Commenting on another post, Ron H says not only am I unable to add up, but that I am a deceptive and dishonest person, which is to say, a liar.
Here I'll deal with both charges.
Here's Ron H on my math:
...the Social Security wage statistics table, doesn't support your claim that 54% of Americans have average earnings of $12,500. Perhaps you meant to write $27,500.So who's right?
Here is the Social Security Wage Statistics table for 2011 that I cited in my blogpost of July 4.
Let's take it bit by bit, so hopefully everyone may grasp it.
From the first line of the table we see that the twenty-three and a half million lowest paid American wage earners (23,548,858 to be precise) earned $47.5 billion in 2011, or an average of just over two thousand dollars each ($2,019.42, to give it to the penny) .
From the next line of the table we see that the next lowest paid thirteen point eight million Americans earned $102.5 billion in 2011 for an average of $7,400.95 each.
And so on, until we reach a cumulative total of 53.90% of American wage-earners, comprising 81,623,250 individuals, with total earnings in 2011 of one trillion, fifteen billion and some change, or an average per person of $12,400 plus or minus some rounding error. (To get the total income for the lowest-paid 53.9% of wage-earners, you have to add the "Aggregate amount" under the heading "Net compensation" in the first five lines of the table.)
So if anyone is able to reach Ron H's average $27,500 in 2011 as the mean wage for the lowest paid 54% of American wager-earners, I hope they will let me know how.
And Who's the Liar
Now, for the lie, perpetrated by trickery.
"I see" says Ron H that,
you fixed the link in your response to me so that it didn't point directly to the wage statistics table but to a newly created blog post misdated July 4th, so you could dismiss my previous statement about your source.First, I "fixed" nothing. In response to comments by Ron H on the mean earnings of the lowest paid 54% of American wage-earners I provided a link to my blog post of July 4 — The Wealth of a Hyper-Power.
The allegation that I "misdated" that post is false. Until today, when I did a Google search for how to change a Blogger date stamp (learning in the process how to drop an egg without breaking it), I had no idea that a Blogger date stamp could be changed. But in any case, every date stamp on this blog is the date stamp provided automatically by Blogger and which, so far as I am aware, indicates the actual date on which a post first appeared.
For Ron H, however, there is no question that I lied: "Your dishonesty" he says, "is offensive."
Now that I have categorically denied any deception, it will be interesting to see if Ron H withdraws his remarks and apologizes, as I have requested, for his insulting and false insinuation. Needless to say, until he does, any future remarks he may post here will be deleted automatically, which is to say, as soon as I see them.