Mickey Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Average Annual Pay State Rankings 10 highest: 1. Connecticut $46,852 per year 2. New York 46,328 3. New Jersey 45,182 4. Mass. 44,954 5. Cal. 41,419 6. Ill. 39,688 7. Delaware 39,684 8. Maryland 39,382 9. Washington 38,242 10. Michigan 38,135 The 10 lowest: 50. Montana 26,001 49. South Dakota 26,360 48. North Dakota 26,550 47. Mississippi 26,665 46. Arkansas 28,074 45. Idaho 28,163 44. West Virginia 28,612 43. Oklahoma 28,654 42. Wyoming 28,975 41. New Mexico 29,431 Any similarity between which states are for Kerry and which for Bush is completely coincidental. All the top ten salaries are states taken by Gore and where Kerry leads now. Of the ten bottom feeders, 9 are in Bush country with the only exception being New Mexico which Gore barely won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I'm glad that you said coincioidental. I'd love somone to spin a statistical correlation of this tidbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubhockey Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I'm glad that you said coincioidental. I'd love somone to spin a statistical correlation of this tidbit. 79022[/snapback] No spin needed, take out the Top 5% in those top 10 states and then all the states are pretty much even. Hell, you need the extra money to pay for all the taxes and fees we have here. For example, take out the Top 5% in NY, and you get WNY. Anyone know WNY's annual pay? It's horrible, no where near NY's 46k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Any similarity between which states are for Kerry and which for Bush is completely coincidental. All the top ten salaries are states taken by Gore and where Kerry leads now. Of the ten bottom feeders, 9 are in Bush country with the only exception being New Mexico which Gore barely won. 78705[/snapback] Don't you think the term bottom feeders is a bit insensitive? I thought you were going for the sensitive candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I would have to say that California's numbers are a bit skewed considering the number of illegals we have employed and living in this state. Maybe after we give them drivers licences, we can adjust the figues accordingly. UVAS NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Average Annual Pay State Rankings 10 highest: 1. Connecticut $46,852 per year 2. New York 46,328 3. New Jersey 45,182 4. Mass. 44,954 5. Cal. 41,419 6. Ill. 39,688 7. Delaware 39,684 8. Maryland 39,382 9. Washington 38,242 10. Michigan 38,135 The 10 lowest: 50. Montana 26,001 49. South Dakota 26,360 48. North Dakota 26,550 47. Mississippi 26,665 46. Arkansas 28,074 45. Idaho 28,163 44. West Virginia 28,612 43. Oklahoma 28,654 42. Wyoming 28,975 41. New Mexico 29,431 Any similarity between which states are for Kerry and which for Bush is completely coincidental. All the top ten salaries are states taken by Gore and where Kerry leads now. Of the ten bottom feeders, 9 are in Bush country with the only exception being New Mexico which Gore barely won. 78705[/snapback] Actually, I'd like to see these numbers adjusted for cost-of-living. There's a big difference between a $47k salary in Connecticut and $47k in New Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Actually, I'd like to see these numbers adjusted for cost-of-living. There's a big difference between a $47k salary in Connecticut and $47k in New Mexico. 79095[/snapback] That would ruin the "only dumb hicks vote for Bush" theory. I much prefer the simplistic approach and its implication. Some people are just plain better/smarter/classier than others. These traits make them richer. Despite Kerry's desire to tax them out of their wealth, they see the greater good in helping the dumb hick Bush voters from West Virginny. If only those stupid hicks would see that the erudite New Englanders are trying to help them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 No spin needed, take out the Top 5% in those top 10 states and then all the states are pretty much even. Hell, you need the extra money to pay for all the taxes and fees we have here. For example, take out the Top 5% in NY, and you get WNY. Anyone know WNY's annual pay? It's horrible, no where near NY's 46k. 79058[/snapback] Actually, there are some correlations that are interesting here but they don't really prove much. In statistics, when you reach a certain correlation level, a relationship is believed to exist even though you can't describe the exact mechanism of that relationship. It is a useful principle to a point. For example, in the early days of the HIV epidemic, they found a statistically significant correlation between Hepatitis and HIV. When a person had Hepatitis (not sure which type), a disease for which we had a diagnostic test, they also had HIV a large precentage of the time, a disease for which we did not have a test, so the Hepatitis test was actually pretty good at finding out if a person had HIV though no one knew why. A correletion this high could be significant but that would take a lot more studying than I have time for. The one point I will permit myself to speculate on is that often on this board I have heard politicians being blamed for or given credit for economic success or failures in their bailiwick. The states not doing well in terms of annual salaries are pretty solidly republican and have been for awhile. If we are going to blame politicians