Be that as it may, the point at issue was the Amazon spending of the average US household. I’m not sure what point relevant to the discussion you’re trying to make, other than reflexively arguing with any use of means in economic analysis. OK, sure, tell Matt Stoller.

▲

ryandrake 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I guess it's just always important/helpful to keep in mind that the average is almost certainly going to be misleading when the distribution is extremely skewed, as is the case for household income. It's usually a mistake to talk about averages in these cases, when the median is almost always going to be more meaningful.

▲

danwills 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Agree, but can't we just include both average _and_ mean? And maybe min/max while we're at it? Seems like that could give a much clearer picture (without even needing a graph!?)

	▲	tsimionescu 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Min & max are also meaningless for most distributions, so probably you should instead look at P1 and P99 or something, and all of a sudden you're now talking about 5 numbers when all you wanted was a quick point.

▲

vintermann 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The average Amazon spending of a US household, not the Amazon spending of the average US household. That second one gets weird.

	▲	twoodfin 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’d be comfortable assuming household income and household Amazon spend are highly correlated.