News

[Gerhardt]

I read a variety of news sources each day. Yahoo, msn, fox, abc, etc. There was a time not too long ago when it was presented in a formal fashion. i.e. free of typos and it made sense. That's no longer the case. This morning on each site I visited I found incorrect grammar, typos, and then this (from an MSN article) ...sometimes I feel like I'm reading The Onion.

Just another symptom of a declining society.
=================


The average U.S. worker today earns roughly $46,641 a year, according to data from the Social Security Administration. The median salary in the country, however, is only $30,533, which tells us that a greater number of people earn less than the average than more.

 

[asicer]

Robots. Just wait until AI starts reporting the news.

 

[Ted]

A long time family friend (who was actually there when I was born) is a retired journalist. She won an... Emmy? I forget, but prestigious. And she was a real journalist, someone who was actually trying to find out what was really happening, and report it. When we were in Bosnia, she went there and drove a Humvee through a mine field (long story).

Her kind is gone from the news. It's why I don't listen to it anymore. Now it's just about ratings, spin, and click bait. They don't deserve a second of my time.

 

[luvflyin]

I read a variety of news sources each day. Yahoo, msn, fox, abc, etc. There was a time not too long ago when it was presented in a formal fashion. i.e. free of typos and it made sense. That's no longer the case. This morning on each site I visited I found incorrect grammar, typos, and then this (from an MSN article) ...sometimes I feel like I'm reading The Onion.

Just another symptom of a declining society.
=================


The average U.S. worker today earns roughly $46,641 a year, according to data from the Social Security Administration. The median salary in the country, however, is only $30,533, which tells us that a greater number of people earn less than the average than more.

That computes. Take 10 people. They earn 10,000, 20,000, etc. in 10,000 increments up to 100,000. The average is 55,000. 5 earn more, 5 earn less. The median is 55,000. Now make it 20, 20, 20, 30, 30, 30, 40, 60, 100 and 200 thousand. The average is still 55,000. 7 earn less, 3 earn more. The Median is 30,000. That’s where half earn more and half less.

 

[Hank S]

That computes. Take 10 people. They earn 10,000, 20,000, etc. in 10,000 increments up to 100,000. The average is 55,000. 5 earn more, 5 earn less. The median is 55,000. Now make it 20, 20, 20, 30, 30, 30, 40, 60, 100 and 200 thousand. The average is still 55,000. 7 earn less, 3 earn more. The Median is 30,000. That’s where half earn more and half less.

Yep. What we have here is (surprisingly!) not a journalistic mistake but a misunderstanding of basic statistics by the OP . . . .

 

[timwinters]

I read a variety of news sources each day. Yahoo, msn, fox, abc, etc. There was a time not too long ago when it was presented in a formal fashion. i.e. free of typos and it made sense. That's no longer the case. This morning on each site I visited I found incorrect grammar, typos, and then this (from an MSN article) ...sometimes I feel like I'm reading The Onion.

Just another symptom of a declining society.
=================


The average U.S. worker today earns roughly $46,641 a year, according to data from the Social Security Administration. The median salary in the country, however, is only $30,533, which tells us that a greater number of people earn less than the average than more.

I guess I don't see the issue. The majority of 'muricans likely don't know the difference 'twixt mean and median and the person who wrote that article was just trying to explain.

 

[azure]

That computes. Take 10 people. They earn 10,000, 20,000, etc. in 10,000 increments up to 100,000. The average is 55,000. 5 earn more, 5 earn less. The median is 55,000. Now make it 20, 20, 20, 30, 30, 30, 40, 60, 100 and 200 thousand. The average is still 55,000. 7 earn less, 3 earn more. The Median is 30,000. That’s where half earn more and half less.

Good explanation!

 

[Gerhardt]

Yep. What we have here is (surprisingly!) not a journalistic mistake but a misunderstanding of basic statistics by the OP . . . .

No, the one thing I do recall from Jr. High (40 years ago, btw) was that "average" is defined as mean, median or mode. I didn't wrap my head around what the writer was getting at at first, but now I get it. The first sentence should read something akin to "the mean wage for U.S. workers ..." I also thought there might be an implication with the terms earnings and salary, but no.

Luvflyin did a great job in turning the light switch on for me.

 

[wrbix]

Yup, one must understand the concept of average (mean) vs median to realize the journalist is correct.

Heh....an idea for a new TV show: “Are You Smarter Than a Jounalist?”, the average Amuricun ain’t.

 

[Gerhardt]

Yup, one must understand the concept of average (mean) vs median to realize the journalist is correct.

Heh....an idea for a new TV show: “Are You Smarter Than a Jounalist?”, the average Amuricun ain’t.

Shoot, the average Americans (mean and mode) are WAY below the average American (median).

