[PaulDavisThe1st]

That's a very unusual metric to use for this purpose. Essentially the "mode" of the income distribution. I'm not saying you're wrong to use it, it's just a little strange. The mode of most distributions doesn't tell you much about the distribution as a whole, which might be just fine in this case.

OTOH, the median is the number for which half the households in the country earn more and half earn less, and whatever the merits of the mode might be, I still think that's a fairly significant value too.

[WarOnPrivacy]

It's a measurement intended to bring focus on the most common economic experiences - something that disconnected metrics aren't very good at.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I applaud the focus. I am just not sure that the mode is the best way to do that. There is something compelling about "the income that the most people make". But I think "the income that is right in the middle of what everyone makes" has a slight edge for me in this respect. Anyway, it's a good thing to focus on, regardless of the metric chosen.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> I applaud the focus. I am just not sure that the mode is the best way to do that.

I'm not pitting it against BoL Statistics metrics. I use it to better communicate how the largest swath of the public experiences the economy.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

After another day, I think I realize my issue with using the mode.

The actual mode is going to be a single number, not a range, and it will correspond to very few people's incomes. To be usable in the way you mean, you need to add a range to it, and the size of that range is up for debate (mode +/- 1000? 2000? 10,000 ? etc)

[WarOnPrivacy]

>But I think "the income that is right in the middle of what everyone makes" has a slight edge for me in this respect.

I get that. However, that income doesn't reflect the largest bracket of the working population.