Your US ruling class....
pleau at prodigy.net
Thu Jan 9 15:09:21 MST 2003
The exclusion of the incomes of the super rich in these studies is an
example of what is deliberately practiced in bourgeois science. Called
outliers, statisticians consistently ignore these oddball but nonetheless
accurate data (in this case the incomes of the super rich) because it was
rationalized in the bourgeois scientific community back when these methods
of scientific study were first developed that any data that do not fit into
an emerging pattern must be thrown out because either there must be
something wrong with data that don't conform with their expected results or
those data merely do not matter. Therefore, to avoid screwing up the curve
these "scientists" routinely throw out all outliers.
This is the excuse the U.S. Census Bureau is giving us. Of course, we all
know the real reason in this case, that they're obviously hiding behind the
"scientific method." And if we should carefully examine other studies
conducted by the "objective" bourgeois scientific community, we will find
many, many other examples of blatant and not so blatant class, race and
other social biases.
BTW, when I had to take two semesters of statistics in college, this
practice of excluding outliers in scientific studies always bothered the
hell out of me. Now I know why.
---- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Ballard" <swillsqueal at yahoo.com.au>
To: "Marxmail" <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 3:17 PM
Subject: Your US ruling class....
> Published on Friday, December 27, 2002 by
> The Super Rich Are Out of Sight
> by Michael Parenti
> The super rich, the less than 1 percent of the
> population who own the lion's share of the nation's
> wealth, go uncounted in most income distribution
> reports. Even those who purport to study the question
> regularly overlook the very wealthiest among us. For
> instance, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
> relying on the latest U.S. Census Bureau data,
> released a report in December 1997 showing that in the
> last two decades "incomes of the richest fifth
> increased by 30 percent or nearly $27,000 after
> adjusting for inflation." The average income of the
> top 20 percent was $117,500, or almost 13 times larger
> than the $9,250 average income of the poorest 20
> But where are the super rich? An average of $117,500
> is an upper-middle income, not at all representative
> of a rich cohort, let alone a super rich one. All such
> reports about income distribution are based on U.S.
> Census Bureau surveys that regularly leave Big Money
> out of the picture. A few phone calls to the Census
> Bureau in Washington D.C. revealed that for years the
> bureau never interviewed anyone who had an income
> higher than $300,000. Or if interviewed, they were
> never recorded as above the "reportable upper limit"
> of $300,000, the top figure allowed by the bureau's
> computer program. In 1994, the bureau lifted the upper
> limit to $1 million. This still excludes the very
> richest who own the lion's share of the wealth, the
> hundreds of billionaires and thousands of
> multimillionaires who make many times more than $1
> million a year. The super rich simply have been
> computerized out of the picture.
> When asked why this procedure was used, an official
> said that the Census Bureau's computers could not
> handle higher amounts. A most improbable excuse, since
> once the bureau decided to raise the upper limit from
> $300,000 to $1 million it did so without any
> difficulty, and it could do so again. Another reason
> the official gave was "confidentiality." Given place
> coordinates, someone with a very high income might be
> identified. Furthermore, he said, high-income
> respondents usually understate their investment
> returns by about 40 to 50 percent. Finally, the
> official argued that since the super rich are so few,
> they are not likely to show up in a national sample.
> But by designating the (decapitated) top 20 percent of
> the entire nation as the "richest" quintile, the
> Census Bureau is including millions of people who make
> as little as $70,000. If you make over $100,000, you
> are in the top 4 percent. Now $100,000 is a tidy sum
> indeed, but it's not super rich--as in Mellon, Morgan,
> or Murdock. The difference between Michael Eisner,
> Disney CEO who pocketed $565 million in 1996, and the
> individuals who average $9,250 is not 13 to 1--the
> reported spread between highest and lowest
> quintiles--but over 61,000 to 1.
> full: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1227-06.htm
> "We are going to inherit the earth, there is not the slightest doubt about
that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves
the stage of history. We carry a new world, here, in our hearts. That
world is growing this minute." -
> - Buenventura Durruti
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism