Don’t be embarrassed, many people who aren’t that into math confuse average and median.
You should be embarrassed about not knowing the difference. This is basic stuff that everyone should know.
Indeed. I’m still trying to figure out whether Raguleader passed 7th grade math, and if he/she did I hope he/she is not American. I’m embarrassed enough about the piss-poor state of our educational system as it is.
This is why our economy is taking a nosedive into third-world status, folks.
What, because someone asks a simple question and gets snark for it? 
So the answer to my question was “No, there is no significance to that”, right?
You know, I’ve forgotten a lot of the stuff I learned in 7th grade, mainly because I haven’t had to think about it in about 30 years. Median? I have a basic idea but couldn’t come up with an actual definition of it, so I looked it up. Did it all by myself, too!
For the record, I did pass 7th grade math, and 8th, and all the rest, calculus, trig, etc. And then I went on and got a JD. And now I are a professional. And an American.
Although, I’m not as good at snark as you are. Go, you. :rolleyes:
Yes, I’m making more. Quite a bit more, in fact. At least for now.
I was gonna say something myself - all these smart people and none of them actually answered the question. I believe the significance is what the median is, as opposed to who is above and below it.
I always get mixed up over mode, median and (arithmatic) mean or “average”.
Way I remember them is this:
-
Mean is (total of scores / number of scores).
-
Mode is (most commonly occurring score).
-
Median is (middle value score)
For example, if scores are (1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 7, 58), the “mean” is 11, the “mode” is 2, and the “median” is 3.
To show why the “median” can be more useful than the “mean” in discussing comparative salaries, imagine the above scores are incomes in the tens of thousands … a single very wealthy person skews the “mean”, making it appear as if the average person is really well off (the “average” in that group is $110,000!). The “median” is much more informative ($30,000).
Seems low until you realize that there are a great deal of two-income households out there. While each making exactly $26K is atypical, in most places in the country it’s pretty darn easy to live on $52K a year for a couple, if you don’t have kids. I know that I’ve lived on only slightly more than $26K for a couple years and I was more than able to save up several hundred dollars a month if not more, and I didn’t get the economy of scale that a two-person household would bring.
And this is precisely why those trying to convince people that things are great use mean instead of median.
Willful ignorance is something to be embarrassed about.
Asking a question about something you don’t understand to understand it better is never something to be embarrassed about.
I’ll leave the question of whether it is embarrassing to attempt shame someone who’s politely asking questions as an exercise to the reader.
It wasn’t so much that he not only didn’t know what median means (even though I still contend it really is something anyone who is educated should know), but that he still didn’t seem to grasp the (simple) concept after repeated explanations. Nevermind, carry on.
Wait, when did I not understand the concept after repeated explanations? I’m pretty sure I understood it before I asked, but I wanted to be sure I understood it correctly. Feel free to show my replies where I showed a continued non-graspyness of the concept though.
EDIT: Maybe it should be a new thread though, since I’m pretty sure my question wasn’t what the thread was supposed to be about. Pardon me for the unintended hijack.
True enough.
rachellelogram has a point that there are some people who are perfectly satisfied with a very low annual wage, and should be excluded from the figures before we decide whether we’re outraged. But just chopping out all the part-timers probably isn’t the best way to do that. Someone might be working part time just to ward off boredom or to get a little extra cash for luxuries, but then again, someone might also be working part-time because it’s better than working no-time, and it’s all they can find, and food isn’t going to put itself on the family’s table. A situation like that, it’s absolutely relevant to seeing how well the typical American is doing.
I think you should reread BigT and your explanations (the only two that he responded to before the comment I quoted had been made). Neither one is particularly helpful for someone who is having trouble understanding how to parse the OP with respect to what a median is.
Even if he were being particularly dense (I don’t think he was), that doesn’t excuse calling it shameful.
Does anyone use mean when talking about income or wealth in a legitimate argument? It should be obvious with a moment’s thought with examples like Malthus’s that nothing sensible can be made about the mean income of a group of people; one has to use median. An indeed that’s what all statistics I’ve ever seen do.
Social Security payroll taxes would be reporting earned income and would be skewed low for a few reasons (its still pretty shameful).
-
As was said, part time workers would be included. And yes, some of those workers don’t want to be part time, but then my mother in in there - working three days a week handing out pizza samples at Costco because she is bored - although they can live just fine off their social security and investments. So is the teenaged neighbor working his summer job. So is my neighbor who subs up at school off and on during the school year. So are grad students on stipends.
-
Earned income is going to put a lot of fairly well off small business owners on the “less than $26k side.” Their income is higher than that, but if they’ve talked to an accountant, they pay themselves a “reasonable” salary so as not to trigger an IRS audit, and take most of their income in dividends from the business - avoiding self employment taxes.
-
Earned income is also going to take out anyone who makes the majority of their income in investments. A few years ago Ariana Huffington paid no income taxes - she’s pretty rich, but at that time, she didn’t have any earned income - only capital gains and dividends. And her losses offset those.
Stats are useful descriptors, but you need to understand what the components of the population are. The simple median for “payroll taxes reported to the SSA” in this case really isn’t sufficient to understand the scope of the issue. By which I’m not saying that their isn’t an issue - but if you strip out those three categories of individuals and were to look at “people over 25 and younger than 60 working full time jobs and not self employed” you’d likely have a higher median.
(Yes, we have two incomes both well over the median.)
I cleared $20,000 and felt lucky.
I’m 25, work full time (often much over that to get the work done), and made (well, will make by the end of the tax year) a chunk over double the number in the OP. I live in the Central Valley of CA.
I can only think of a handful of my friends that make less than the number in the OP- most of them, it’s voluntarily (ie: choosing not to work while in school is the most common-- grad students and such). A few do make less than that. The majority of my friends are high school teachers, so they all make between $50-70k.
Of my clients, a chunk make less than $26k a year. Though, I work with folks with tax problems, so for them to even really be in my office, they had to make decent money at one time. Of the areas we work, Las Vegas definitely has the highest amount of folks making less than $26k. Anyway, selection bias and all that.