We need a reference that suggests average mean only applies to normal
distributions.

Right now we have _one and only one_ distribution out of the jillions
found in Nature that is unique in that the median value is meaningful
but the ave. mean value is meaningless.

In our last episode, <hNSdne5xLKn_BLranZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@comcast.com>, the
lovely and talented sinister broadcast on alt.politics:

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193771663.616889.244250@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

Income distribution.

IMHO it's much more interesting to discuss the distribution of _wealth_.

Modern economic doctrine is that wealth is used to produce income, so
largely the distribution of wealth and the distribution of income are
merely two ways of looking at the same thing. Indeed, the distributions
are very similar and so skewed that is difficult to work with them at all
except on logrithmic scales. See pareto distribution.

Right now we have _one and only one_ distribution out of the jillions
found in Nature that is unique in that the median value is meaningful but
the ave. mean value is meaningless.

Interesting. I wonder if there isn't at least one more such case. Let's
see.... race and jail terms. There's one. No?

In our last episode,
1193771663.616889.244250@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
talented Bret Cahill broadcast on alt.politics:

But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
will come to a horrific end.

And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.

Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
meaningless) statistic.

There's another distribution, however, that you cannot discuss:

Income distribution.

But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it will
come to a horrific end.
And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.
Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for
example), income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless
(yes, meaningless) statistic.

No. The ratio of the mean to the median is one indicator of how skewed
to the rich that distribution is.

(There are other statistics for testing for non-normal distribution.
I happen to have the privilege of being among the first few to
implement the Ozturk's statistic in computer code.)

But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
will come to a horrific end.

And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.

Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
meaningless) statistic.

Huh?

It's perfectly OK to discuss some types of distributions found in
nature. These include, say, the strength of a lot of carbon fibers or
the time loading on an airplane wing.

There's another distribution, however, that you cannot discuss:

Income distribution.

Nonsense. We will discuss it until the sky falls if you like.

Bret is, I think, referring to analyzing income distribution in any
way, shape or form. Mean, median, standard deviation, plots, curves
etc. The rich hate this. It makes them look, well, kinda greedy.
Like they have just a little too big a piece of the pie, for the good
of the rest of us. Gee, I wonder why.

I know some millionaires and they don't mind such data. Not one bit.

We need a reference that suggests average mean only applies to normal
distributions.

Such as in IQ tests?

Right now we have _one and only one_ distribution out of the jillions
found in Nature that is unique in that the median value is meaningful
but the ave. mean value is meaningless.

Interesting.

On Oct 30, 3:11 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:



On Oct 30, 3:35 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:

In our last episode,
1193771663.616889.244...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
talented Bret Cahill broadcast on alt.politics:

But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
will come to a horrific end.
And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.

Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
meaningless) statistic.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner
Countdown: 447 days to go.
What do you do when you're debranded?

What would "normal" income distribution look like?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a statistical term -- the "normal" distribution is a standard
curve. Income doesn't fit it very well.

But the point is, most rich
people don't want income distribution analyzed at all. It makes them
look greedy.

But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
will come to a horrific end.
And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.

Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
meaningless) statistic.

What would "normal" income distribution look like?

A normal distribution is generally described as "bell shaped." In a normal
distribution, the mean, the median, and the mode are all the same.

The distribution of incomes is an exaggerated reverse J shape, which is to
say, almost everyone makes almost nothing, and almost no one makes almost
everything.

I think that is exactly Bret's point.

A normal distribution is generally described as "bell shaped." In a normal
distribution, the mean, the median, and the mode are all the same.

The distribution of incomes is an exaggerated reverse J shape, which is to
say, almost everyone makes almost nothing, and almost no one makes almost
everything.

It's perfectly OK to discuss some types of distributions found in
nature. These include, say, the strength of a lot of carbon fibers or
the time loading on an airplane wing.

There's another distribution, however, that you cannot discuss:

Income distribution.

If you so much as even make a peep about ave. _mean_ income then
they'll start screaming that you are "just like Hitler, Stalin, Ross
Perot, David Duke and Chinghis Khan all rolled up into one!"

It's curious. If you run a reliability analysis on a structure you
are OK, even useful to society.

But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
will come to a horrific end.

And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.


Bret Cahill

On 10/30/2007 17:16:28 Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:

In our last episode, <hNSdne5xLKn_BLranZ2dnUVZ_oqhn...@comcast.com>, the
lovely and talented sinister broadcast on alt.politics:
"Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193771663.616889.244250@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Income distribution.
IMHO it's much more interesting to discuss the distribution of _wealth_.
Modern economic doctrine is that wealth is used to produce income, so
largely the distribution of wealth and the distribution of income are
merely two ways of looking at the same thing. Indeed, the distributions
are very similar and so skewed that is difficult to work with them at all
except on logrithmic scales. See pareto distribution.

No. The distribution of wealth is more skewed.

--
Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or virtue,
are found in proportion to the power or wealth of a man is
a question fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the
hearing of their masters, but highly unbecoming to
reasonable and free men in search of the truth.
-- Jean Jacques Rousseau