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.