tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post4146529201955818640..comments2024-03-10T13:59:19.230-04:00Comments on xpostfactoid: A quick bet against BrooksAndrew Sprunghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-31988221186444279502010-04-08T09:46:31.025-04:002010-04-08T09:46:31.025-04:00Thanks to all commenters. Please note response in ...Thanks to all commenters. Please note response in "Update 5" above.Andrew Sprunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-22678121435812277772010-04-07T22:53:54.376-04:002010-04-07T22:53:54.376-04:00Yes, instead if retracting say we're still wai...Yes, instead if retracting say we're still waiting for the truth and can bet it won't resemble Brooks. "Earn" is another word being abused here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-35977096174650153612010-04-07T16:44:28.868-04:002010-04-07T16:44:28.868-04:00These figures are utterly and completely implausib...These figures are utterly and completely implausible. Please, retract your retraction for the moment; you're much closer to correct (in any meaningful sense of that word) than Brooks or Rose.David A. Spitzleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-23604791072407443782010-04-07T16:28:34.123-04:002010-04-07T16:28:34.123-04:00i sent this article to a friend and got this reply...i sent this article to a friend and got this reply " I'm not saying that it accounts for a majority of the $100,000 cohort, but tens of thousands of auto workers in the last decade accepted a buy-out in the face of guaranteed job elimination. In the buy-out year they made over $100,000 - and then they joined the ranks of the long-term unemployed and uninsured. Not exactly rich."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-40976479709514633842010-04-07T15:42:15.655-04:002010-04-07T15:42:15.655-04:00What John H said. The only way this number passes...What John H said. The only way this number passes the smell test is to consider the percentage of people who at some point will have sold a house. I can well believe that pushes the overall number of 100K-at-least-once up to 60% -- since you can't detangle couples filing their taxes jointly, so I will bet he credits both spouses with that income. <br /><br />The idea that 60% of people in the nation have at least one year where their *salary* is >100K? Bwa ha ha.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-597893403724992312010-04-07T15:39:00.946-04:002010-04-07T15:39:00.946-04:00George Will: "Economist Stephen Rose, definin...George Will: "Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 — because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled, from 12 to 24..."<br /><br />Did he correct for inflation? Knowing George, I doubt it.Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-87308039367277043162010-04-06T18:52:01.588-04:002010-04-06T18:52:01.588-04:00I think your apology/retraction. was premature.
...I think your apology/retraction. was premature. <br /><br />Quote from Brooks:<br /><br />"Over the last 10 years, 60 percent of Americans made more than $100,000 in at least one of those years, and 40 percent had incomes that high for at least three."<br /><br />Brooks does not qualify this statistic as "prime age Americans" or as "Americans between the ages of 26 to 59." He makes this claim about "60% of Americans." <br /><br />Although your explanation about Brooks likely miscounting households versus people was incorrect, I agree with your characterization of Brooks's assertion as being "sloppy with the facts."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-3614461065129714662010-04-06T17:42:46.525-04:002010-04-06T17:42:46.525-04:00So what if David Brooks' quote was "corre...So what if David Brooks' quote was "correct" because this seems quite the fantasy that 60% (3 out 5! adults) in at least one year of the last ten earned over $100k. The US Census data for 2006 shows the median personal income for full-time working adults ages 25-64 was $39,509. In 2006 only 6% of the 25-65 cohort had personal income over $100K. It seems unlikely that more than half of this group at one point or other during the past decade had that $100k amount. I'd like to see the Rose data to support this declaration because it really doesn't pass the smell test.