Vic, with all due respect, what you fail to grasp is the normal distribution of the randomness of life and all that surrounds life. Mathematicians understand the eerie simplicity randomness. While many of us understand the downside of making assumptions, assumptions about randomness, over a period of time, are unusually and statistically valid, unfortunately. Our society, by default is normally distributed which means that 99.7% of societal variations will be captured within 3 standard deviations from the average, or in this case the median (and average) levels of income. In this distribution, we will find that 68% of the people will fall in the middle of that range Middle Class) or the first two (+/-) deviations. The next two deviations will capture 12.5% of the income levels (Upper Middle Class and Lower Middle Class) approximately 2.3% will capture the last two deviations (Lower Class and poor and Upper Class)... However, that leaves us with .3% unaccounted for and if we divide that by two, then we have .15% on either side which accounts for the super wealthy and the super poor.
In order to have our Middle Class, we must accept the fact that mathematically, we will also have poor and rich. And, this same statistical model applies to all facets of life. I understand this and can accept this, even though I am not a PhD in Statistics or Mathematics.
I have no idea what you're talking about Alex. Do you think I wrote that sign? I posted it to break up copy. There you go off on one of your rants. Can't you see what things are and accept them. This is someone's idea and they took a photo of it. I just posted it. It doesn't need a comment unless you comment on the other public page; not here when the point is to break up the copy. Jesus!
Not only do you not know what I am talking about but there are numerous others who do not understand statistical analysis either. I was unaware that there was a Blog protocol that specifically stated that blog partners could not make comments on photos used as fillers. If there is such a protocol, I would then most humbly apologize. In the meantime, I suggest that you call you someone that you know...
3 comments:
Statistically 68% of the people "should" fall into the middle range, but don't you dare call them the "middle class" because the middle class is disappearing in this country, just as it has in most other countries of the world.
I think you will see a bell that has become deflated and whole lot more very rich and very poor at either end.
If you want statistics, try this one. 1% of the U.S. population controls 50% of the wealth. 99% controls the other 50%. Now if that isn't a fair split, I don't know what is.
Dan, I agree with your 1% statistic and normal distributions have nothing to do with being fair or not being fair - it is simply the way it is.
The 68% still remains the middle class because the bell simply widens out on both of its extremes.
That point in the middle represents the median actually. In a normal distribution, the median, the mean (average) and the mode (duplicates of the same number) are all EQUAL.
If you were to apply this bell shape to the rest of the world, the Americans would be in the middle class to upper middle class. In other words instead of being in the middle, they would be on the wealthy side of the distribution...
This distribution also only pertains to individual wealth or lack thereof, and not to households which would tend to un-widen the bell shape of the distribution, causing Americans to appear more wealthy... because we combined incomes.
Again, let me agree that your 1% is correct but also let me point out that statistical analysis has nothing to do with being fair.
If you want fair, then we must move to a Socialistic economic format which would create more equality but would lower the bar on level of incomes as we see, on average, in Europe and in other parts of the world.
Socialism and high incomes are not
synonymous with each other.
Post a Comment