Category: Numbers & Statistics

Helping Hand

Numbers & Statistics

In my post last week which pooh-poohed the alarm about relative salaries, I took a couple of wild-ass guesses as to the “disparities” between the 1940s to the 2020s.  I did confess that the numbers were made up — I was trying to make a point that whereas everyday life was affordable back then, even on a modest salary, it certainly isn’t today, at almost any non-Bezos salary.

Helpful Reader Alex S. has some thoughts, and some analysis:

Hi Kim,
It’s much worse:

Basket Comparison: 1940 vs 2025 (USA Averages; all values in USD; % shows increase from 1940 to 2025)

Category                               | 1940 Price     | 2025 Price  | % Increase
————————————–|—————-|—————-|————
Groceries (/month, fam. of 4)  | $25            | $1,200         | 4700%
Gasoline (per gallon)               | $0.18         | $3.70           | 1955%
Electricity (per kWh)                | $0.04         | $0.17           | 325%
Apart. Mothly (1BR, urban)       | $27            | $1,450         | 5269%
Housing Cost (per sq. ft)          | $30            | $225            | 650%
Bourbon Whiskey (750ml)        | $2              | $30              | 1400%
Large Automobile                    | $850           | $50,000       | 5775%
College Tuition (public, annual)  | $150           | $11,000       | 7233%

Notes on Sources and Assumptions
Groceries: Based on USDA food plans and CPI data.
Gasoline: 1940 was ~$0.18/gal; 2025 national average is around $3.70/gal.
Electricity: National average per kWh, adjusted to residential use.
Apartment Rent: 1940 rent: BLS; 2025 rent: Zillow/National Rent Index.
Housing Cost per Sq.Ft: Includes median new home sales prices.
Bourbon: Average shelf bourbon adjusted for inflation and brand quality parity.
Automobile: 1940 was full-size sedans like Buick; 2025 equivalent is a full-size SUV or sedan (e.g., Chevy Tahoe or Toyota Avalon).
College Tuition: In-state tuition at public universities (e.g., UCLA, UGA, etc.).

Now to be fair, one should probably index the dollars to a fixed year, e.g. 1985 (the most common index in comparisons of this nature), but the point is still very valid.

And it sucks.

Relativity

Funny Stuff, Lies and Untruths, Numbers & Statistics

Saw this breathless statement over at Insty’s:

Big fat hairy deal.  Only 327x?  Going from memory, let’s look at some relative increases* in the costs of goods and services since the early 1940s, shall we?

Groceries:  353x
Gasoline:  417x
Electricity (when it’s not browning out):  330x
Apartment rental:  472x
Housing cost per sq.ft:  488x
Bourbon whiskey:  270x  (congratulations, Jim Beam;  yours is the only commodity that’s still more-or-less affordable)
Large automobiles:  634x
College tuition:  729x

In fact, our mythical “AI researcher”, even at his current earning level, still won’t be able to buy a car or a house;  rent an apartment;  pay his utility bills;  be able to drive cross-country without taking his bank manager along;  or pay for his kids’ college tuition.

Yet somehow Oppie managed to do all that, and more, on his pitiful Manhattan Project salary.

*Okay, I made all those numbers up, but I bet they aren’t far off the mark.  Hat tip:

Flawed Methodology

Lies and Untruths, Numbers & Statistics, Seen On Campus

Some lofty survey has ranked the top universities in the world, so go ahead and look at it — if you think that universities per se  are worth more than a minute of your time.

However, before you do that, know that “sustainability” was one of the measures applied.

Wot dat?  you ask.

Sustainability is measured in two ways: the commitment of the institution to “the climate crisis” and how its research aligns with the climate goals of the United Nations.

Those of you who think that this should be a negative factor in the ranking methodology, raise your hands.

Yeah, that’s me in Row JJ Seat 24.

Private & Personal

Corporate Fuckery, Numbers & Statistics, Surveillance Society

I’ve never been that interested in my origins to have done the 23andMe thing, so I’m personally not affected by this activity.  Nevertheless:

Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have sued the genetic-testing company 23andMe to oppose the sale of DNA data from its customers without their direct consent.

The suit, filed on Monday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of Missouri, argues that 23andMe needs to have permission from each and every customer before their data is potentially sold. The company had entered an agreement to sell itself and its assets in bankruptcy court.

The information for sale “comprises an unprecedented compilation of highly sensitive and immutable personal data of consumers,” according to the lawsuit.

The genetic data at stake is especially sensitive and should be protected, because if it is stolen or compromised, it cannot be replaced. The data can be used to track not only the individuals who sent the kits, but also people related to customers, including yet unborn generations.

