[everdev]

> Chances to be better off than the median are exactly 50%.

No, if a sample size of monthly salaries is: $1k, $3k, $4k, $10k, $12k

The median is $4k. Achieving better than that may indeed be a slim chance if it represents a level up in seniority. Your background and skills matter.

Also, in this sample size, only 40% are above median. If you measure everyone salary to the dollar, it will approach 50% but never get there. In fact above median will always be < 50% by definition.

[gilbetron]

$1k, $3k, $4k, $10k, median is $3.5k, with exactly 50% being above, and exactly 50% being below. The same happens with any sample with an even number.

[sokoloff]

$1K, $1K, $1K, $10K...

[everdev]

Which is what most national income distributions look like. With the vast majority making below or well below the median income. Hence the fuss about the 1% controlling so much wealth.

[sokoloff]

Well, my series above is a degenerate case.

> With the vast majority making below or well below the median income.

In any case, it's mathematically definitionally impossible for the vast majority of any population to be making less than the median of that population. (It is possible with respect to the average, of course.)

(Even in the above (degenerate) case, there is no member of the series with less than the median value of $1K.)