

Here's a set of data with a median income of 72:

1, 3, 4, 5, 72, 347, 774, 852, 982

Can we say that 72 is typical of incomes in this group? No. Can we say that the typical person in this group is not affluent? No. Can we say that in general, people in this group are struggling? No.

Of course, this set is not likely to reflect the real world, but it illustrates what you can and cannot say about a group based on the median.

Here's another set of data with a mean, or arithmetic average, of 72:

0, 0, 0, 144, 144, 144

Can we say that 72 is typical of incomes in this group? No. Can we say that the typical person in this group is not affluent? No. Can we say that in general, people in this group are struggling? No.

Now, we could say that assuming a normal distribution of incomes, an income of 72 is typical of the group, except that we know that incomes are not normally distributed, especially on the high end.

Here's another set of data, this time with a mode of 72:

0, 1, 3, 7, 72, 72, 72, 72, 72, 72, 747, 894, 999

This is what you're looking for if you'd like to generalize about what's typical in a set of data we know is far from normally distributed.

Anyway, again, the Trump voter median income is about 40% greater than overall median income, which tells us that the set of Trump voters is, overall, significantly more affluent than the generally population. It either contains a lot more higher incomes or a lot fewer lower incomes (someone else posted data suggesting it's the latter, btw, a fact your could have used in your favor if you weren't busy arguing in favor of your straw man and against the observation that the poorest didn't support Trump).

If you want to compare that information to the overall mean income, you're going to need the mean income of Trump voters. The fact that the median income is higher than overall median may suggest that the mean is also higher than overall, but we don't know that for sure because we don't have any information about the distribution of incomes within the sample.

Okay, that was a waste of time.

Last edited by Adder; 12-07-2018 at 12:06 PM..
Adder is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:45 AM   #4327
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,113
Re: Barcelona

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
That's a mean thing to say. Oops, median. That's a median thing to say.
You two are really putting me in a mode.
Adder is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:21 PM   #4328
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Barcelona

Quote:
It's not either/or, and he is absolutely a symptom. Symptom of what, is the question.
Neoliberalism and unrealistic expectations. Our middle class from the Depression through the 60s was an aberration. It concentrated gains in the US in a manner that delivered so well for all tiers of US society that we now expect that indefinitely. Neoliberalism has no plan for addressing the losers in a system that is across borders at exponentially speed.

Quote:
1. Definitionally, redistribution is taking money away from you and me to give to your "losers," so it actually *is* giving up something.
You net the cost of placating the underclasses against the cost of upending the status quo. If we move toward nationalism and protectionism, it hurts you and me, but theoretically helps the losers in our economy. Theoretically, they 'git thur jobs back.

Quote:
2. Expanding safety nets in a way that actually expands the safety nets for "losers" doesn't just *feel* like doing something, it is doing something.
Fundamental misunderstanding of Trump voters, I think, is that they want handouts. Some do, but just as many actually want opportunity.

Quote:
3. On regulation, that's not what I think or what I've said, but if you need to pretend it is so that you can say something stupid and think you are responding to me, knock yourself out.
If we regulated the things that are doing the "disrupting," we could do so in a manner that would not create such rapid and extreme job losses in old line industries (See: NY cabbies). We don't.

I don't think we should. I love the efficiencies. But there's a compelling argument that the govt should intervene to make the lard landings softer and slower, so the losers can acclimate.

Quote:
I think the issue here is that your "losers" are well enough off that they don't benefit from things we think of as redistribution or the safety net (e.g., SSDI), and they don't think of the things they benefit from (home mortgage deduction, defense spending, subsidizing roads over mass transit) as redistribution or a safety net. They see a government that talks about helping people who aren't well off, but isn't helping them, and they want some of that too. They feel entitled to this, so they feel aggrieved.
I agree with this completely. We've done a piss poor job of explaining all of the "stealth" transfers along the lines of those you listed.

Quote:
Instead of pretending that redistribution, the safety net and regulation don't do anything, your better argument is that what the government does in those areas doesn't do much for the concerns of your "losers." That's the issue, right?
I don't think the govt has an obligation to do more for them in terms of safety nets or redistribution. I think the govt has an obligation to find a way to provide them with greater opportunity. Perhaps, among other methods, by breaking up larger corporations to create more market competition.

Quote:
No. I wasn't advocating for anything. I was saying that your explanation of Trump & populism as a symptom of inequality doesn't work, because you see lots of places where there is worse inequality and no populism. Your model is underdetermined. I was trying to point to other things that lead to populism (and Trump).
There are a lot of things that lead to populism. Ignorance, xenophobia, etc. are rampant in populist movements. But the spark is always economic. Inequality is that spark.

