[HN Gopher] Look at median, and not mean GDP per capita ___________________________________________________________________ Look at median, and not mean GDP per capita Author : amin Score : 49 points Date : 2022-08-07 21:26 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (medianism.org) (TXT) w3m dump (medianism.org) | [deleted] | jstx1 wrote: | It's hard to take this seriously when the author mixes up the | basic meaning of GDP. | | > For example, when economists think about how "the economy" is | doing, they have traditionally focused on total income (GDP) or | per-capita income (mean GDP) as the most important measure. | | No, they don't. GDP isn't income at all, they're completely | different metrics. | | And in fact the article never mentions "median GDP" like the | posted title suggests, it switches to "median income" because | median GDP isn't even a thing that you can calculate since it's | not a metric that exists for each individual person (therefore no | median). | | How did this get to the front page? | maerF0x0 wrote: | Why 50th percentile? Why not 49th, or 25th? | | I've actually had this running theory that all civil servants | should be paid a fixed percentile of income. This would give them | all an interest in ensuring that income/GDP goes up and that it | goes up for those below them. (in percentile) | [deleted] | divan wrote: | There is a great book explaning the philosophy, story and problem | of using averages in many fields - "The End of Average" by Todd | Rose. [1] | | I originally found it from the fascinating article on how using | averages in the design of military plane cockpit resulted in many | pilot deaths. That's the best introduction I've seen about | uselessness of averages with multiple dimensions (with more than | 3 dimensions it goes bananas). The article is actually is an | excerpt from the book, so you can get the sense of the book level | from it. [2] | | [1] http://www.toddrose.com/endofaverage | | [2] https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us- | air-... | amelius wrote: | Don't even look at GDP, look at happiness of people instead. | | Fetishizing the GDP will only accelerate the climate problem. | gruez wrote: | > Don't even look at GDP, look at happiness of people instead. | | Bread and circuses for everyone! | rightbyte wrote: | The author is just as wrong as the people he criticizes. | A much better measure of "the economy" is median income because | that is a more accurate reflection of the economic well being of | most people. | | This is a problem in many fields including engineering. | | A median or average has a measurement error (and just because one | bar is higher than another it doesn't really mean it is actually | higher). | | The distribution is what is interesting and important. | | Which gives, start publishing numbers as (x1,x2,x3,x4,x5) at | 10,30,50,70,90th percentile or whatever. And give up pretending | complex system are simple. | mihaic wrote: | Fully agree. | | Most people use life expectancy at birth to believe that | everyone died in their 30s in ancient times, even though these | numbers are skewed because of huge infant mortality. | | Introducing something like life-expectancy at birth, 5, 10, 20, | 40 years would paint a much better picture, but it takes hard | work and a belief that your audience is not stupid. | bfung wrote: | https://medianism.org/medianism/about_the_medianist/ | Who Is This Medianist? Jonathan Andreas is an | Associate Professor at Bluffton University who received his | Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Illinois at Chicago. | | Ok, cool, not some armchair tech bro that spent 5 minutes | writing up some blog. | [deleted] | dwater wrote: | This is stats 101. Mean and median are measured of central | tendency, and the median is generally better for skewed | distributions. The 5 number summary (or your 5 percentiles) | gives slightly more information, but ultimately you are | summarizing a complex distribution with a few simple stats. | There are upsides (it's fast) and downsides (it's incomplete) | to doing so. The real problem is how few people understand | stats 101, which makes them easy to mislead. | pfisherman wrote: | I mean if we want to go down that road, then why not just | publish the first four moments of the distribution? | superb-owl wrote: | You're technically correct--the distribution carries a lot more | information than the average or median alone. | | The problem is that many of these decisions are being made | democratically, or by democratically elected representatives. | They need to be able to explain the impact of their decisions | to the average voter. | | Having a single number that goes up or down makes communication | and coordination a lot easier, and I think it's worth | discussing what the best single number might be. | coldtea wrote: | Or those "elected represenatives" could help educate the | people - to e.g. understand distributions. | | But instead they educate them in BS, both in schools, and | through their government communication. It's more convenient | to emphasize BS in curriculums than proper life/political | skills... | scarmig wrote: | Choosing a single number necessarily removes information | about the distribution, though, and which information is | being discarded is inherently a political decision. The | Rawlsian veil of ignorance (at least a naive version) would | have us choose p0 as the meaningful number; a utilitarian | with certain beliefs about the marginal utility of money | would prefer the distribution mean. Even the choice to use a | normalize GDP per capita is taking a strong stance on the | repugnant conclusion. | JackFr wrote: | > They need to be able to explain the impact of their | decisions to the average voter. | | No, not the "average" voter - messaging should be aimed at | the marginal voter. | AstralStorm wrote: | It so happens that the most useful number is usually the | dominant (also known as mode or most common value), which is | not visible on the histogram, especially for flat heavy tailed | distributions such as income these days. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > the most useful number is usually the dominant (also known | as mode or most common value), which is not visible on the | histogram | | Are you kidding? It's the highest point on the histogram; a | histogram places very heavy visual emphasis on the mode while | obscuring the mean and median. | AstralStorm wrote: | Sometimes true, but it is the only value that can be | estimated without error in some cases. Neither median nor | average is useful for a central tendency in a weird | distribution - and income tends to be one. | | Histograms typically bucket data potentially hiding the | true value of mode or adding error to it. It really should | be given directly, with a count of occurences. | | Mode is not the same as modal class - which is what you | would get from a histogram. | pastacacioepepe wrote: | > Which gives, start publishing numbers as (x1,x2,x3,x4,x5) at | 10,30,50,70,90th percentile or whatever. And give up pretending | complex system are simple. | | How are then the institutions going to sell us the narrative | that all is well and growth is always good, once we realize | poor people stay poor and rich people get richer? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-07 23:00 UTC)