 

[DaleB]

Mathematically correct or not... I am deeply disappointed by the near total lack of quality reporting in print, on air or on line. Even more disturbing is the blatant slant toward one end of the political spectrum or the other that I see in nearly every single "news" source. Listen, I don't care what your political leanings are. I certainly don't expect you to care what mine are, nor will I discuss them here. When I'm looking for news, I want and expect just the facts reported, not strained through some pro- or anti- this-or-that filter. With every news story I see, hear or read, it's obvious that the facts have been "curated" with a pretty heavy hand to reinforce an editorial position. Some of it seems to arise from the fact that the average "reporter" seems to have an IQ slightly above that of a grape, but an awful lot seems intentional.

Cable "news" networks seem to be neck-and-neck tied with web sites in an all-out race to the bottom of the barrel. Newspapers seem to be lagging, to their credit, though their bias has spread like the stain from a rotting fish from the editorial pages to the rest of the paper.

 

[Half Fast]

Mean is somewhat meaningless (pun intended) without standard deviation.

Having the weather reporter tell me that today's temperature is above average, or even X degrees above average, doesn't tell me much. I don't know whether it's a 3 sigma day, or a somewhat typical day at 1 sigma.

 

[Half Fast]

Mathematically correct or not... I am deeply disappointed by the near total lack of quality reporting in print, on air or on line. Even more disturbing is the blatant slant toward one end of the political spectrum or the other that I see in nearly every single "news" source. Listen, I don't care what your political leanings are. I certainly don't expect you to care what mine are, nor will I discuss them here. When I'm looking for news, I want and expect just the facts reported, not strained through some pro- or anti- this-or-that filter. With every news story I see, hear or read, it's obvious that the facts have been "curated" with a pretty heavy hand to reinforce an editorial position. Some of it seems to arise from the fact that the average "reporter" seems to have an IQ slightly above that of a grape, but an awful lot seems intentional.

Cable "news" networks seem to be neck-and-neck tied with web sites in an all-out race to the bottom of the barrel. Newspapers seem to be lagging, to their credit, though their bias has spread like the stain from a rotting fish from the editorial pages to the rest of the paper.

Even when the sites are presenting both sides of an issue, the language itself is slanted toward one point of view or another. Just read the same story from multiple sources and you'll be amazed at how different the reports seem even while reporting the exact same set of facts.

Sigh.

If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.​

Even more true of websites and television.

 

[cgrab]

I will read a news article or watch a news show until the reporter says "could" or "might" which ends the news and goes into speculation. I am surprised at how much those words have crept to the beginning of the story.

 

[PaulS]

I really get a kick out of people who quibble over the terms median and mean on data where the accurate calculation of either is impossible in reality. It's easy to show the difference of the terms in small disparate samples, in very large samples the difference usually becomes meaningless for most discussions, except to show the superior intelligence of those objecting.

 

[Ravioli]

Let's not get into percentile vs percentage.

About 15 years ago a company exec said it was a goal to pay the consultants in the 80th percentile of the market. A bunch of otherwise bright recent grads from "a big university in a state that starts with an I in a city that starts with a C" were grousing that they wouldn't stay of the best they could hope for is a salary that is 80 percent of the market rate.

 

[wrbix]

in very large samples the difference usually becomes meaningless for most discussions, except to show the superior intelligence of those objecting.

.....most discussions?
In the discussion at hand, the difference is critical, and not meaningless,....useful in pointing out the disparity in incomes in this country....but we best not go there for fear of the dreaded thread closure.

 

[Salty]

.....most discussions?
In the discussion at hand, the difference is critical, and not meaningless,....useful in pointing out the disparity in incomes in this country....but we best not go there for fear of the dreaded thread closure.

But the numbers didn’t do that at all. You did with your choice of interpretation of the numbers.

I could argue that it points out that most everyone is making relatively the same amount except for a very few that are making a ridiculous amount.

 

[wrbix]

But the numbers didn’t do that at all. You did with your choice of interpretation of the numbers.

I could argue that it points out that most everyone is making relatively the same amount except for a very few that are making a ridiculous amount.

Numbers are numbers, mean is mean, median is median. No interpretation required....although you did correctly in your second sentence.
......and without the raw data, can’t say for sure but the spread from mean to median speaks for VERY ridiculous amounts.

 

[Half Fast]

But the numbers didn’t do that at all. You did with your choice of interpretation of the numbers.

I could argue that it points out that most everyone is making relatively the same amount except for a very few that are making a ridiculous amount.

Correct. Mean without sigma is meaningless. Mean and median alone do not describe the distribution.

But beyond that, there is an underlying assumption here that income disparity is bad. I would challenge that assumption. If the vast majority of people are able to live in comfort, with a roof overhead, food on the table, and clothes on their back, does it matter if a few outliers earn three orders of magnitude more? Does the possibility of earning those enormous incomes motivate entrepreneurs to take risks, invent technology, build businesses, create jobs,... which benefit all?

 

[PaulS]

Numbers should always be suspect. This data is a swag at best and should be looked at that way, SS misses a lot of data and people cheat on their taxes. It's a common mistake to look at numbers as you did and disregard outliers which can have significant consequences a quick analysis will miss.