Quote:
I'm mostly with you here. Although I think you are missing something important, which is that Trump voters' incomes look better when you compare them to the averages where they live, rather than the country as a whole. Coastal cities and suburbs are doing better, have higher incomes, and do not strongly support Trump. Hardcore Trump voters tend to come from exurbs and rural areas where the average income is lower.
I don't think that assumption can be made with much confidence. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the Trump voters making over $100k (1/3 of them) were concentrated in or around urban areas.

Quote:
We have an economy that is doing very well for cities with well trained workers. People in the hinterlands feel left out, and worry about their future. You are describing facets of that, but the slogan you keep using, "inequality," is not the right word for what you are trying to describe, in part because the people who feel inequality the most -- the poorest -- don't tend to be Trump fans. His supporters are people in the middle. If you want to explain populism, you need to grapple with that, instead of repeating that populism is a disease, etc.
You're making extreme inequality the enemy of relative inequality. And inequality is a very relative thing. I can't prove this, but I'd wager the dirt poor don't think much about inequality. They're just struggling to survive, and the idea of being wealthy is just a fantasy. The people in the middle who are being arbitrarily washed out of the economy are the ones feeling acute inequality. The American Dream was within reach, perhaps even in their grasp, and economic changes and policy decisions have taken it away from them. The economy no longer delivers for them. And they're mad about it, and resentful toward those for whom it does deliver.

Quote:
I suggested that populism comes when people feel that the major political parties are not speaking to their concerns, and turn somewhere else.
I agree with this.

Quote:
The working poor and the middle class are two different things, and when you use them as synonyms, you unintentionally show that you have some concept of the lower class as being poor people who don't work.
I assure you that inference is way, way off base. I hate that GOP talking point.

Quote:
Presumably they just laze around, eating Cheetos all day and being poor, and then at night they go off to commit crimes. Seriously, there's this implicit status consciousness to what you say that implies that what defines the people you care about is that they are more deserving than the faceless poor below them.
This is 180 degrees from my thinking about the working poor.

Quote:
You talk about inequality, but it's very important to the kind of people you talk about that they are more equal than the poor, who don't deserve help. They care about equality for themselves but not for others, which actually is more like a form of inequality than a reaction to it.
I think the poor should get help and do, and the middle is ignored. I don't have a favored horse in that race. My point is to explain why populism has arisen. And it has arisen from the middle. So I was telling you what was going on with the middle, and how you and I were ignoring it.

Quote:
If I ever say those things, we can talk about them here. Until then, why don't we just stick to what I *am* saying.
It's impossible to figure out what you're saying. You're just as slippery as I can be. But what I do know is, you don't think much about how relative inequality between the middle to lower class losers in the economy has led to populism. And you don't seem to like my indictment of people like us for ignoring this rising populism, which has been bubbling up for many years. You seem to prefer to duck it using Harry Frankfurt's argument that, "we should only focus on helping the absolutely destitute." Okay. I can abide that approach. But understand, this populism thing - arising from relative inequality - is not going away any time soon. It is a disease. And as long as our middle class continues to hollow, the only question is how it manifests itself: Left or Right? Trump 2020, or more Ocasio-Cortezes? Or both. In any scenario, it's not good, because Left or Right, these people are idiots.

Quote:
It's a bromide because it says nothing. If it's everyone's fault, it's no one's fault. If you really want to find fault with someone, you need to narrow it down a little.
It's not a narrow problem. You advocate for finding a group to blame because this makes it easy to take a side. This is seeking false comfort, false certainty. It's this thinking that has led to our tribalization.

Quote:
And please think a little more critically about what you are saying. The economy has been global for a *long* time, and there have always been losers as a result. I just read the Lords of Finance, about the economy in the 1920s (good book, very well written). The UK pegged the pound to gold too high, and as a result industries in the UK got crushed by foreign competitors. Ninety years ago, shipbuilders in Liverpool were losers in the global economy. Foreign capital rushed into the NYSE, and companies like GM and RCA saw massive valuation increases -- which is to say, they raised capital from international investors and used it to hire people in places like Detroit. Those GM workers were winners in the international economy. The economy is always changing, creating new winners and losers. But the populism we have seen in the last ten years is different from the decade before. I'm not saying the global economy has nothing to do with it -- quite the opposite. I'm saying that bromides like "globalization" don't explain much.
Think a little critically about how then differs from now.

Interconnectedness via the internet ain't like interconnectedness by steamship and telegraph.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:29 PM   #4329
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Pennsylvania: where the men are ugly and all the children are below average

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
The median Trump voter is 72k. The average US income is 75k. Adder’s correction was to a statement that the average Trump voter’s income was 72k. He’s right. That’s actually the median.

So if the median, or mid-point, of Trump incomes is 72k, and that is close to the US average income, although a rough estimate, it can be safely said that it is unlikely that the majority of Trump voters are affluent.

