Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Aug 04 17:41:00 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / No more median and mean
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 03 09:56:37
Seb and Sam adams are hereby sanctioned from ever talk about this again! Do not, I repeat, do not take this thread and the remaining 99 posts as an invitation to continue.
Pillz
Member
Fri Jul 03 09:59:29
UK is still as poor as Alabama
Paramount
Member
Fri Jul 03 10:57:05
They have all of Venezuela’s gold.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 03 11:57:00
Either this ends now, or I will join nimi in global jihad to force seb and sammy into the same retirement home in Alabama to finally settle this issue in 40 years time.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 03 12:03:52
Pillz:

Only, of course, in no way is it.

Nim:

I'm happy to let it go, he's the one that keeps bringing it up like some sort of retard.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 03 12:03:57
Pillz
UKs economy is 15 times that of Alabama. The UK has 12 times Alabama's population.

How exactly is the UK as poor as Alabama?
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 03 12:04:42
Seb
I knew the threat of forced retirement with Sammy in Alabama would work!
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 03 12:06:28
Oh, I meant if he lets it go. If he brings it up, I will of course explain it again.

Until he gets bored.

I mean, we could also create a sticky post that goes through the whole fucking timeline and logic and just link to that. Or agree that any post mentioning Alabaman income is deleted.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 03 12:24:28
This is one of the most retarded things that sam has obsessed over. I think we all should discuss it now. Is this because of that one time drunken seb did a calculation proving sam wrong with math? I think it was something about global warming.
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 03 12:30:38
Lol!

Im definitely going to remind seb in the future how he confused mean and median for months (i would have let it go if seb had manned up and admitted the mistake like a normal human).

But i can reduce the frequency of such reminders :)
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 03 12:31:45
http://www...&thread=81457&showdeleted=true
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 03 12:34:39
Lol the thread where seb forgets that energy must be conserved and cant figure out how to apply the ideal gas law to an atmosphere.

Thanks nimatzo!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 03 12:35:27
Seb
Member Thu Nov 16 16:25:33
I'm shatterd and drunk right now but I'll think you'll find that's a mathematical impossibility.

Violation of the fundamental laws of physics.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 03 12:48:07
This is back when you fuckers were trying to use a static analysis on dynamic systems?

That would be an F grade in process engineering, but you guys are more fuzzy scientists, so I guess its alright then. Erasmus Montanus would approve :D.

"Jeppe on the hill" is actually what the Alabama discussion mostly reminded me of :).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 03 13:12:40
Oh wow, this just turned into a three way battle.

*grabs pop corn*
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 03 13:16:38
Oh jergul...

Shakes head saddly
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 03 13:21:20
Sammy
Your problem is that since you have a hammer, everything is a nail.

Static models are not are good way of explaining dynamic systems.

jergul
large member
Fri Jul 03 13:22:57
I get it. Dynamic modeling is hard. But it still leaves static models with huge explanatory gaps.
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 03 14:22:57
Static, dynamic, statistical, theoretical... i have done it all. Global warming is a negligible threat to human civilization.
Y2A
Member
Fri Jul 03 14:29:50
so debating about modes are still allowed?
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 03 15:04:53
Kindof funny. 7/10
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 03 16:08:50
Sammy
That may very well be true. We only know what you did here.

The context was never that global warming was going to end human civilisation.

We will do that quite on our own.
Nekran
Member
Fri Jul 03 16:19:38
"Static, dynamic, statistical, theoretical... i have done it all."

You did it all in your science building, I'm sure :')
Habebe
Member
Fri Jul 03 20:22:33
I cant believe this argumemt is still going on.

It will go down in UP history. May I suggest the 100 years argument?
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 04 05:16:07
Ah yes, the strange sequence where Sam basically repeated the "but it violates the second law is thermodynamics" argument anti-evolutionist people make (namely that entropy changes to the radiation field of re-radiated energy account for changes in work done on the earth: in the evolutionary context increases in complexity in the biosphere; in this context increases strength and frequency of hurricanes).

Incidentally, given Sam's argument that this was physically impossible for hurricane strengths to increase because temperature gradients can't change due to atmospheric expansion countering any increase in temperatures, I do wonder how he explains this:

https://www.livescience.com/climate-change-hurricanes-stronger.html
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 04 05:18:37
I mean, he did eventually accept that the gradient can increase "slightly" because of "nonlinear effects" (i.e. his simplistic linearisation from undergrad planetary physics for morons, sorry, meteorologists, isn't accurate)
Habebe
Member
Sat Jul 04 06:10:43
Ok so, we're down to the UK has lower disposable income than many US states such as Alabama. However add in healthcare and such and the fact that Alabama probably has way more super poor and yeah, is that where we are at?
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 04 07:12:32
Habebe:

Depends, you never posted the source of your figures.

