DYSPEPSIA GENERATION

We have seen the future, and it sucks.

Stupid Political Statistics

1st September 2012

Thomas Sowell blows the whistle.

Sports statistics are kept in a much more rational way than statistics about political issues. Have you ever seen statistics on what percentage of the home runs over the years have been hit by batters hitting in the .320s versus batters hitting in the .280s or the .340s? Not very likely.

Such statistics would make no sense, because different batters are in these brackets from one year to the next. You wouldn’t be comparing people, you would be comparing abstractions and mistaking those abstractions for people.

But, in politics and in commentaries on political issues, people talk incessantly about how “the top one percent” of income earners are getting more money or how the “bottom 20 percent” are falling behind. Yet the turnover in income brackets over a decade is at least as great as the turnover in batting average brackets.

In the course of a decade, the top 400 income earners include a couple of thousand people. The income received by the top 400 (as a statistical bracket) has risen, both absolutely and as a share of all income, even while the average income of the average person who was in that bracket at a given time has fallen by large amounts. How can this be? The short answer is turnover.

Turnover in sports creates no such confusion.

2 Responses to “Stupid Political Statistics”

  1. Dennis Nagle Says:

    Translation: The statistics don’t favor my preconceived conclusion, so I will say they are flawed and meaningless.

    If in future they happen to favor my preconceived conclusion, then they will be sacrosanct and unquestionable.

    Ho hum.

  2. Tim of Angle Says:

    Translation: Logic is not on my side so I’ll just throw some mud and see if anything sticks.