DDL on 20/9/2012 at 12:13
Quote Posted by faetal
This is why you don't use the mean, since it disregards people as data points.
Yeah but then I just right click>>chart type, and select the one that turns all those people into lines anyway
...but yeah, I figured median is much more useful here (supported by the fact that that figure is WAAAAY easier to find than the mean. Though as it happens the mean appears to be pretty close to the median -both are in the 45-55k range).
Scarykitties: the problem with 'free market self-correcting' is that it's fairly..darwinian: it doesn't so much 'self-correct' as it does ruthlessly select for the optimum business strategies at any given point in time. And like evolution, this is a
valid strategy, but also one with absolutely no forward-thinking or advance planning, and a similar tendency to select for timepoint-appropriate (but ultimately retarded) ideas over timepoint-inappropriate (but long-term vastly better) ideas.
The advantage of actually regulating all this is that we can make long-term plans, and have long term goals, rather than just thinking HAY I CANZ GUT COMPANY, GET BONUS AND BUYS HUMMER? all the time. Universal health care (to take one example) is a terribly poor payoff in the short-term, but a truly magnificent long-term benefit.
faetal on 20/9/2012 at 12:18
Even looking at the median is pretty skewed by the outliers being far more removed from the bulk of the data at the top end of the scale.
What might work best is to create intervals of say $5 kpa and extract the mode.
Edit: Actually, median might be ok given how shitty the majority of wages are.
Sombras on 20/9/2012 at 14:07
...you've gotten us into, Medlar.
Medlar on 20/9/2012 at 15:00
Sorry Bud, I was just sittin' back pattin' the pud thinking "that Romney guy reminds me of someone, Oh yeah, thats it, I'll post to the crazies" Just didn't think of the consequences... :cheeky:
jay pettitt on 21/9/2012 at 01:27
Quote Posted by scarykitties
As for the 47% comment, while it is likely an oversimplification to call those people all lazy freeloaders who contribute nothing, I would have no problem believing that at least that number of people rely heavily on government-sponsored assistance of some kind. I'm of the "teach a man to fish" rather than the "give a man a fish" mentality. Help people who have fallen back on their feet, then let them walk on their own.
About that 47% - the biggest chunk of them who Mitt thinks can't be taught to take responsibility over their lives are seniors. Folk who have worked all their lives and paid their dues. And there's also a large dollop of the rural working class - who work hard now, but don't earn big city salaries. Pretty much Mitt's political base oddly enough. Feel free to teach them how to fish. And then how to suck eggs too. Oh and there's students also - those in training to become tomorrow's middle class. Does getting an education count as learning to fish?
There's a breakdown here -> (
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505) http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
Quote:
Economics is the most important matter in this election, and while Obama has far superior ethical policies, the best universal healthcare and college assistance programs won't count for squat once the country snaps under the economic pressure.
Top tip. Economics is overtly ethical. You're thinking of finance. Investing in American citizens - through education programmes or providing health cover is investing in a smart, healthy workforce. There's nothing uneconomic about it.
You can get all financy if you like and ask 'have we got enough money to do this' but the answer there is yes - money is seriously cheap right now. You might also ask rhetorically 'can we afford not to'. The answer to that is probably no.
LarryG on 21/9/2012 at 02:19
Don't forget those freeloading (
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Military-Pay-Exclusion-%E2%80%94-Combat-Zone-Service) members of the military who are in combat zones. Why should those bums get a free ride from the rest of us?
Quote:
Q-2: I am a member of the U.S. Armed Forces performing services in a combat zone. Is any part of my military pay for serving in this area excluded from gross income?
A-2: Yes, if you serve in a combat zone as an enlisted person or as a warrant officer (including commissioned warrant officers) for any part of a month, all your military pay received for military service that month is excluded from gross income. For commissioned officers, the monthly exclusion is capped at the highest enlisted pay, plus any hostile fire or imminent danger pay received.
Sheesh! Even those bums lazing around in hospitals with gorgeous nurses get a free ride for 2 years!
Quote:
Q-5: If I am injured and hospitalized while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces in a combat zone, is any of my military pay excluded from gross income?
A-5: Yes. Military pay received by enlisted personnel who are hospitalized as a result of injuries sustained while serving in a combat zone is excluded from gross income for the period of hospitalization, subject to the 2-year limitation provided below. Commissioned officers have a similar exclusion, limited to the maximum enlisted pay amount per month. (See Q&A-2 above.) These exclusions from gross income for hospitalized enlisted personnel and commissioned officers end 2 years after the date of termination of the combat zone.
No wonder Romney is upset with them!
Sombras on 24/9/2012 at 13:20
That does it. I'm going to stop paying taxes so that the government will just take care of me. That's how it works, right?
