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

[Triple Zero]

and one more, with a bit larger bin size ($2000):



Roger, is it Imageshack? Maybe you can see the images if I host em here:

http://000.blackironprison.com/2008-US-income-distribution.png
http://000.blackironprison.com/2008-US-income-distribution-2.png

I gotta get to the kitchen and make me and my gf some dinner now.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Looks good.  What is the numerical value of the most common wage?  The image is a little blurry.

[Triple Zero]

in the second graph, there's two bars highest, they represent $22k-$24k with 9.82 million jobs and $24k-$26k with 9.85 million jobs.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

in the second graph, there's two bars highest, they represent $22k-$24k with 9.82 million jobs and $24k-$26k with 9.85 million jobs.

That's within $3K of the numbers I have seen, and the numbers I came up with.

That basically means that the average Joe is pulling down a whopping $11.50/hour.  Compare that with the average income, and you get an idea of the sheer grotesquery of the wealth discrepancy in America.

The funniest part?  50% of the people in this bracket argue strenously FOR this discrepancy, because they believe all of Horatio Alger's lies.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Speaking of Horatio Alger, he had the BEST TITLE FOR A NOVEL.  EVER.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragged_Dick

[Triple Zero]

in the second graph, there's two bars highest, they represent $22k-$24k with 9.82 million jobs and $24k-$26k with 9.85 million jobs.

That's within $3K of the numbers I have seen, and the numbers I came up with.

well as I said on the previous page, that graph is probably a reasonable estimate of the US 2008 mode of annual income, but not entirely correct. it makes the assumption "one occupation, one person" but that's not always true. there's people with two jobs, and there's other jobs that may be counted as full-time in the data but aren't ... I dunno.

here's hourly wages:


http://000.blackironprison.com/2008-US-hourly.png

figures it's the same shape, just different scales on the axes. [I cut off a bit of the far end to zoom in on the lower numbers, we're not really interested in the distributions of the highest incomes, afterall]

[Requia ☣]

You are all awesome, thankyou.

[Iason Ouabache]

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.

I feel stupid for not realizing that. That's what I get for having never taken a statistics class. That's right, I did 3 semester of calculus plus 2 of differential equations but no stats. Don't ask me how that ended up happening.

[Jasper]

I wouldn't have taken stats either, but apparently psychology majors need it.  For like, facts, or something.

[Iason Ouabache]

I wouldn't have taken stats either, but apparently psychology majors need it.  For like, facts, or something.

I was a chemical engineering major. You'd think that someone would have noticed at some point that I hadn't taken statistics.

[Requia ☣]

Isn't mean/median/mode something like 3rd grade math?

I know it was elementary school when I learned it.  Of course, its probably not on the Test so why would they cover it anymore.

Also, I don't know about the school Iason went to, but at mine statistics was 'the easy class people who can't do math take'.  (Business, pre law, and economics majors) if you were actually expected to know it they taught it taught it alongside the regular course (Thermodynamics and the labs in physics) or a dedicated course for the major.

[Triple Zero]

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.

I feel stupid for not realizing that. That's what I get for having never taken a statistics class. That's right, I did 3 semester of calculus plus 2 of differential equations but no stats. Don't ask me how that ended up happening.

I'm glad that you understood what I mean, because that was a fucking trainwreck of an explanation from me

and Requia, I only learned about the mean and the median in school. I never came across the mode before. Maybe in college statistics class but I don't quite recall, cause if they did they glossed over it [possibly assuming people would have learned it in high school hehe].