Technically not a lie: +0 Lies
According to Obama:
“the average American family” saw its income “go down $2,000″ under George Bush.
According to FactCheck
That’s not correct. Census figures show average family income went down $348.
As it turns out, when Obama said “average family income,” he didn’t mean “average,” and he didn’t mean “family,” either. An Obama aide says he was really referring to median income – which is the midpoint – and not to the average. And Obama was talking only about “working families,” not retired couples. For all families, median family income actually inched up under Bush by $272.
So if i remember my 8th grade math correctly, median is a TYPE of average, so technically this is not a lie. And when you are discussing the average family income, it is understandable to be referring to families actually making an income - working families. So you get by with no lies this time Obama…
September 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Seems like a stretch to not call this a lie ..
From Wikipedia, “The median is primarily used for skewed distributions, which it represents differently than the arithmetic mean. Consider the multiset { 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 9 }. The median is 2 in this case, as is the mode, and it might be seen as a better indication of central tendency than the arithmetic mean of 3.166….”
September 10th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
You raise a good point. If you’ll check the income spread in the US, you’ll notice that the distribution is uneven, like you mention above. Another example that helps explain why various methods of averages are cited: In a town of 100 women, if 99 women are virgins and the last woman has had sex 100 times, the mean would compel you to state that the average woman in that town had sex once. I’m sure those 99 virgins would be upset at that misrepresentative methodology. However, the median and mode forms of average would both result in the more accurate statement: that the average woman was a virgin.
There is a reason that there are multiple methods of tabulating average. If there’s a comprehensive reason why median is misleading, let us know.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I still don’t understand how this doesn’t count as a lie.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:46 am
We’re still looking into this Brett. Help is both invited and welcome.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:39 am
Median and average are certainly two different things, but as far as “lies” go this is pretty mild. Considering the anti-intellectual climate in politics these days, you can imagine why Obama might want to avoid fancy-pants words like “median” in front of certain audiences.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:19 am
It seems to me that the the average/median point is irrelevant seeing as though the $2,000 number was a lie either way you cut it.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
It’s also possible that Obama was taking inflation into consideration. Inflation has risen considerably in the past 7 or 8 years so even if there were an increase, with inflation taken into consideration he could be more accurate.
Generally you would expect incomes to increase with inflation in a good economy. If income does not increase with inflation then there is a problem. It may be easier to just say “average income has gone down” than to explain the math to a group of people that may not necessarily be good with numbers or even care.