On Feb 7, 2008, at 11:01 PM, Julio Huato wrote:
> shag wrote:
>
>> What do generational differences in income have to do with "poor".
>> Yes, I
>> know, you used "poorer" -- but this is a flourish of rhetorical
>> horse shittery.
>
> In the U.S., age and income are positively correlated. In the 2000
> census, the correlation coefficient is like .14 or so. Relatively
> large, considered the underlying differences in other demographic
> characteristics. I'm sure that's the case in CT as well. That's all
> I tried to say, telegraphically.
Square .14 and you get 0.0196. So age explains 2% of income. Not very much.
> I don't disagree. My train of thought was this: The NYT reports that
> the young and rich gave Obama his victory in CT. There's no explicit
> question of wealth in the media syndicate's exit polls. So the
> variable they used was income. That's not my definition of class.
> But that's what's commonly used, and it's not absurd. That said,
> higher education does tend to lead to higher income. Yes, but that
> shows up in the 40s and 50s. Obama's support in those age categories
> was either lower or -- if you prefer -- at statistical par with
> Hillary's.
Higher ed shows up more quickly than that, no? In any case, I bet the correlation of wealth and income is a lot higher than 0.14.
Doug