E.g. the way UK and US count disposable income may vary (e.g. treatment of housing costs, benefits, tax) plus there is whether it's household or individual. Disposable income is only calculated at a household level iirc.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jul 04 07:24:39
Seb, I jist googled uk income and Alabama income and looked at the first cites. The UK numbers were were from a government site.... I think AL was a wiki.

Tbh, I'm not invested in this, I would say mw personally if I had to.choose, I'd rather live in the UK than Alabama.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 04 10:18:49
I'm not that invested in the answer so long as the methodology is sound and facts correct :-).

Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jul 04 13:58:38
"I do wonder how he explains this:

https://www.livescience.com/climate-change-hurricanes-stronger.html "

'we chose a start date in the middle of a lull in hurricanes in recent times in order to make the trend look worse'

http://cdn...he-number-of-hurricanes-en.jpg
Rugian
Member
Sat Jul 04 13:59:33
I missed the onset of the median/mean debate, so every time it comes up I'm totally lost. Who was arguing median and who was arguing mean?
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jul 04 14:02:34
Why was the entire hurricane record neglected, in favor a much shorter subset that just so happens to start during a lull. Convenient huh?

But seb will probably have difficulty understanding this. Given that it took him 5 months to figure out that a mean figure is different from a median figure, the concept of statistically cherry-picking will likely be beyond him.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jul 04 14:04:09
"Who was arguing median and who was arguing mean? "

Sam said you can compare either a median to a median or a mean to a mean. Seb cried that this made the UK look bad, and then tried to counter it by comparing a mean to a median. He finally understood that this was invalid, but only after about 5 months.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 04 15:06:37
Incorrect.

Sam said UK "per capita" salary was £21k, and smaller than Alabama at $26k.

Seb said UK per capita salary was some other figure (I forget which).

Sam then said "per capita means median, aha, you compared a man with a median".

Seb pointed out that UK median salary and median income were both higher than £21k

There then ensued a tedious few months where Sam insisted that because some US stats refer to "median per capita" that it ought to have been obvious that when he said "per capita" that was a median.

He refused to provide any source for his figures, and ignored the fact that £21k doesn't seem to correspond to any particular UK income stat. But occasionally asserted it was "inline" with the real figure (it was not).

He finally admitted UK median income was £24.4k, which corresponds to about $31.5k USD in the year the stats refer to. And insists this is "10% higher" than 26k, when actually it's 20%.

Man is certifiable idiot.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 04 15:07:33
He continues to argue that people in the UK are generally poorer than Alabama, despite his figures showing the contrary.
sam adams
Member
Sat Jul 04 18:35:29
Oh look at seb trying to do math. Thats cute. Pats head. Youll get it some day.

Since you are so confused by mean, median, various years, tax rates, exchange rates, and basic math in general... we will from now on only use sources that place the UK and Alabama on the same list together. This should be simpler for you.

The UK is about 15% poorer than alabama:

http://en....y_GDP_per_capita#Nominal,_2017
Pillz
Member
Sat Jul 04 19:03:46
Somebody give Seb a sword to fall on
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jul 05 00:14:03
TIL the UK's GDP per capita is lower than Arkansas and West Virginia

rofl
Habebe
Member
Sun Jul 05 00:17:55
Im still unsure at what the agreednupon metric is for comparison.

Is it where a how schmo would be better off or which state has more wealth and by wealth do you mean aquired wealth or income, is it purely financial, if so does HC get a value placed on it? Land/house?

Poorer is very vague
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 05 04:30:37
Sam:

Why did you shift from median personal income to GDP per capita?

If GDP per capita in Alabama is higher, and median income is lower, that just means more activity is being booked in Alabama - my guess, extractive industries in rural areas which often produce these kind of anomalies, cf. bits of Siberia - that don't actually accrue meaningfully to the local economy in practice.

I.e. Alabama has a reputation as a piss poor state in part because the wealth produced within Alabama doesn't stay in Alabama or benefit Alabamans.

So what we are seeing is an elaborate bait and switch, comparing two economies that are structurally very different, with the UK evidently much better at spreading wealth.

