zlacker

Yeah this writer seems confused, by definition any above average group is more likely to regress to the global mean… Than to keep going upwards.

That’s the default, so any speculations/arguments/etc… should be written to show why the other direction is more likely than not.

>>Michae+(OP)
It feels like we are instead bifurcating instead of regressing to a mean. The rich are getting richer and moving to one side together as a group, while the middle class and poor are merging the other way into their own "barely hanging on class", distributed around a point far on the other side.

The average going up doesn't mean it's a tide that raises all boats.

>>ryandr+y2
Even a 30th percentile US household would be above average globally…?

>>Michae+n6
If only they also had access to goods and services at globally average prices...

>>TeMPOr+b9
How does that relate to the phenomena of regression to the mean?

>>Michae+Vc
In that it's tricky to identify the right mean to measure the regression against.

>>TeMPOr+5e
It doesn’t matter which one you pick, there are no known exceptions to the general phenomena.

That’s why I said by definition.

>>Michae+uh
By what definition? It's certainly possible that some kind of societal bell curve or other distribution can just keep getting wider without meaningful movement of the relative positions of individuals. I don't understand why you assume the most likely behavior is regression to the mean. Especially on short terms that seems weird to assume

>>Danmct+3I
Who is assuming a short term?

>>Michae+n6
Punching down is clealrly a sign of things regressing. The Cantillon effect is what separates the rich and those aren't. Trickle down economics doesn't work. Imagine telling those barely middle and poor Americans you're still doing better than Thais or South Africans. It doesn't help.

>>wesapi+XG2
How does this relate to the previous comment?

Did you reply to the wrong one?