• Hildegard (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    Eliminating the top 1% of earners is a good policy I support, but I don’t think it makes sense as a way to calculate averages.

    Though your proposal might work now, in the fullness of time things will change, and the 1% may not be the right number. I don’t think you can rely on governments to update numbers promptly. There are places in England that have fines in law defined in denominations that no longer exist. You can’t rely on governments keep things up to date.

    But your doesn’t address the underlying problems with using the arethmetic mean. It seems like you’re just searching for justification to pay people you don’t like less.

    I believe everyone should be able to live comfortably, and well designed incentive systems are effective at shaping behavior. Median is better on both fronts.

    • SippyCup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      It’s designed to be uncomfortable until the lowest earners in the country are able to approach comfortability themselves. The whole point is to tie people who make decisions for the rest of us to the consequences of them. It’s not about inflicting harm, it’s about inflicting consequences, which may be good or bad.

      We want a rising tide.

      • Hildegard (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        Then tie it to the lowest earners. You can pick a lower percentile using the same methodology as finding the median.

        Adding fixed percentage adjustments to the mean is not a good way of going about it.