Statistics

"Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." -- Mark Twain

   How to play political games with numbers:
    The average weekly wage in America, according to government data, is about $900.
   "Hah! For who?" said the neighborhood barista.

   That statistically valid figure of $900 means a yearly income of nearly $47,000, about double the average starting salary for teachers. It also means that, by definition, beginning teachers are living in poverty, since poverty is defined as less than half the median income.
   Moreover, with the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, that brings yearly income to some $13,600, even lower than the defined poverty level.
   But many folks earning the average income, or even half the median income, don't feel like they're living in poverty. (There's an important difference between average and median. The median is the thing in the middle. The average is calculated by totaling everyone's income, then dividing by the number of people. And depending on what you want to "prove," you can use either.)
   The average can be easily skewed when a few ultra-high incomes are figured into the total. Fictional example: Bill Gates walks into a neighborhood bar, and statistically everyone in the room is a millionaire. He has a drink and leaves, and suddenly everyone else is back to low- or middle-income status.


   Some political types can argue that the $900 figure is "proof" that there is no need for government assistance programs, since statistically everyone is making enough money to live well. But take out the 1 percent of ultra-high earners, and you then have a lot of folks who live at or below the poverty level.
   One solution would be higher wages. But the counter argument is that higher wages would eat into profits, since companies would have to charge higher prices to absorb the expense of higher wages. That would satisfy management, guaranteeing the same level of profit. But when prices go up, the ratio of wage to price returns to its previous level, leaving workers in the same bind as before, even as owners have more money from higher profits.
   Is a puzzlement, said the king.

   Meanwhile, here's a news item: A mere 88,000 jobs were added to the nation's payrolls in March, compared to 268,000 in February, according to a U.S. Labor Department report. Separately, the unemployment rate eased a tenth of a percent, to 7.6 percent.
   The implication is that a lot of folks have stopped looking for work.

   At root is an important political-economic issue. Which is more important, a government budget balance or employment? A job is a job, whether the worker is paid through the private sector or by government.
   Or, as was said during the Great Depression, "Buy now," said the politician. "With what?" replied the worker.