I know its much more fun to bait Stalinist hermaphrodites, but I really would like to know from those who are supposed to know about such things whether I'm totally off-base here.
Una mas:
> John Halle wrote:
>
> >On the question of the dramatic increase in black p.c. income-to what
> >extent is the huge increase in the rate of black imprisonment responsible?
> >Is the 30 cent an hour wage of a million odd black prisoners factored
> >into the rate, or are these folks removed from the statistical pool from
> >which the wonks derive their feel good numbers?
>
Doug responds:
> The incarcerated aren't included. There are, of course, lots of black
> people who aren't in jail, and the fact that they're doing
> significantly better than they were a few years ago is a nontrivial
> improvement in American life, no?
>
I respond:
The point is that since those incarcerated previously made up a significant fraction of the bottom end of income distribution, removing them from the pool (i.e. throwing them in the slammer) has the effect of making p.c. income increase. What I'm suggesting as a possibility (guidance on this point by "the pros" greatly appreciated) is that those towards the top and at the middle are doing about the same and those at the bottom are simply treated as if they don't exist for the purpose of statistics. Not my idea of a big improvement, but the sort of "improvement" which Clinton routinely trumpets, hence the remark below.
> >In general, when it comes to economic statistics, you've got to
> >continually check your wallet and count your change when your dealing with
> >these guys, it seems to me. (The NAFTA fight demonstrated this in spades.)
>
> You can't trust anything coming out of the White House, but the
> Census Bureau is about as reliable as they get.
>
With warm regards,
John