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.

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?

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?

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.

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 -

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?

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

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?

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/histogr6.htm

Explains his point.

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?

In our last episode,
1193775111.573385.61...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented ta
broadcast on alt.politics:





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?

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.

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

- Show quoted text -

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

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

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.

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.

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.