On 17/05/2016 21:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/05/2016 10:01, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 09:25:28 +0100, Nightjar cpb wrote:
...
I didn't realise that you were a closet Marxist. I have always viewed
myself as a paternalistic capitalist, so my solution would be to
improve
the lot of the poorest, so that none fell below the poverty line.

But if the poverty line is defined as the percentage of median income...

It is a moving target, but that doesn't mean it isn't something we
should try to achieve.

It will never be possible to achieve no one below the poverty
line when the poverty line is defined like that. Basic arithmetic.

All that is required to achieve it is that half the population earns
between 60% of the median income and the median income. That may be
unlikely to be achieved in practice and, as Adrian points out, changes
in the median income may move people in or out of the poverty band, but
it is not impossible.

Any real poverty line has to be defined in terms of real standard of
living.

The studies that work on the basis of standards of living take a great
deal of resources. Comparing income is much simpler. As, in the UK, the
60% median income measure has been shown, in most cases, to be slightly
below the necessary income for a family to achieve an acceptable
standard of living, it is a useful measure to use.

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/05/2016 21:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/05/2016 10:01, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 09:25:28 +0100, Nightjar cpb wrote:
...
I didn't realise that you were a closet Marxist. I have always viewed
myself as a paternalistic capitalist, so my solution would be to
improve
the lot of the poorest, so that none fell below the poverty line.

But if the poverty line is defined as the percentage of median
income...

It is a moving target, but that doesn't mean it isn't something we
should try to achieve.

It will never be possible to achieve no one below the poverty
line when the poverty line is defined like that. Basic arithmetic.

All that is required to achieve it is that half the population earns
between 60% of the median income and the median income.

The problem is that as soon as you ensure that no one is below that
particular poverty line, the 60% of the median income shifts and so
there are plenty below the new poverty line. Basic arithmetic.

That may be unlikely to be achieved in practice

It is in fact a mathematical impossibility.

and, as Adrian points out, changes in the median income may move people in
or out of the poverty band,

If the poverty line is defined as 60% of median income,
by definition, if you ensure that no one is below that
particular poverty line, the poverty line moves when
it is defined like that.

but it is not impossible.

Of course it is when the poverty line keeps moving.

Basic arithmetic.

Any real poverty line has to be defined
in terms of real standard of living.

The studies that work on the basis of standards of living take a great
deal of resources.

Sure, but is the only measure of real poverty.

Comparing income is much simpler.

But doesnt allow for the fact that some can live
much better on a particular income than others.

As, in the UK, the 60% median income measure has been shown, in most
cases, to be slightly below the necessary income for a family to achieve
an acceptable standard of living,

Like hell it has. And it isnt just about familys either.

it is a useful measure to use.

Like hell it is.

On 18/05/2016 12:10, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/05/2016 21:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/05/2016 10:01, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 09:25:28 +0100, Nightjar cpb wrote:
...
I didn't realise that you were a closet Marxist. I have always viewed
myself as a paternalistic capitalist, so my solution would be to
improve
the lot of the poorest, so that none fell below the poverty line.

But if the poverty line is defined as the percentage of median
income...

It is a moving target, but that doesn't mean it isn't something we
should try to achieve.

It will never be possible to achieve no one below the poverty
line when the poverty line is defined like that. Basic arithmetic.

All that is required to achieve it is that half the population earns
between 60% of the median income and the median income.

The problem is that as soon as you ensure that no one is below that
particular poverty line, the 60% of the median income shifts and so
there are plenty below the new poverty line. Basic arithmetic.

You appear to be confusing median with average.


--
Colin Bignell

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 14:50:25 UTC+1, wrote:
On 18/05/2016 12:10, Rod Speed wrote:


The problem is that as soon as you ensure that no one is below that
particular poverty line, the 60% of the median income shifts and so
there are plenty below the new poverty line. Basic arithmetic.

You appear to be confusing median with average.



I think you're being a bit mean. :-)


--
Colin Bignell

On 18/05/2016 16:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 14:50:25 UTC+1, wrote:
On 18/05/2016 12:10, Rod Speed wrote:


The problem is that as soon as you ensure that no one is below that
particular poverty line, the 60% of the median income shifts and so
there are plenty below the new poverty line. Basic arithmetic.

You appear to be confusing median with average.



I think you're being a bit mean. :-)

g


--
Colin Bignell

On 18/05/16 18:11, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 18/05/2016 16:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 14:50:25 UTC+1, wrote:
On 18/05/2016 12:10, Rod Speed wrote:


The problem is that as soon as you ensure that no one is below that
particular poverty line, the 60% of the median income shifts and so
there are plenty below the new poverty line. Basic arithmetic.

You appear to be confusing median with average.



I think you're being a bit mean. :-)

g


A log normal distribution means the majority of people are below average
intelligence...


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On Wed, 18 May 2016 18:11:49 +0100, Nightjar cpb wrote:

The problem is that as soon as you ensure that no one is below that
particular poverty line, the 60% of the median income shifts and so
there are plenty below the new poverty line. Basic arithmetic.

You appear to be confusing median with average.

