Dude, go Hindu. The economics are nearly as good, and the food is MUCH better.
I think it’s uncomfortably close to be outright anti-Semitic. The text at the top clearly indicates an agenda (one I agree with in broad terms, by the way–wealth and income inequality are huge issues in the US), but is mildly incoherent. For one, it mentions inequality of wealth along “socio-economic levels.” Huh? Looks like they were going for Rule of Three and couldn’t think of anything after “race” and “regional”. Never mind that the entire chart is about income and not wealth. They are correlated, of course, but they’re not the same.
The first couple of sentences strongly imply that wealth and income inequality are bad and have a racist component. Very negative towards those with the most wealth and income, clearly.
So why add the “but there is a distinct variance among and within America’s faiths”? Could it be to extend the negative associations to the religions with the highest incomes? Maybe.
Jews live disproportionately in big cities, which are the places with the highest incomes and wealth. They are also more educated than average, and the college-educated have higher incomes. So, correcting for regional differences and education, do Jews actually have higher incomes than Christians?
I’m going with anti-Semitic, even if the data is factual.
Did you leave a good tip?
Be careful about that statement, though. There can be bias in how data is collected. If I’m collecting the IQs of black people by sampling a prison population, or measuring women’s attitudes about sex by polling at a whorehouse… I will have collected real data, yes, but that data might not be applicable to a larger population. Data is data, but it’s easy to misapply it.
In the case of this graph, one of the issues might be how “Jewish” was defined. Is it based on religious practices, or based on parental heritage? I have known several “Jewish atheists” and they don’t see that label as a contradiction because to them Jewish is about biological heritage and not belief.
In this graph, it is also unclear whether they are measuring income by household or by individual. For example, if the husband works, making $100,000 a year, but the wife stays at home with 3 kids, is that 1 household at 100,000? 1 adult at 100,000 and 1 at $0? Or are kids counted, making it 4 at $0. Or are families averaged by individual, so that you have 2 adults at $50,000 or 5 people at $20,000? This issue is a pretty big deal, since it would skew results based less on income itself and based more on family size and marital status.
Since the data source (Pew Forum) is cited, we could probably go dig up those answers, but they’re not present in the linked graph. Therefore we can’t trust that these data mean what we think they mean.
Anyway, for purposes of the poll, I’m in the camp that this are not anti-Semitic. Until we can show a bias of some sort, I’m willing to take the numbers at face value.
The graphic is not even close to anti-Semitic. Look, if they wanted to stick it to the Jews, and make them out to be controlling money-grabbers, they would have just taken the %>$100,000 numbers and put them in a bar graph with Jews and Hindus all the way to the right with giant bars of power and black/evangelical Christians all the way to the left with tiny wealth nubbins.
This graphic, if anything, downplays the differences in data.
I dunno. Growing up we lived in Squirrel Hill, a Pittsburgh neighborhood with a large Jewish community. I never thought of lox, chopped liver, gefilte fish, etc as “Jewish food”, it was just food.
:eek: I typically leave 20%!
kayaker - I used to live on Hobart Street. 
Is there something wrong with being educated and having a good income?
What the hell is wrong with people that they think having an education and making a good living is something negative. They squawk about “the welfare state” and people who depend on government services, and then they turn around and crap on the group that is less likely to be reliant on “big government.” The graph isn’t anti-Semitic, but the attitude is.
The Categories are taken from the Pew Religious Landscapes survey. They don’t sub-divide non-Christians sects because the resulting subdivisions would be too small to get good statistics from them.
The subdivision of American Christians are pretty standard. And while I guess you can argue they’re somewhat arbitrary, they’re a pretty good stab at separating US Christianity into its most obvious subdivisions. I think you’d get a pretty similar set from pretty much anyone who sat down to try and come up with a scheme to categorize US Christianity.
Agree the graph isn’t antisemetic, the info is mildly interesting, if pretty predictable, and the graphic design is a crime against nature.
It’s a common notion about Indians (both Hindu and Muslim) in parts of East Africa. Not so much in America.
They didn’t include scientologists. Tom Cruise and John Travolta by themselves would pull the weights way upwards.
With which body parts?
Where is the OP to answer some of these questions???
I think that if you’re a member of a disliked minority group you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
If the Wisians have an income profile that skews low, that just goes to show that those damned dirty Wisians are a bunch of lazy bums who are all on welfare. If the Wisians have an income profile that skews high, that just goes to show that those fat cat Wisians control the banks and have all the money and are sticking it to all the Real Americans.
(If the Wisians have an income profile that exactly matches the average American income profile…that just goes to show that the all-encompassing Wisian Conspiracy controls the Census Bureau and the Pew Research Center and so on and the sneaky Wisians are plotting and scheming to cover up how [all the Wisians are lazy bums who are all on welfare] [those fat cat Wisians control the banks and have all the money]!)
I picked the third option, because even though it is ‘just data’, I wonder why whoever made it chose to interpret income data through the lens of religion. They don’t lay out any assumptions, or draw any conclusions. They just made a graph, as if to say “here, isn’t this interesting”. Jews as greedy and money-grubbing is a very old and widespread stereotype, so it seems very much like playing coy to me.
Now, now, there is a two click porn rule here.
I don’t think the graph is anti-Semitic at all. In fact, I can’t even conceive how it could be interpreted that certain groups are unusually educated and successful can ever be be considered derogatory against them. If you disagree, feel free to call me a well educated, high-income person all you want. I will take it with the appropriate level of offense.
Pew does the religious survey every year, and asks a wide range of demographic questions, of which income is pretty obvious one. So I don’t think they can be accused of anti-semitism.
I’ve never seen the website that actually made the infographic before, but clicking though it looks like they just grab a study every few days and churn out a new, overly busy graph out of it, currently including such darkly sinister topics as: “vacation time around the world”, and “what color should your pee be?”. So I doubt there’s any more motive there beyond, “shit, we have to find another study to make a picture out of before Friday”.
I’d just like to mention that Orthodox Christians are not Catholic. They were once part of the same church, but their separation predates even the Reformation by about 500 years.
:sigh: Oh well, that’s another argument.
As for, “what I was trying to pull,” I wanted to see what responses it got. Some posters here insist there’s virulent anti-Semitism all over the Internet, and I wondered how sensitive to apparent subtle digs at Jewish populations they were.
I agree that it’s data. Actually, my opinion is almost but not quite the same as John Mace’s above. It’s just data, it’s not trying to be anti-Semitic, and it shouldn’t be offensive to tell the truth in a non-biased way.
However, it’s a little simplistic to lump all Jews together while separating out Jehovah’s Witnesses from Evangelicals. I can see how it subtly reinforces certain ideas about Jewish people, without meaning to do so.
I get the impression that it’s really talking about ethnicity here. So, probably heritage. I don’t know if that excuses lumping in Orthodox & Reform, Litvak & Mizrahi, etc., though. 
But if you’re gonna lump together all Catholics, may as well lump together all Hebrews. Maybe it’s just a curiosity of little value.
Statistics don’t work that way. I get the impression most clams are pretty poor.