ETA: Again, 2/3 of Trump voters were under $100k: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-trump...ou-might-think How far does 100k get you these days? Is that affluent? (This stat alone refutes the argument that Trump voters trended economically comfortable or affluent.)
I remember explaining some of how this stuff works to my kinds when they were in grammar school. They got it.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:33 PM   #4330
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Barcelona

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
Translation: I do not understand math.

ETA: Apparently I'm avoiding work again, so let's play with very basic statistics.

Here's a set of data with a median income of 72:

1, 3, 4, 5, 72, 347, 774, 852, 982

Can we say that 72 is typical of incomes in this group? No. Can we say that the typical person in this group is not affluent? No. Can we say that in general, people in this group are struggling? No.

Of course, this set is not likely to reflect the real world, but it illustrates what you can and cannot say about a group based on the median.

Here's another set of data with a mean, or arithmetic average, of 72:

0, 0, 0, 144, 144, 144

Can we say that 72 is typical of incomes in this group? No. Can we say that the typical person in this group is not affluent? No. Can we say that in general, people in this group are struggling? No.

Now, we could say that assuming a normal distribution of incomes, an income of 72 is typical of the group, except that we know that incomes are not normally distributed, especially on the high end.

Here's another set of data, this time with a mode of 72:

0, 1, 3, 7, 72, 72, 72, 72, 72, 72, 747, 894, 999

This is what you're looking for if you'd like to generalize about what's typical in a set of data we know is far from normally distributed.

Anyway, again, the Trump voter median income is about 40% greater than overall median income, which tells us that the set of Trump voters is, overall, significantly more affluent than the generally population. It either contains a lot more higher incomes or a lot fewer lower incomes (someone else posted data suggesting it's the latter, btw, a fact your could have used in your favor if you weren't busy arguing in favor of your straw man and against the observation that the poorest didn't support Trump).

If you want to compare that information to the overall mean income, you're going to need the mean income of Trump voters. The fact that the median income is higher than overall median may suggest that the mean is also higher than overall, but we don't know that for sure because we don't have any information about the distribution of incomes within the sample.

Okay, that was a waste of time.
This all rests on the assumption that income is far from normally distributed. If I remove that assumption and replace it with the assumption income is distributed with a high a number of modes near the median, which is just as likely, your theory goes up in smoke.

And I merely said Trump voters were not affluent. 2/3 make less than $100k. Under $100k is not affluent.

You chose to assess them against the general public because you cannot argue that people making less than $100k are generally affluent.

Your comment, that they are more affluent than the broader public, also dovetails with what I said earlier: "That a shitload of this country earns a subsistence living does not undo the point that a typical Trump voter is likely struggling to keep up with cost of the American Dream." 2/3 of Trump voters under $100k are struggling to attain the American Dream, as $100k is not a lot of money, particularly for a family household. That a whole lot of other Americans are doing worse does not undo this fact. It just means that, below the struggling 2/3 of Trump voters are people struggling even more.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 12-07-2018 at 12:48 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:34 PM   #4331
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Barcelona

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
My very high level, beyond anyone else posting here's ability to understand, science degree came from two schools. When transferring credits I somehow convinced the final school that I already had statistics. I know fuck all.
I sense one of my periodic rages about Americans and numbers come on. Sebby is triggering me.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:37 PM   #4332
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Barcelona

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
I sense one of my periodic rages about Americans and numbers come on. Sebby is triggering me.
2/3 of Trump voters earn < $100k. This means 2/3 of Trump voters are unquestionably not affluent.

You can argue until you're blue in the face and not get around that statistic.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:51 PM   #4333
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,113
Re: Barcelona

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
This all rests on the assumption that income is far from normally distributed.
It's not an assumption, it's a fact. The top 1% are something like 20% of all income. Jesus, man.

Quote:
You chose to assess them against the general public because you cannot argue that people making less than $100k are generally affluent.
Is 2/3 more, less or about the same as Clinton voters? Is it more or less than the proportion of all incomes? I do not know, thus I am not making any claims.

Meanwhile, you're still arguing against a straw man.

Last edited by Adder; 12-07-2018 at 12:54 PM..
Adder is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:59 PM   #4334
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Sebby is ugly and below average

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
2/3 of Trump voters earn < $100k. This means 2/3 of Trump voters are unquestionably not affluent.

You can argue until you're blue in the face and not get around that statistic.
Trump voters are, by a statistically significant margin, more affluent than Americans as a whole.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:06 PM   #4335
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Barcelona

Quote:
It's not an assumption, it's a fact. The top 1% are something like 20% of all income. Jesus, man.
We don't know that stat as to Trump voters. You're assuming Trump voters mirror the general numbers.

Quote:
Is 2/3 more, less or about the same as Clinton voters? Is it more or less than the proportion of all incomes? I do not know, thus I am not making any claims.

Meanwhile, you're still arguing against a straw man.
I said Trump voters are not generally affluent. Does showing that 2/3 of them make less than $100k not make that point?
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:00 AM.