You yourself picked personal income initially as a better measure of individuals wealth. In the first place, and having engaged in a litany of idiocies are how trying to cover your tracks.

Let's say this then:
Alabama produces more per capita than the UK. It's population are generally a fifth poorer.

Hallmark of a third world country: dirt poor workers, and a few corporate winners who live elsewhere.



Seb
Member
Sun Jul 05 04:31:31
Habebe:

Sam originally used median personal income


He's now but hurt because he realised he got his numbers wrong, and is using GDP per capita.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 05 04:32:19
Also as you say,GDP ignores accumulated wealth.
sam adams
Member
Sun Jul 05 13:14:13
"Why did you shift from median personal income to GDP per capita?"

Because math confuses you, i will from now on only use sources where the UK and AL are listed together.

This should help you and confuse you less.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 05 13:27:58
I assure you I'm crystal clear on the maths. You are the one that described a median using language reserved for mean and quoted a completely incorrect numerical value.

What you appear to be saying is that you are restricting yourself to lists of data that you are less likely to incorrectly cite and limit the scope for your own incompetence. Even if said sources are not actually measuring the pertinent features.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 05 13:28:57
Projecting your own failures on others is a bit sad Sam.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 05 13:29:18
Projecting your own failures on others is a bit sad Sam.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 05 14:00:27
In any case, Sam, there's no need to produce this additional metric, as you have (after 6 months) produced source data for both UK median income and Alabama median income - sources and metrics you chose - which clearly shows that most UK residents are 20% greater income than most Alabamans.

That's what your data which you chose and sourced say.

The only reason you are changing metrics and sources is because you don't like what the data says and because you are trying to avoid accountability for spending 6 months saying something indisputably wrong.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 05 14:02:06
I mean you can't even work out that 24.4k GBP in 2017 us 20% more in 2017 USD than $26k. And somehow I'm the one confused?

sam adams
Member
Sun Jul 05 20:45:33
Lol look how confused you still are.

http://en....y_GDP_per_capita#Nominal,_2017

15% poorer than alabama. Read the source, fix yourself, and stop being a tard.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 06 00:59:36
Sam, do you agree that most Brits earn more than most Alabamans, according to the income numbers you presented?
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 06 01:03:52
The fallacy of using GDP per capita can be seen by looking at Irelands position in the list.

It's GDP is hugely inflated by the tech giants using it as a jurisdiction to log sales.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 06 01:27:42
Sam, maybe I'm just "confused", but you appear to have provided a source that lists Ireland at both 10th and 53rd.

Just how credible is this source?
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 06 01:28:32
*shakes head slowly*.

I think this all speaks for itself really. Desperate stuff.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 06 01:30:30
While you are finding a new, preferably primary, source perhaps you would care to tell us whether you think the numbers for median income you provided earlier show that most Brits have a 20% higher income than most Alabamans?
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 06 05:14:56
Seb
The thing about being compared to Alabama. Even if you win, you lose.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 06 05:35:33
Why is Ireland listed twice with two totally different numbers?

Nr 10 and nr 55.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 06 07:11:30
Nim:

To be less confusing of course! The sources and metric that Sam previously provided was very confusing in that it could easily be interpreted to show that the UK was not as poor as Alabama.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 06 07:13:10
jergul:

It's more about insisting on the existence of objective truth.

I mean, it doesn't really matter if the UK is richer or poorer than Alabama, things are what they are.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 06 07:14:20
What does matter is whether it is in fact true or not and how you tell.
sam adams
Member
Mon Jul 06 09:56:27
Lol no wonder the UK is falling further and further behind AL... look how confused brits get by very simple math.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 06 10:06:12
Sam posts a Wikipedia list where a country is listed twice.

Says everyone else is confused by "simple maths", someone who can count from one to ten but list eleven whole numbers and not see the problem isn't someone who should talk about simple maths being confusing.
sam adams
Member
Mon Jul 06 11:38:26
Not everyone else. You.

Lol.
sam adams
Member
Mon Jul 06 11:50:06
The UK and AL numbers are correct, despite ireland showing up twice.

You could look up the numbers yourself and divide gdp by population yourself to make sure you arent saying stupid things before you say them.

But that would require math, and we have already established that you are bad at math.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 06 15:33:06
Sam:

Are they? How can you tell?

Are you going to introduce a source for your shit source, which you had introduced to avoid "confusion" because your last source said the opposite of what you claimed for six months?

Lol.

