News:

My opinion > Your opinion

Main Menu

ATTN Roger, I need your help to spread the horrible truth.

Started by Requia ☣, January 19, 2010, 07:44:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1 2
User actions

Requia ☣

January 19, 2010, 07:44:50 AM
Apparently when i tell people horrible things like the median income or the unemployment rate, they do not believe me.  I need sources, and it occurs to me you know this shit, but these heathens will not take the word of a Holy Man.  So where do you get your sources?
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

The Good Reverend Roger

#1
January 19, 2010, 12:14:46 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 19, 2010, 07:44:50 AM
Apparently when i tell people horrible things like the median income or the unemployment rate, they do not believe me.  I need sources, and it occurs to me you know this shit, but these heathens will not take the word of a Holy Man.  So where do you get your sources?

http://bls.gov is a good place to start...when the government itself starts jabbering shit like that, you know we're in trouble.

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States but this includes ALL forms of income, including government assistance.

Besides, mode income is what you want... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(statistics)  <---for those who have forgotten what mode is.  Good luck finding an official source for that, though...for some reason, the BLS doesn't compile that number.   You have to do it yourself with the available data.

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Triple Zero

#2
January 19, 2010, 12:35:44 PM
sounds like a typical job for Wolfram Alpha, it was designed for queries like this:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=median+wages+usa

I couldn't get it to calc the modal income though, nor am I sure whether the number it gives is the one you are looking for.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

The Good Reverend Roger

#3
January 19, 2010, 01:24:57 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 19, 2010, 12:35:44 PM
sounds like a typical job for Wolfram Alpha, it was designed for queries like this:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=median+wages+usa

I couldn't get it to calc the modal income though, nor am I sure whether the number it gives is the one you are looking for.

Nope.  That's the median wage, and it's depressing enough as it is.

The mode wage is the wage you are most likely to find yourself making, statistically speaking (ie, more people make that wage than any other wage.).  This includes everyone from the CEO of Halliburton, all the way to the part time jizz mopper.

Last I calculated it (based on the admittedly bad data from the BLS), it was a whopping $19,500.

You can see why this number is never brought up.  Neither party wants it.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Triple Zero

#4
January 19, 2010, 02:26:52 PM
yes I understand, I just wasn't sure if that number was the proper median wage either.

to calculate the mode wage, you would count the number of people in different income brackets, I suppose?
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

The Good Reverend Roger

#5
January 19, 2010, 03:44:56 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 19, 2010, 02:26:52 PM
yes I understand, I just wasn't sure if that number was the proper median wage either.

to calculate the mode wage, you would count the number of people in different income brackets, I suppose?

Yes.  The only people who do that are labor activists and the 5 remaining journalists in America, so of course nobody listens.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Triple Zero

#6
January 19, 2010, 04:57:45 PM
I decided to do some number crunching, but first I gotta make sure I got the right data.

Wolfram Alpha says the median annual income is $31410 (2007 estimate) but www.bls.gov says $42270 (2008 estimate). Now either it could be the different years, or someone gives the wrong data, however I tend to go with me looking at the wrong figures. Got an idea?

And yes, I'm looking for the mode, I'll get to that, but I was just comparing the numbers to see if I'm even looking at the right stats.

Also all these totals don't really add up and are screwy.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

The Good Reverend Roger

#7
January 19, 2010, 04:59:58 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 19, 2010, 04:57:45 PM
I decided to do some number crunching, but first I gotta make sure I got the right data.

Wolfram Alpha says the median annual income is $31410 (2007 estimate) but www.bls.gov says $42270 (2008 estimate). Now either it could be the different years, or someone gives the wrong data, however I tend to go with me looking at the wrong figures. Got an idea?

And yes, I'm looking for the mode, I'll get to that, but I was just comparing the numbers to see if I'm even looking at the right stats.

Also all these totals don't really add up and are screwy.

The BLS is in the business of telling people that everything is fine under the current administration (at any given time).  They are useless propaganda-peddlers that would be put to sleep in a civilized society.  Go with Wolfram Alpha.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Triple Zero

#8
January 19, 2010, 05:18:26 PM
never mind I was looking at the wrong column, that was the mean. the median would be roughly $32385.60 (by multiplying the median hourly wage with 2080 hours per full-time year).

anyway I need the BLS cause you need a lot of numbers to estimate the mode. Wolfram Alpha doesn't give me enough numbers.

