[rfrey]

Your point is even more graphically illustrated if you compare the extremes... Say trust fund babies to homeless people. The trust fund people spend at least ten hours a week reviewing investment and disciplining their entourage, whereas homeless people's time is completely their own.

[azan_]

It's funny that you make this flippant remark, while people completely seriously use as absurd reverse scenario (for some reason asking to restrict analysis just to people working 2 minimum wage jobs and exclude people that are unemployed). I already know that people do not update their beliefs even when they are shown evidence that clearly shows they are wrong, but it's frustrating to experience every time nonetheless.

[rfrey]

What you are describing is not evidence, it is a willful misuse (charitably perhaps, a misunderstanding) of statistics. It is exactly analogous to using a mean in a distribution with extreme outliers. The only reason is to hurl numbers around in an attempt to shore up a purely political position.

[azan_]

> What you are describing is not evidence, it is a willful misuse (charitably perhaps, a misunderstanding) of statistics.

It is evidence that you don't want to accept because it's not compatible with your world view. And what do you offer instead - assumption that poor people are hard working folks and that rich people are slackers? And that's somehow not an attempt to shore up a purely political position? Please show ANY evidence supporting your thesis. Also it's not misuse of statistics at all! Mean is perfectly appropriate statistic here. Again - you make some assumption providing no support for it whatsoever.