for that, shouldn't republicans in those states get hammered? If we aren't going to blame or reward politicians for economic numbers, then can y'all please stop blaming democrats for every economic problem there is? Let's just be consistent and that goes for democrats as well. If they are going to blame Bush for the bad, they must reward him for the good and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Actually, there are some correlations that are interesting here but they don't really prove much. In statistics, when you reach a certain correlation level, a relationship is believed to exist even though you can't describe the exact mechanism of that relationship. It is a useful principle to a point. For example, in the early days of the HIV epidemic, they found a statistically significant correlation between Hepatitis and HIV. When a person had Hepatitis (not sure which type), a disease for which we had a diagnostic test, they also had HIV a large precentage of the time, a disease for which we did not have a test, so the Hepatitis test was actually pretty good at finding out if a person had HIV though no one knew why. A correletion this high could be significant but that would take a lot more studying than I have time for. The one point I will permit myself to speculate on is that often on this board I have heard politicians being blamed for or given credit for economic success or failures in their bailiwick. The states not doing well in terms of annual salaries are pretty solidly republican and have been for awhile. If we are going to blame politicians for that, shouldn't republicans in those states get hammered? If we aren't going to blame or reward politicians for economic numbers, then can y'all please stop blaming democrats for every economic problem there is? Let's just be consistent and that goes for democrats as well. If they are going to blame Bush for the bad, they must reward him for the good and vice versa. 79126[/snapback] In statistics, there is something called simple regression (which you essentially describe) and something called multiple regression which takes many factors into account and comes up with more accurate results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 Don't you think the term bottom feeders is a bit insensitive? I thought you were going for the sensitive candidate? 79068[/snapback] How about "revenue-challenged"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 so....what're we trying to do? convert each other? at this point, you can see with everyone's extreme biases that no matter what we present each other, we're sticking to our guns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 That would ruin the "only dumb hicks vote for Bush" theory. I much prefer the simplistic approach and its implication. Some people are just plain better/smarter/classier than others. These traits make them richer. Despite Kerry's desire to tax them out of their wealth, they see the greater good in helping the dumb hick Bush voters from West Virginny. If only those stupid hicks would see that the erudite New Englanders are trying to help them. 79110[/snapback] The stereotypes are what get to me. There was a post not long ago by a person I shall not name because, hey, he could have just been having a bad day, that pretty much said that all democratic voters are urban, unemployed, crack heads, whores, welfare cheats, felons and deviants. I found it pretty offensive and loaded with racial overtones. I said so at the time and was pretty saddened not to see those on the right who I thought were pretty reasonable express their outrage as well. I don't think "only dumb hicks vote for Bush" but please recognize that the notion is just the flip side of "only welfare cheats vote for Kerry". Both stereotypes are ridiculous and deplorable. Besides, plenty of dumb sophisitcates are voting for Bush as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 so....what're we trying to do? convert each other? at this point, you can see with everyone's extreme biases that no matter what we present each other, we're sticking to our guns 79152[/snapback] It's called "having a discussion". And so far, it's a pretty good one; what it lacks in mindless vitrolic it's making up for with substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Then you have bums like me who make $0 and contribute nothing to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 It's called "having a discussion". And so far, it's a pretty good one; what it lacks in mindless vitrolic it's making up for with substance. 79233[/snapback] I totally agree. This thread could be a model so far. I especially like your cost of living argument. I'd bet the cost of living numbers would wipe out a lot of the underlying premise on this. But maybe not. I'd just be curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I totally agree. This thread could be a model so far. I especially like your cost of living argument. I'd bet the cost of living numbers would wipe out a lot of the underlying premise on this. But maybe not. I'd just be curious. 79254[/snapback] It's not just cost but quality of living. You can live far better on 35K in Alaska than you can on $100K in San Francisco or NYC. Stats are interesting but the interpretation has so many different variables that they are hardly the "black and white" facts people seem to be looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts