- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What do you consider "middle class"?
Posted on 5/4/09 at 8:02 pm to MileHigh
Posted on 5/4/09 at 8:02 pm to MileHigh
So how does that refute my point that the disproportionate majority (bell curve) of household incomes is between 50K and 75K? That was the point that put your panties in a wad and you still haven't disproved it. Perhaps it is because you know you're wrong.
1
Posted on 5/4/09 at 8:06 pm to MileHigh
quote:Yes, due to that bounding at zero, income is most likely a lognormal distribution (special case of right-skewed). Run the same statistical math as on a normal distribution, but take the log of the values first. Lognormal distributions are also common in nature due to the lower bound of zero.
Its pretty hard to have normal distributions with one side of the distribution is bound. Also the commoness of normal distributions occurring in nature/society has been debunked.
Posted on 5/5/09 at 10:56 am to Zach
This is what you said first
This is what you are saying now
The first you said its really a bell curve, then you said a majority is a bell curve. you are either ignorant of statistics or changing your point. You can't have a "majority" bell curve. Its either a bell curve, or its not. This is not a bell curve, or normal distribution.
In addition, per the US census bureau, only ~17% of the household incomes are between 50 and 75k.
quote:
It's really a bell curve. The majority of households are in a small distribution...somewhere like 50K-70K
This is what you are saying now
quote:
So how does that refute my point that the disproportionate majority (bell curve) of household incomes is between 50K and 75K?
The first you said its really a bell curve, then you said a majority is a bell curve. you are either ignorant of statistics or changing your point. You can't have a "majority" bell curve. Its either a bell curve, or its not. This is not a bell curve, or normal distribution.
In addition, per the US census bureau, only ~17% of the household incomes are between 50 and 75k.
Posted on 5/5/09 at 3:34 pm to MileHigh
Bell Curve vs. normal distribution:
Let's say the range of income is zero to 100 per year.
In normal distribution the first quartile is 0-25, the next to 50, the third to 75 and the fourth to 100.
Thus, the first and fourth are equal to the second and third. That's NOT how real income is distributed. The bulge is in the middle..in a 100 base example the bulge is between 45 and 55 although that distribution represents 10 points instead of 25.
Let's say the range of income is zero to 100 per year.
In normal distribution the first quartile is 0-25, the next to 50, the third to 75 and the fourth to 100.
Thus, the first and fourth are equal to the second and third. That's NOT how real income is distributed. The bulge is in the middle..in a 100 base example the bulge is between 45 and 55 although that distribution represents 10 points instead of 25.
Posted on 5/5/09 at 3:42 pm to Zach
Definition: Normal Distribution
then,
Definition: Bell Curve
I'll save you a click:
then,
Definition: Bell Curve
I'll save you a click:
quote:
n.
The symmetrical curve of a normal distribution. Also called normal curve.
Posted on 5/5/09 at 4:07 pm to Zach
Posted on 5/5/09 at 4:46 pm to kfizzle85
How does your post contribute to the debate between me and MH? We know the definitions.
Posted on 5/5/09 at 4:50 pm to Zach
Well you had me fooled.
Posted on 5/5/09 at 4:58 pm to kfizzle85
Sorry. Here's a nice pic of puppy. 
Posted on 5/5/09 at 5:30 pm to Zach
bell curve = normal distribution. At least in statistics.
No, this isn't a normal distribution. A normal distribution is about showing how values are centered around the mean. The resulting graph is a "bell curve."
Most definitely. It would be absurd for that to occur.
First off, pretty much every distribution has a bulge somewhere in it.
In addition, this is not what is happening with US income. The 50-75k range only represent ~18% of the population. The 0-25k range represents ~28%, and the 25-50k range represents ~26%. So it appears that even using your non-standard definition of bell curve, i.e. a bulge in the distribution, 50-75k fails as the area of the bulge. In fact, based on those statistics, the "bulge" would be in the 0-25k range. But even then that bulge is not significantly different than the 25-50k range.
Census Bureau Data
Feel free to refute my statement with some sort of analysis.
quote:
In normal distribution the first quartile is 0-25, the next to 50, the third to 75 and the fourth to 100.
No, this isn't a normal distribution. A normal distribution is about showing how values are centered around the mean. The resulting graph is a "bell curve."
quote:
That's NOT how real income is distributed
Most definitely. It would be absurd for that to occur.
quote:
example the bulge is between 45 and 55 although that distribution represents 10 points instead of 25.
First off, pretty much every distribution has a bulge somewhere in it.
In addition, this is not what is happening with US income. The 50-75k range only represent ~18% of the population. The 0-25k range represents ~28%, and the 25-50k range represents ~26%. So it appears that even using your non-standard definition of bell curve, i.e. a bulge in the distribution, 50-75k fails as the area of the bulge. In fact, based on those statistics, the "bulge" would be in the 0-25k range. But even then that bulge is not significantly different than the 25-50k range.
Census Bureau Data
Feel free to refute my statement with some sort of analysis.
Posted on 5/5/09 at 5:43 pm to MileHigh
quote:
No, this isn't a normal distribution. A normal distribution is about showing how values are centered around the mean. The resulting graph is a "bell curve."
Then you and I have a different definition of the term "normal."
quote:
First off, pretty much every distribution has a bulge somewhere in it.
I agree, particularly when it come to my pants.
quote:
In addition, this is not what is happening with US income. The 50-75k range only represent ~18% of the population. The 0-25k range represents ~28%, and the 25-50k range represents ~26%. So it appears that even using your non-standard definition of bell curve, i.e. a bulge in the distribution, 50-75k fails as the area of the bulge. In fact, based on those statistics, the "bulge" would be in the 0-25k range. But even then that bulge is not significantly different than the 25-50k range.
There is no such thing as 0-25 in the US due to welfare and in-kind benefits. Forty years ago I debated the issue of "negative income tax?" Ever heard of that? We're living it now.
Posted on 5/5/09 at 5:47 pm to Zach
quote:
Then you and I have a different definition of the term "normal."
Well a normal distribution=bell curve in statistics. Maybe not in zach land, but everywhere else it is.
quote:
There is no such thing as 0-25 in the US due to welfare and in-kind benefits. Forty years ago I debated the issue of "negative income tax?" Ever heard of that? We're living it now.
yes, its said that the majority of the people in this country don't support themselves.
However, that doesn't change the fact that US income does not follow a bell curve.
Posted on 5/5/09 at 5:58 pm to MileHigh
Going to bed early tonight, MH. The wife is upset that it rained and she could not lay out with her books. Snake dog is sleeping and all is right with the world in Zach land. See you in the morning.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News