And then check out this one, from today's Huffington Post, reporting on the exact same study.
Which do you think is correct? A growth of 275% is more "nearly tripled" than it is "doubled," no? Is the Times trying to tamp down our anger? (The income of poorest fifth of the population rose only 18% during the same period, while the rise of the three-fifths of people in the middle of the income scale was just under 40 %.) Is the Times unconsciously biased in favor of the 1%, who own the paper?
2 comments:
Both are wrong. A growth of 275% is "nearly quadrupled". (A growth of 100% is doubled, and so on.)
Actually, reading the New York Times article, it is MORE correct - it measures the SHARE of the national income earned by the top 1%, which rose from 8% to 17% - a growth of 113%, which is fair to describe as "more than doubled".
Now, you may think this is the wrong statistic, but...
Post a Comment