alt Hacker NewsIt's curious that you find it necessary for us to share what "median" means, but then not share, but I guess you must have accidentally pressed the "Reply" button before you were finished?
We can do a simple thought experiment here. If 0% of the population have a degree, do you agree that the median income holder does not have a degree? If 100% of the population have a degree, do you agree that the median income holder does have a degree?
So when the degree attainment rate crosses the 50% mark, do you agree that the median income holder must have a degree? My definition says yes. And since the degree brings a premium, how do you explain the median income not rising? Maybe the premium you are imagining is just hugs and kisses?
I know, you think the median income has somehow always been filled by a degree holder, even when only a small segment of the population had a degree. But how is that possible when education influences lifetime earnings? Shouldn't those with education be making more than the median when those with education are a small segment of the population?
Replies
Not whom you questioned, but ...
> We can do a simple thought experiment here.
Yes, and Yes.
> when the degree attainment rate crosses the 50% mark, do you agree that the median income holder must have a degree?
No. I don't even agree that there is necessarily a single median income holder - there may well be a hundred, sixty with a degree and 40 without.
Also possible that in a hypothetical population with 1,001 people that 1,000 people have a degree but the sole median income earner does not.
I'm so confused by what you think the "median" means here. Take the set "1 5 9". "1" goes to college and gets a 60% income improvement; generously, round that up to 2. What's the before/after median?