| It's curious that you find it necessary for us to share what "median" means, but then not share, but I guess you must have accidentally pressed the "Reply" button before you were finished? We can do a simple thought experiment here. If 0% of the population have a degree, do you agree that the median income holder does not have a degree? If 100% of the population have a degree, do you agree that the median income holder does have a degree? So when the degree attainment rate crosses the 50% mark, do you agree that the median income holder must have a degree? My definition says yes. And since the degree brings a premium, how do you explain the median income not rising? Maybe the premium you are imagining is just hugs and kisses? I know, you think the median income has somehow always been filled by a degree holder, even when only a small segment of the population had a degree. But how is that possible when education influences lifetime earnings? Shouldn't those with education be making more than the median when those with education are a small segment of the population? |
| |
| ▲ | defrost a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Not whom you questioned, but ... > We can do a simple thought experiment here. Yes, and Yes. > when the degree attainment rate crosses the 50% mark, do you agree that the median income holder must have a degree? No. I don't even agree that there is necessarily a single median income holder - there may well be a hundred, sixty with a degree and 40 without. Also possible that in a hypothetical population with 1,001 people that 1,000 people have a degree but the sole median income earner does not. | | |
| ▲ | win311fwg a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't question anyone in particular. This is a discussion forum, not a private one-on-one conversation. > there may well be a hundred, sixty with a degree and 40 without. So what you are suggesting is that attaining a degree lowers your earnings and then gives you back a commensurate premium, thus restoring you back to the same level as those without a degree? That's a take, I guess, but premium usually comes with certain connotations that isn't that. > Also possible that in a hypothetical population with 1,001 people that 1,000 people have a degree but the sole median income earner does not. Again, where is the premium? If the only person without a degree isn't the lowest earner then we know that the person with the least earnings has a degree, but it was asserted that the person with the least earnings is given a premium over those without a degree, so... Are your numbers omitting a space alien or fairy without a degree where we earlier considered them to be people? It's not clear how to resolve this discrepancy. |
| |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm so confused by what you think the "median" means here. Take the set "1 5 9". "1" goes to college and gets a 60% income improvement; generously, round that up to 2. What's the before/after median? | | |
| ▲ | win311fwg 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You seem to be missing the part about assuming college graduates are given a premium above those who are not college graduates, which was seemingly what the discussion was about earlier. So what you are saying is that someone who is the lowest paid person can remain the lowest paid person by going to college? We'll take your word for it since that has never been considered interesting enough for anyone else to study — remaining the lowest paid person isn't usually a goal one strives for — but what's the significance of that to have mentioned it earlier? | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can make other arguments about the connection between college and lifetime income, certainly! But they aren't the mathematically closed argument you made early, the one you preceded with "We can make this real simple". It appears --- and I'm sorry to belabor this point --- that it was "real simple" because it was based on an unconventional definition of a central tendency statistic. I'm still curious about what that definition might have been? | | |
| ▲ | win311fwg 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right, we made it simple and assumed that college brought a premium, as was earlier told was the case. Therefore, in the simple model, all college graduates occupy the top earning spots. So when >50% of the earning population are college graduates then the median earner must have a college degree. Now that you're saying that in reality college graduates don't see a premium over non-college graduates and actually occupy the lowest income class then obviously the simplified model breaks. Thems the breaks when you try to simplify. A simplified model will always be just that: a simplification. It remains unclear what non-standard definition of median you are thinking of? You said you needed to share it earlier but still haven't... | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, I'm saying that you can take someone on either side of a median income statistic and increase their income without changing the median, contrary to your claim that median income statistics prove that lower-income people can't be getting income improvement from college degrees, which, I'll admit, I'm being snarky about pointing out to you, but... still obvious? The rest of it is not an argument worth having because I don't have strong opinions about the lifetime income premium for college attendence (or the human capital vs. signaling arguments behind it). I didn't attend; I went to work right after high school. Be as mean as you want to college! | | |
| ▲ | win311fwg 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I'm saying that you can take someone on either side of a median income statistic and increase their income without changing the median That's true, but has little to do with our discussion. What is the purpose of this diversion? Realized that your non-standard definition you were concerned about earlier but were afraid to share isn't useful and now want to make it clear to me that you have come to understand what median normally means? It makes no difference to me. > I don't have strong opinions about the lifetime income premium for college attendence Was there some reason for us to think you did? Not sure what this is trying to add either. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | What diversion? You presented a mathematical argument against the college income premium that misconstrued how the median works. | | |
| ▲ | win311fwg 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | So you keep implying but still haven't shown how that is the case except when you totally changed the preconditions arbitrarily. The assumptions made in the simplified model, based on the discussion before it, was that 62% of the population (with degrees) have incomes higher than the remaining 38% of the population (without degrees). If you really want to go back to your non-standard median definition, tell us how someone(s) in the bottom 38% can represent the median. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