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-45608606953006468502010-04-06T16:52:37.490-04:002010-04-06T16:52:37.490-04:00Brooks may have quoted Rose correctly, however wha...Brooks may have quoted Rose correctly, however what evidence is there that Rose is correct? I can believe the $100K household earnings statement but not the $100K individual earnings statement with the known median household and individual earnings over the years mentioned. I do believe that in Brooks bubble that is true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-27776666278049589632010-04-06T16:34:58.570-04:002010-04-06T16:34:58.570-04:00I live in a small midwestern town. Maybe 5 to 10%...I live in a small midwestern town. Maybe 5 to 10% of households make that much in a year--any year in ten, there isn't that much variability. Maybe if you live in a big city this sounds more plausible, but big cities have unemployed and underemployed and welfare recipients as well. I would like to know what evidence Rose cites for this figure, even at the "household" level. What's the number of households below the poverty line at least one year in the past ten?dnfreenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-73441076831832839332010-04-06T16:31:33.289-04:002010-04-06T16:31:33.289-04:00Your apology is kind, but the new stat that 60% of...Your apology is kind, but the new stat that 60% of adults have earned $100K at some point in the past 10 years seems totally, unimaginably fantastical.<br /><br />The real median earnings of men who worked full time was $45,113 in 2007. So I'm to believe that in one of 10 years in the past decade, ALL of the people above the median, and 1/5th of the people below that median pulled in 100K as a one-off?<br /><br />No way did these median earners more than double their earnings in a year. Its just got to be bad statistical modeling or bad reporting of the modeling.RalfWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-19658034118992050602010-04-06T16:10:50.261-04:002010-04-06T16:10:50.261-04:00I have worked as a freelance writer, lawyer and pr...I have worked as a freelance writer, lawyer and professor during the past 13 years. I have a JD and a PH.D. I have never made close to $100K (whether salary, salary + "investments" or any other source).<br /><br />No one in my immediate family or extended family of middle class relatives aunts, uncles, cousins has ever had a household income of $100K or more. <br /><br />Obviously, I'm worse off than I realized. I'm not even middle-class.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-3947879330894919192010-04-06T16:06:39.768-04:002010-04-06T16:06:39.768-04:00I also wonder if that includes inheritances. It...I also wonder if that includes inheritances. It's a bit vague as stated.<br /><br />The implied high variability suggests that it is because of this kind of thing rather than regular wages.Jon Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-16900311611656314922010-04-06T15:56:19.289-04:002010-04-06T15:56:19.289-04:00Income is different from salary. Brooks's ass...Income is different from salary. Brooks's assumption that a whole bunch of people making $35-70K suddenly got jobs paying over $105K within the past ten years doesn't pass the laugh test. Most people don't see their salaries rise that much in one decade. Add in rising 401K's and the stock market gains, and yes, incomes did indeed rise. But it wasn't due to a majority of workers getting better paying jobs.Cynthia of Californianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-85020874448257396972010-04-06T14:08:39.092-04:002010-04-06T14:08:39.092-04:00I had the same thought as Jon H. above.I had the same thought as Jon H. above.JDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-74860734628597937222010-04-06T14:01:37.651-04:002010-04-06T14:01:37.651-04:00Thanks for this explanation! I just read Brooks...Thanks for this explanation! I just read Brooks' column and I immediately searched for some fact vetting. It really is a cringe inducing error. However, what is even scarier is that people like Brooks live in such a social bubble that the number he cites probably seems quite plausible from his isolated perspective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-42994628478144333832010-04-06T13:32:28.373-04:002010-04-06T13:32:28.373-04:00Does the $100,000 include profits from the appreci...Does the $100,000 include profits from the appreciation and sale of a home?Jon Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-66056931782916729072010-04-06T12:38:37.620-04:002010-04-06T12:38:37.620-04:00just trivia, but the date of the will column is ja...just trivia, but the date of the will column is jan '08, not '07...your post reads like he had access to a time machine..otherwise, great stuffAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-11696136768186485722010-04-06T11:48:23.339-04:002010-04-06T11:48:23.339-04:00You're still misreading Rose. If you are corr...You're still misreading Rose. If you are correct that he says "number of people living in households that bring in more than $100,000... rose from 12 to 24 per cent," then this is still not households. For instance, my wife and I, and our five children, live in a household that brings in more than 100K. That's seven people. Not seven households. I'm sure Rose can clear this up, but that's a much more plausible explanation. I flinched when I read Brooks' column too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com