![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In today's New York Times on-line, I read an article saying that financial statistics from 2004 has just been made public. In particular, the mean and median incomes, as well as the median net worth, caught my eye. In a society that has such a skewed wealth distribution, the difference between the mean income (about $70k in 2004) and the median (about $43k) says quite a bit.
In any case, the numbers geek in me got together with the Anarchist and formulated the poll below. Basically, I am interested in the wealth distribution of my friends, compared to the national average. If you can, please compare your wealth and net worth from 2004 to the statistics released from 2004. If you don't remember that far back, go for your current values. Out of respect for privacy, I have made the poll answerable by all and results are visible to none. When the answers are all in, I will publicly mention only the final results (i.e., no personal data will be mentioned). Furthermore, if you want to answer but have privacy issues with me, feel free to log out and take the poll anonymously. Personally, I think that the social taboo against discussing income mainly serves the wealthy and does nothing to benefit the working class; however, I do acknowledge that such a taboo exists and my poll is breaking it.
And, that said, here is the poll in question:
[Poll #679145]
In any case, the numbers geek in me got together with the Anarchist and formulated the poll below. Basically, I am interested in the wealth distribution of my friends, compared to the national average. If you can, please compare your wealth and net worth from 2004 to the statistics released from 2004. If you don't remember that far back, go for your current values. Out of respect for privacy, I have made the poll answerable by all and results are visible to none. When the answers are all in, I will publicly mention only the final results (i.e., no personal data will be mentioned). Furthermore, if you want to answer but have privacy issues with me, feel free to log out and take the poll anonymously. Personally, I think that the social taboo against discussing income mainly serves the wealthy and does nothing to benefit the working class; however, I do acknowledge that such a taboo exists and my poll is breaking it.
And, that said, here is the poll in question:
[Poll #679145]
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Hope all is well by you and those you hold dear...
From:
no subject
Things here are stressful in preparation for the move, but other than that they are okay. Wish I could get back to Arizona one more time before I go, but that seems highly unlikely, I'm afraid.
I hope all is well for you and everyone else back in the valley of the sun!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I left the terms deliberately vague so that people could interpret as they will.
You are definitely right about the medians varying with location, but in this case I was specifically comparing to the national average... since that was the only data that I had. How do your answers change if you compare only to your locality?
From:
no subject
I'm still looking for work. It's frustrating when all the newspapers direct me to the online sites. The online sites direct me to temp agencies. I've already been to several temp agencies. They have very little work. But at least I'm still getting more interviews since I moved.
Notice how this demographics page is horribly out of date, but you get the idea. On my income, there was no way I could afford to live in Naperville! Heck, even when I was on salary at McCormick Place, they would've been forced to give me a raise to keep up with a new law. Salaried employees must now have a minimum wage of $22,700 (some exceptions apply). No, I wasn't even getting paid that much. And I know how much my boss was making, because he wanted me to copy and mail out his tax forms one year. He wasn't making a heck of a lot either.
http://www.visitnaperville.com/Discover/demographics.html
Oh, and most of the companies they list there as being Naperville's biggest? When I go to the Job Club to do networking, I keep meeting dozens of FORMER employees of all those companies. *sigh* And like hell it's 28 miles from downtown Chicago! I don't know where they're measuring from, but it was 37 for me, and I lived at Ogden and Mill, which is closer to I-88 than downtown Naperville was. My dad lived south of 75th Street, and took I-55 in, and that was also at least 40 miles.
They keep marking it as #1 best place to raise kids. They won't tell you how many teenaged runaways there are, or how many kids bring homemade bombs to school. The library is marked #1, but do they mention how you need to be fingerprinted to use the internet there? And I hate to say it, but the number of jobs going up? It seems to be laying off regular employees, and replacing them with cheaper temps. I've had more than a few temp jobs with those huge compnies, most of which said they were moving to some other suburb. If somewhere is considered a "major employer" with only 200 employees? Okay, I'm worried. I think we all know the laws about companies of under 500 employees, and what sort of health insurance, etc. they have to provide for employees. Seems like more than a few companies are getting around that by hiring several dozen temps.
So I guess I don't count as being "unemployed" when they run a check for that. But damn, it kinda sucks when I've been on so many temp assignments that I recognize half the "new people" on any given assignment! But considering that the places I've interviewed with since I've moved want to pay me about twice what I was previously making, maybe I'll get lucky soon!
From:
no subject
So while i answered much less to both, by this time next year my answer to the first question will go up to "about the same." (However, my answer to the second one will probably remain "much less" unless i decide to rush my "buy property" goal.)
Do the government figures take into account age groups?? (i suppose i could look this up myself...)
From:
no subject
Understood. I'm not sure why the 2004 numbers are only released now, instead of 2005, since they are over a year out of date. It may have to do with the method used to collect the data, which I have no clue what it is. And, of course, we cannot know the medians for 2006 yet, since the year has barely begun.
By the way, with regards to buying property, that does not necessarily jump your net worth. The value of the property MINUS the value of the loan is what adds to your net worth...
Btw, on a totally unrelated note, in case I did not say it before, it was very good to see you again at CapriCon! :)
From:
no subject
If 2006 continues the way it has been so far, I estimate my annual income to be $4,100. I think "much less" definitely applies for this year.
From:
no subject