[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 303 KB, 507x1500, privilege.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14981154 No.14981154 [Reply] [Original]

is this math correct? how could one calculate these figures?

>> No.14981165

>>14981154
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2020/03/19/fiscal-impact-by-race-in-2018/

>> No.14983156

>>14981154
Probably. Thealthype was cool when he was talking about race but he’s moving into subjective judgments about the Nazis to justify their whole business

>> No.14983167

>>14981154
It's misleading.

>> No.14983462

>>14983167
how

>> No.14983512

>>14981154
If that's corect than math is racist, so its not corect!
Check you're privlege!

>> No.14983744

>>14981154
I would need to see how they did the math to know how valid this is, but it's ridiculous on face value. Averages are meaningless when you're talking about phenomena that are close to power law distributions. The average amount of income per America is $70,500, meaning the average income of a family of four would be $282,000, right? But median household income is just $70,000.

Each group's contribution is going to be determined by a very small number of that groups too earners. It's misleading at the very least, because there is a vast swath of White Americans who aren't near tax payers.

Yet another problem is the massive difference in median age. If one group's median age is 28 (Hispanics) and one is 44 (Whites) obviously the group in its peak earning years is going to win out

But this begs another question, where the fuck do these numbers come from? Because a full half of the budget is transfer payments to seniors. You have around $1.5 trillion in cash payments to seniors with Social Security (UBI) and then their extremely expensive free health care. Add to this the debt, which is a cost for goods and services older Americans received, but which younger ones must pay for and you're at half. Less than 10% of all minority groups are over the age of 65. The mode age for Whites is 58 versus 27 for minorities. How can minorities be costing so much today when such a huge share of all expenses is for seniors, who are overwhelmingly white?

Did they look up welfare rates and then try to divide by the share of the budget that is welfare spending?

This is generally misleading because despite SS and Medicare hitting all the criteria for welfare in economic terms it gets excluded from most US analysis. But when people want to claim that welfare has exploded as a share of all costs, they include senior benefits.

Unless they've done some sort of projection that adds in the costs of senior benefits for both groups and adjusts by age, the analysis is shit.

>> No.14983761

>>14983744
AFAIK this data is a simplification using averages. And it is the net cost in a lifetime. Most of it comes from the fact that the 70%-80% of population receive fairly more in economic aid than the amount paid as taxes. So any demographic group with more people in the 5 lower decile will skew the global average.

>> No.14983763

>>14983744
>SS and Medicare
these arent welfare if you paid into the system your entire life moron

>> No.14983790
File: 122 KB, 1080x765, Screenshot_20221114-113201.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14983790

>>14983744
Social Security and Medicare is factored in, but the numbers look obviously off. He has a source for the racial breakdown of SS recipients, but then the source actually doesn't break down the data by race at all. Notably, he decided to use a source buried in a book instead of a data set, but going through the pages it doesn't appear to be there. I find this common with propaganda pages.

The figure for non-Medicare welfare appears to be double what the CBO has, a not unimportant discrepancy since that's where he does most of the shift.

Then there is the figures for total government spending, at $7.5 trillion... which just doesn't tie out to FY18. Even if it wasn't over by almost a trillion, it's totally unclear if he is remembering to back out federal grants to state and local, and then state aid from local grants, to avoid double and triple counting. The total deficit is also way off.

It's napkin math.

>> No.14983799

>>14983761
It's not across a lifetime, he just multiplies out by life expectancy.

I just read his latest one. He is basing lifetime costs off of current usage, although some of these he determines through total ass pull proxies for usage.

>>14983763
>BOOMERS PAID FOR 100% OF THIER GIBS!!!!1!1!!
>The $31 trillion in debt? Uh, IDK where that came from.
jej