Yeah, this is totally about maths and not your inability to marshal evidence to construct a coherent argument and line of reasoning.
sam adams
Member
Mon Jul 06 17:14:40
http://en....y_GDP_per_capita#Nominal,_2017

Perhaps once you unfuck yourself and relearn grade school math, we can consider more complex comparisons, but for now this is all the source you need.

Alabama is 15% richer than the UK.

Seb
Member
Tue Jul 07 02:54:10
Explain the math that lets Ireland be both 53rd and 10th and we can talk about this list.

You are a joke Sam.
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 07 04:27:10
Sammy
Your dataset seems to have flaws.
sam adams
Member
Tue Jul 07 11:07:54
One is probably northern ireland. The poorer one of course, given that the UK is so poor:)
sam adams
Member
Tue Jul 07 11:14:11
This is of course irrelevant to AL being richer than the UK. Which it is. I would tell seb he could check the sources and confirm this himself, but even such simple math as dividing GDP by population confuses him, so we are left with seb crying and howling while we all sadly shake our heads at how the former ruler of the world is now poorer than alabama.
sam adams
Member
Tue Jul 07 11:19:17
Jergul, the AL and UK bit are correct.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 07 17:41:57
Nope. NI GDP per capita is like 29k USD.

It's piss poor, the poorest part of the UK. Also why would it be listed separately given the UK is literally the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? I.e. Kingdom of Northern Ireland and Kingdom of Great Britain, United?
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 07 17:46:30
Sam, you've already suggested the metric of median income, and provided a source which shows that most Brits have 20% more income than most Alabamans.

You spent 6 months claiming this showed the UK was poorer, then claimed it showed the UK was 10% richer, and now moved on to GDP per capita, the flaws of which I've already explained, justifying your shift in metric by the supposed need to provide clearer sources, only your source is clearly dodgy, and you are unable to explain why it's got errors, and then asserted that the error is due to NI being mislabeled as being Ireland, even though NIs GDP per capita is nowhere near 50k.

A fact that is easily checkable.

Can't you tell the difference between 50k and 30k?
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 07 17:47:50
You say the UK and Alabama but are correct, but how can we know unless you provide a source?

Only, wasn't your reason for changing metric to make it easier to provide a source?

Lol.


Muppet.
sam adams
Member
Tue Jul 07 17:56:37
31. Your memory is as bad as your math. Back to second grade you go. but school funding in the uk has to be pretty shitty, given your pathetic gdp levels and the results we have all seen on UP, so since you are probably irretrievably screwed, just remember:

GDP divided by population is the simplest of all metrics, the only one you will ever understand, and it shows you are 15% poorer than alabama.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 08 00:03:00
There's nothing at all difficult to understand about median income.

Is it not the case that the numbers for median income that you provided show that most Brits have 20% more income than most Alabamans?

It's a simple question Sam.

Yes or no?
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 08 00:07:05
I had to explain to you why GNI wasn't the same as mean personal income at one point.
sam adams
Member
Wed Jul 08 13:43:21
"There's nothing at all difficult to understand about median income."

Says the guy that confused it with mean income for 5 months. Lol.

32

And yes seb, it is better(although just barely) to be a low income pleb in the UK than alabama. Skilled workers and entrepreneurs are a little better off in Alabama.

I have been telling you this for 7 months. Are you finally starting to get it?
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 08 16:37:28
Sam:

We've established already that I did no such thing.

"Skilled workers and entrepreneurs are a little better off in Alabama"

Oh dear, Sam has confused GDP per capita with mean personal income, again. Even after I explained to you why GNI per capita wasn't that, and you accepted that neither GNI nor GDP per capita were a measure of earnings due to the existence of corporations and other legal entities.

Fucks sakes Sam, I know you have ADHD, but hold an idea in your head for more than five minutes straight.

"I have been telling you this for 7 months. Are you finally starting to get it?"

You spent 7 months claiming UK median personal income was less than or the same as Alabama, then you spent the thread prior to this one claiming Alabaman median income was only 10% less than the UK median income.

Then you tried to prove Alabaman GDP per capita was more than the UKs, justifying the pivot by using a wikipedia page as a "less confusing" source which was of such high quality and clarity that it included Ireland twice; which you tried to explain away by insisting one of them was Northern Ireland, though it clearly wasn't.

Seb
Member
Wed Jul 08 16:38:24
The simple point of dispute over the last 7 mnths was not mean vs median - which was resolved pretty much as soon as you admitted you meant to write "median per capita" rather than "per capita"; it was about whether the median personal income was higher or lower.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share