Posted by andrew67
on 28 September 2014 - 09:52 AM
So the chart given here is very different to how data is normally represented, as such the conclusions that could be made are confounding.
First, the chart displays median wealth, not income, on the y-axis. Wealth is the accumulation of assets; property, investments and savings. A person could have a good job yet spend his hard earned money on things that don't have any future value; clubbing, dinners, and whatever else. The second part is that this is median wealth, or 50th percentile of wage earners. If i give an exam to 100 students, and 30 percent get 90 and the rest get less than a 50. The mean, or average could be 60, but the median would be less than 50, because the median is equal to the 50th student's score on the exam.
The other issues with this chart and data would be, "How was the data obtained?". It seems it was collected from a Federal Reserve Commissioned Survey done by the University of Chicago and is linked here: http://www.federalre...4/pdf/scf14.pdf
For brevity, let us assume that the researchers were able to isolate most of the bias in this study so we can get to conclusion that may be made. It is well known that for fields in STEM AA's and Hispanics make less than their white counterparts, shown here: http://www.census.go...pubs/acs-18.pdf.
This would have a major outcome on a persons ability to accumulate wealth given that a higher percentage of their income will be spent on consumables.
The other issue at play here is life style choices. How does one tend to live their life? Do they spend money as soon as they get it? Or do they save for a rainy day? Are they renting or purchasing homes?
Lastly, is there a difference between the percentages of degrees earned by field and race?
I think these are just some of the points that could contribute to the data shown here and warrant further investigation.
Posted by andrew67
on 25 September 2014 - 07:47 AM
I hate the people on this board that act as if "your not a real panther fan if you don't want Cam to start on Sunday".
What I have to say to you is "fug you!"
The Cam that is appearing on Sunday is a shell of his former self, due to the organization down playing the surgery that he had in the offseason as if it were routine. It seems now that they were just covering their collective asses because the surgery was not done sooner. Cam's natural reactions on the football field have not changed since he first started. He holds onto the ball in the pocket to allow plays and routes to develop to where he is comfortable throwing the ball. If any pressure comes near him, he would muscle out of it and run, making people look silly trying to tackle him.
This instincts have not changed, but now he has a bum ankle. He can't be the man he once was. But changing his techniques now for a temporary period of recovery would be foolish. The man is a competitor, he will never tell you he can't do this, he has too much pride in was he does and what he has achieved in life. Coach Rivera needs to grow a pair, and sit him down for the betterment of this teams future. Derek Anderson is not the future, but he can help us in the interim, due to his veteran understanding. He was in Cleveland, he knows how the 3-4 defense works cause he played against it so often.
My main rant here is that people on this board want to act like there is no argument to be made that DA should start. It is their own blind ignorance that makes them so intolerable to read. I recognize what Cam gives us at QB, a consistent big play threat with his arm even though he cant move around as well now. But is that worth him losing confidence and getting injured, after doing so well last season. Ron you have to be the bad guy and sit him down now, if you know what is good for you.
Posted by andrew67
on 07 September 2014 - 08:21 PM
DA proved that Cam has alot to learn when it comes to pocket awareness. DA only had one sack all game with our patchwork oline. Need I remind you guys that he is no where near as athletic as Cam. So Cam, start taking notes.