I think key is that the median is basically the same now with China’s trajectory going up and European going down.
It found that Chinese median wealth per adult, at $26,752, now outstrips Europe, where the average adult has a wealth of $26,690. The European figure takes into account the whole of the continent, which includes many less wealthy nations in its southern and eastern regions.
Yes, the median wealth is noted in the article. The average wealth, however, is not. At this point I don’t think you understand the difference either. Thank you for the conversation, let’s try again later on a different topic.
I understand the difference between median and average perfectly fine. What I’m saying is that the median is what’s relevant because that’s what represents the wealth of a typical person. The problem with using average is that it doesn’t account for inequality meaning that high average wealth could be in practice hoarded by a handful of rich people while the rest of the population remains poor.
Median is an ‘average’ (it is the mean of ranks), just not the arithmetic average (‘mean’) of the values. Text is correct - no need to get upset because you did not get it.
Anyway, the numbers are meaningless as they do not tell us how wealth is distributed (e.g., what is the interquartile range - central 50%) and we cannot conclude anything about the wealth of the majority (>50%) of people.
That’s one way of interpreting it. Another could be that it shows a large wealth gap, when considering the average along with the median.
I think key is that the median is basically the same now with China’s trajectory going up and European going down.
I don’t believe that the average and median values are the same. I don’t think those who wrote the article understand the difference.
The language they use is imprecise, but that does appear to be the median wealth in China right now https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202209/1276225.shtml
Yes, the median wealth is noted in the article. The average wealth, however, is not. At this point I don’t think you understand the difference either. Thank you for the conversation, let’s try again later on a different topic.
I understand the difference between median and average perfectly fine. What I’m saying is that the median is what’s relevant because that’s what represents the wealth of a typical person. The problem with using average is that it doesn’t account for inequality meaning that high average wealth could be in practice hoarded by a handful of rich people while the rest of the population remains poor.
Yep, if they gave us an average without showing us the distribution, then that would be meaningless
Median is an ‘average’ (it is the mean of ranks), just not the arithmetic average (‘mean’) of the values. Text is correct - no need to get upset because you did not get it. Anyway, the numbers are meaningless as they do not tell us how wealth is distributed (e.g., what is the interquartile range - central 50%) and we cannot conclude anything about the wealth of the majority (>50%) of people.
Like the difference between City of London and village in Transnistria, or something like that?