I think you're being a bit mean. :-)

g

C'est la dernier mode.

"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
news
On 18/05/2016 12:10, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/05/2016 21:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/05/2016 10:01, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 09:25:28 +0100, Nightjar cpb wrote:
...
I didn't realise that you were a closet Marxist. I have always
viewed
myself as a paternalistic capitalist, so my solution would be to
improve
the lot of the poorest, so that none fell below the poverty line.

But if the poverty line is defined as the percentage of median
income...

It is a moving target, but that doesn't mean it isn't something we
should try to achieve.

It will never be possible to achieve no one below the poverty
line when the poverty line is defined like that. Basic arithmetic.

All that is required to achieve it is that half the population earns
between 60% of the median income and the median income.

The problem is that as soon as you ensure that no one is below that
particular poverty line, the 60% of the median income shifts and so
there are plenty below the new poverty line. Basic arithmetic.

You appear to be confusing median with average.

Nope. You get the same result with the median.

If you hand more to those who were below the original poverty
line, that clearly shifts the median and so you can never get all
those who were below the poverty line out of poverty, because
the poverty line moves, because that's what the median does.

Basic arithmetic.

On 19/05/2016 00:02, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
news
On 18/05/2016 12:10, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/05/2016 21:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/05/2016 10:01, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 09:25:28 +0100, Nightjar cpb wrote:
...
I didn't realise that you were a closet Marxist. I have always
viewed
myself as a paternalistic capitalist, so my solution would be to
improve
the lot of the poorest, so that none fell below the poverty line.

But if the poverty line is defined as the percentage of median
income...

It is a moving target, but that doesn't mean it isn't something we
should try to achieve.

It will never be possible to achieve no one below the poverty
line when the poverty line is defined like that. Basic arithmetic.

All that is required to achieve it is that half the population earns
between 60% of the median income and the median income.

The problem is that as soon as you ensure that no one is below that
particular poverty line, the 60% of the median income shifts and so
there are plenty below the new poverty line. Basic arithmetic.

You appear to be confusing median with average.

Nope. You get the same result with the median.

If you hand more to those who were below the original poverty
line, that clearly shifts the median and so you can never get all
those who were below the poverty line out of poverty, because
the poverty line moves, because that's what the median does.

Basic arithmetic.

Median income is about the probability of a person having an income that
is above or below that level, while average is about the amount they earn.

To give a very simplified example; if you have 20 people, 9 of them earn
£50, 2 earn £100, 8 earn £150 and 1 earns £1000, the median income is
£100 and the average income is £142.50. Increase the wages of all those
on £50 to £90 and the median remains at £100, while the average rises to
£160.50. To start with 9 people were below 60% of the median income.
Raising them all to 90% of the median income does not change the median.


--
Colin Bignell

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 18:26:20 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/16 18:11, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 18/05/2016 16:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 14:50:25 UTC+1, wrote:
On 18/05/2016 12:10, Rod Speed wrote:


The problem is that as soon as you ensure that no one is below that
particular poverty line, the 60% of the median income shifts and so
there are plenty below the new poverty line. Basic arithmetic.

You appear to be confusing median with average.



I think you're being a bit mean. :-)

g


A log normal distribution means the majority of people are below average
intelligence...

how about median intelligence...
but surely it's the mode value you are looking for.

"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
news
On 19/05/2016 00:02, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
news
On 18/05/2016 12:10, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/05/2016 21:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar cpb.me.uk" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 17/05/2016 10:01, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2016 09:25:28 +0100, Nightjar cpb wrote:
...
I didn't realise that you were a closet Marxist. I have always
viewed
myself as a paternalistic capitalist, so my solution would be to
improve
the lot of the poorest, so that none fell below the poverty line.

But if the poverty line is defined as the percentage of median
income...

It is a moving target, but that doesn't mean it isn't something we
should try to achieve.

It will never be possible to achieve no one below the poverty
line when the poverty line is defined like that. Basic arithmetic.

All that is required to achieve it is that half the population earns
between 60% of the median income and the median income.

The problem is that as soon as you ensure that no one is below that
particular poverty line, the 60% of the median income shifts and so
there are plenty below the new poverty line. Basic arithmetic.

You appear to be confusing median with average.

Nope. You get the same result with the median.

If you hand more to those who were below the original poverty
line, that clearly shifts the median and so you can never get all
those who were below the poverty line out of poverty, because
the poverty line moves, because that's what the median does.

Basic arithmetic.

Median income is about the probability of a person having an income that
is above or below that level, while average is about the amount they earn.

Duh.

To give a very simplified example; if you have 20 people, 9 of them earn
£50, 2 earn £100, 8 earn £150 and 1 earns £1000, the median income is £100
and the average income is £142.50. Increase the wages of all those on £50
to £90 and the median remains at £100, while the average rises to £160.50.
To start with 9 people were below 60% of the median income. Raising them
all to 90% of the median income does not change the median.

But getting them over the median does.

Its just not possible to take everyone whose income is less than 60% of the
median income and ensure that they all get more than 60% of the median
income.

And income is a lousy measure of real poverty anyway.