I just did a few checksums and the totals seem to come out pretty sane-ish, 134.5M, 136.2M or 135.2M total employed people in the USA, depending respectively on whether I <sum by occupation-group by state>, <sum by state, all occupations> or the total number BLS gives on that link. funny how the official BLS number is almost exactly in the middle of those two sums :)

anyway, then I got a list of occupation groups per state, that's about 36k entries (!!!). if I'd make a histogram out of the amount of people in each state-occupation-group versus their mean (yes mean) annual income, the mode should roll right out.

at the very least it should give a pretty graph.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

The Good Reverend Roger

#9
January 19, 2010, 05:19:58 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 19, 2010, 05:18:26 PM
never mind I was looking at the wrong column, that was the mean. the median would be roughly $32385.60 (by multiplying the median hourly wage with 2080 hours per full-time year).

anyway I need the BLS cause you need a lot of numbers to estimate the mode. Wolfram Alpha doesn't give me enough numbers.

I just did a few checksums and the totals seem to come out pretty sane-ish, 134.5M, 136.2M or 135.2M total employed people in the USA, depending respectively on whether I <sum by occupation-group by state>, <sum by state, all occupations> or the total number BLS gives on that link. funny how the official BLS number is almost exactly in the middle of those two sums :)

anyway, then I got a list of occupation groups per state, that's about 36k entries (!!!). if I'd make a histogram out of the amount of people in each state-occupation-group versus their mean (yes mean) annual income, the mode should roll right out.

at the very least it should give a pretty graph.

I would be VERY interested in seeing your results.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Triple Zero

#10
January 19, 2010, 05:50:10 PM
i'm working on it, I gotta adjust the scale of the graph cause it's one of those exponential distributions (just like Taleb said it would).

wtf there's 26,000 Retail Salespersons in California that earn a mean annual income of $489,140!! what's a Retail Salesperson? Didn't RWHN used to be one?

that's the maximum mean annual income occupation group per state. wonder who they are.

well I got something like a graph but it doesn't look right. there's a bunch of state-occupation-group that got an income of $0, that can't be right, otherwise they'd be unemployed.
and I gotta check on the other really really low numbers. maybe that's second jobs. you can't get that from this data, it only lists the numbers per job, not per person. ah well it's informational still.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Iason Ouabache

#11
January 19, 2010, 06:17:21 PM
Would mode income include just people who are currently working or would it be for everyone in the United States including unemployed, minors, and retired people?
You cannot fathom the immensity of the fuck i do not give.
    \
┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘

The Good Reverend Roger

#12
January 19, 2010, 06:19:20 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 19, 2010, 06:17:21 PM
Would mode income include just people who are currently working or would it be for everyone in the United States including unemployed, minors, and retired people?

Everyone eligible to work should be included, if you want the answers to mean anything.  Minors, full-time students, and possibly illegals should not be counted.  Retired people should be counted at their yearly income (if any), and unemployed people should be counted at zero.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Triple Zero

#13
January 19, 2010, 06:38:25 PM Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 06:40:21 PM by Triple Zero
well fuck me, I gotta graph:



if I understood it right, the highest peak should be the mode, yes? that one's the $25,000-$26,000 bin. every bin (graph step block thingy) is $1000 apart. so those other two peaks to the left of it are $22k-$24k.

I might get a more clear view if I'd make the bins bigger?

also, to comment on Iason's question, as long as the mode does not include unemployed, minors or retired people, meaning that in this case, there are no minors or unemployed that make $25k a year, you can drop those off the histogram and get the same mode. because the peak of the histogram is still at the same point. same reason why you can ignore all the people that make more than $100k, unless the most likely amount to make in a year is more than $100k, it's not gonna affect the mode. in that sense, it's even more robust against outliers than the median.

Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

The Good Reverend Roger

#14
January 19, 2010, 06:42:54 PM
Cannot see graph at work.  I will look at it when I get home.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2
User actions