All this skewness just creates so many problems! If we only had a normal distribution all of this stuff would make so much more sense! What exactly is the meaning of "median income" in a country with a Gini coefficient of over .87 How should we describe in words what this is telling us about the Country's wealth distribution? When the range of those below the median is from 0 to $57,000 (ok, slightly less than 0 for those 22% with actual negative net worth), and range of the median to the top from $57,000 to over $65 billion? Does this statistic add to our understanding of the wealth distribution in the Country or simply provide cover for the concentration and obscure our understanding? Shouldn't we be using mode to better describe what the reality is for most Americans (less than $5,000 based on Edward Wolff's research)? Or should we be using Gini and trying to get people to understand what it means and how it better describes what is going on? Or is it possible that clarity and understanding are not what we're really after?
If we don't change our campaign finance laws to public only financing of political campaigns with the dollars distributed by the voters, we don't have a democracy where the voters hold the power. So what is it we really have instead and how much damage do we have to endure before we recognize it, expose it, and change it? - Perplexed
↧