Why, and who is the prospective purchaser of all this “highly sensitive and immutable personal data”, you ask?

[23andMe] is poised to be acquired by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals for $256 million, according to the lawsuit.  Regeneron is a biotechnology company that uses genetic data to develop new drugs.

So there’s no chance that the data will be abused in any way, then. [eyecross]

I think that my position on this kind of thing should be fairly obvious by now.

Your personal data — all of it — belongs to you, and to nobody else.  Only you can authorize its use or dissemination, for whatever reason.

So if some asshole organization — let’s just call them Regeneron, for brevity’s sake — wants to use personal (i.e. unaggregated) data, they should have to ask you personally for your permission, each and every time.  (Once data is aggregated, of course, your anonymity is no longer an issue.)

By the way, the same should apply to US Census data, but that particular bullet has gone through the church countless times already, and it’s a terrible precedent.  (Which is why I always urge people not to fill out the “long form” census questionnaire every time this bit of government snoopery comes around.)

About Those Tariffs…

Business, Numbers & Statistics, Trumpism

…from a guy who’s had many years’ experience in the field:

“The tariffs are only in the cost of goods. They’re not on the retail price. So you put a tariff on the cost of the goods of 20%, it doesn’t mean the retail price goes up by 20%, not unless you can buy everything at a cost somewhere. Additionally, when they put tariffs on toys back in the first Trump administration, studies show 87% of the increase was borne by the Chinese manufacturers. China has a huge toy industry and they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by keeping the sale rather than have it moved to America, like a lot of it will do. Additionally, there are substitute products, you know, products that you can sell that are made in the U.S. instead of differences, promote those. And then, of course, there will be transfers, some sales to the U.S.”

“I think people are hysterical. It’s not nearly the magnitude of what they’re talking about.”

Yeah, of course.  Internet economists, mostly relying on journalists’ “expertise” for their prognoses… what could possibly go wrong?

Listen to the guys with experience.  Nine times out of ten, that experience will beat academic theory like an old carpet.

Sick Of The Exaggeration

Lies and Untruths, Numbers & Statistics

From Stephen Green (and a veritable host of others):

“The Democrats have a destructive addiction to the 20% side of a whole host of 80/20 issues.”

I can’t remember who first uttered the “80/20 issues” trope, but I’ll bet it was a Democrat like James Carville or Bill Maher.

With all things, scale matters.

Are you telling me that 20% of voters — that’s one in every five voters — supports:

  • men competing in women’s sports
  • gender-reversal surgery on minor children without parental notification (let alone consent)
  • not expelling criminal illegal aliens
  • not ending the flood of illegal immigrants who draw money from public health- and education services, at the expense of U.S. citizens
  • deficit spending and a ballooning national debt
  • a voting system that enables voter fraud and crooked elections (in guess who’s favor)
  • Hamas-sponsored riots and
  • anti-Semitic attacks on Jews in college campuses
  • eco-terrorism and obstructive demonstrations
  • violent demonstrations against public officials (e.g. Supreme Court justices) who dare to oppose their agenda
  • waste, abuse and outright fraud in the federal government budget
  • sending foreign aid money — by the billion — to sponsor overt anti-American activities abroad
  • siphoning “foreign aid” money — by the tens of millions — to line the pockets of executives running Washington D.C. non-profit organizations
  • a military weakened by woke DEI policies and regulations
  • a foreign policy that supports enemies of the U.S. (e.g. Iran) rather than chastises them
  • over-regulation of industry which chokes off economic progress
  • schools which have failed our children, and the government department that is responsible for that failure
  • a mandate that all cars sold in the U.S. be EVs, by 2030 — i.e. five years’ time — with no supporting infrastructure to sustain them
  • [insert your favorite issues here]

Seriously?  One in every five voters supports all the above?

Let me tell you right now:  it’s not 20%, but more like 5%.  In other words, the Democrats are supporting splinter issues that may find favor with only five in every hundred U.S. citizens — and even 5% may be too high.

So let’s quit this exaggeration of their support, please.  Most of their positions are deeply unpopular with almost all voters, and an “80/20” apportionment gives a misleading impression.  Numbers matter, so let’s start using the more-correct one.

Speaking of numbers, here’s a recent poll highlight:

When asked in an open-ended question to name the Democratic leader they feel “best reflects the core values” of the party, “10% of Democratic-aligned adults name New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 9% former vice president Kamala Harris, 8% Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and 6% House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Another 4% each name former president Barack Obama and Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, with Schumer joining a handful of others at 2%.”

When AOC is your standard-bearer (and the rest are equally dire)…