Plural of Data ≠ Anecdote

It’s not even about “anecdotes not being the plural of data”. It’s about ‘anecdote’ being more than “a derogatory term that you attach to ideas you don’t like”.

I love it!

I am going to use that from now on, whenever my advisor asks about any data or studies I haven’t looked at for my thesis.

Not just not the plural, but the exact opposite, etymologically.

Data is latin for “given,” based on the formula used by Romans for dating their letters (date itself has the same origin.)

Anecdote is from Gk. anekdota “things unpublished,” neut. pl. of anekdotos, from an- “not” + ekdotos “published,” from ek- “out” + didonai “to give.” Procopius’ 6c. Anecdota, unpublished memoirs of Emperor Justinian full of court gossip — i.e. literally “not given.”

I love the Internet.

My favorite economics anecdote is the one about the plumber who said, “Tax cuts for the rich help the poor because a stitch in time saves nine.” Really blows you away with its homely wisdom, huh?

One time this farm labourer said to me, “Andrew, you’re the best”. I therefore conclude that since I am obviously the best, I should be named President of the Universe.

Guest: That’s a good one, even if I don’t know what that means. :) But since I don’t know what that means…

Tax cuts for the rich help the poor, because guns don’t kill children, children kill children.

Tax cuts for the rich help the poor, because Jesus saves.

Tax cuts for the rich help the poor, because absence makes the heart grow fonder.

The pipe fitter anecdote, besides all its other problems (like having no evidence that the conversation ever took place: cf. “Friedman’s Cabbie”), has the problem that it doesn’t even make sense in its own universe.

If a pipe fitter wishes more customers, then he wishes more people who are *just* rich enough to want to employ him. He doesn’t need his current base of customers to become one that is half as large but twice as individually rich, or one tenth as large and ten times as rich. Consequently, a *real* pipe fitter would be wishing for the redistribution of wealth, not its consolidation.

If this was a science fiction story, I would say that it was not true to its premises.

What an odd story for the Times to reprint a second time (the conversation took place last September).

In the meantime we have more “data”–the poverty rate has fallen, the government says. I guess that means Pence was right to cut taxes last year!

Wow, this macroeconomics stuff is easy!

At the limits, it’s clear that poverty would rise with reduced taxation. It’s been my understanding that the recent tax cuts are not offset by higher taxation of the poverty class, necessarily, since the government has increased borrowing.

In the meantime we have more “data”—the poverty rate has fallen, the government says. I guess that means Pence was right to cut taxes last year!

WASHINGTON — The nation’s poverty rate was essentially unchanged last year, the first year it hasn’t increased since before President Bush took office.

The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 37 million Americans were living under the poverty line last year — about 12.6 percent of the population. That’s down from 12.7 percent in 2004, but census officials said the change was statistically insignificant.

Wow, this macroeconomics stuff is easy!

Not nearly as easy as making shit up.

Thomas: Read. The. Title.

And stop talking about people’s parents, because if you don’t stop, then your mom’s a terrorist.

Hah, this quote should be reworked as an 8th-grade standardized vocab item:

Mr. Pence argued that tax cuts help the poor by revving the economy. That may eventually prove true, but despite large tax cuts the poverty rate has risen in each of the last four years. “That’s (anecdotal/a conclusion based on the best statistical evidence we have available),” Mr. Pence said in an interview last fall. Then he offered an (anecdote/self-sufficiently persuasive economic argument in convenient homily form) — a story President Reagan told about a pipe fitter pleased to see the rich prosper, “because I’ve never been hired by a poor man.”

This would at least help us suss out whether Pence is genuinely treacherous in his term-twisting or merely ignorant.

henry, that repeats your assertion that there’s some sort of argument here, but I still don’t see what argument you’re making. Are you saying that the fact of four years of increases in the poverty rate (followed, as it happens, by a statistically insignificant decline in the poverty rate) answers the question of whether tax cuts stimulate the economy? I’m not sure what the proper response to such an inanity is–surely it isn’t Pence’s response. Maybe eye rolling?

The standards for argument are certainly very broad when your framing up Pence’s response counts as an argument in itself. I thought my initial response–which focused on the concept of “data” you were using–was right on point. If it’s “evidence” that’s the core of your argument, have you reconsidered the argument’s merits today, in light of the Census report? How has your reaction differed from Pence’s?

henry, I got the joke. I even noted how clever you are.
I too made a joke, also about standards of evidence. After all, if, as the Times (and some others) suggest, the “data” on poverty is in tension with Pence’s views, then surely the new “data” will be relevant to the discussion–so I jokingly said that the new “data” showed Pence was right. Of course, just like the “data” cited in the article, the new “data” didn’t resolve the merits of Pence’s claims at all, as anyone can see. You just didn’t see that I was joking, which of course is my fault, not yours. I remain confused about your references to “facts” and “actual issues” and the question of whether “Pence was right all along” because those seem entirely unrelated to what you say your point with the post was, but I suppose I shall remain confused, because this has gone on too long.

UK, you’re wrong–Henry isn’t trying to understand anything about the merits of Pence’s claims at all. See his most recent post. But, tell me, did the “data” released today cause you to revisit the merits of tax cuts?

I didn’t think so. Following Henry’s lead, we can ignore the merits and safely conclude that you aren’t any better than Pence.

I surrender, Thomas–I have no idea what the fuck your point is, or even if you have one. I guess that means you win.

Perhaps if the title had been “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means” then thomas wouldn’t have bothered providing ample date to prove how stupid he is.

“The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 37 million Americans were living under the poverty line last year—about 12.6 percent of the population. That’s down from 12.7 percent in 2004, but census officials said the change was statistically insignificant.”

Err, no, that isn’t what was reported at all. Yes, what was reported was that 12.6% of the population was below the Federal Poverty Line. This is not, not at all, the same as saying that 12.6% of the population were living below the poverty line.
The poverty rate as reported is calculated before the impact of both the tax system and in kind benefits. Given that the major programs of poverty alleviation in the US are via the tax system (the EITC) and in kind benefits (Medicaid, housing vouchers and food stamps) the number below that poverty rate is not a guide to the number living in poverty.
It is a guide to the number of people who need help in order not to live in poverty, but it does not measure most of the help that they do receive.

Whether people should receive more help (as I’d guess most people here would insist they should) is an entirely different question. But to talk about poverty we should at least be talking about how much there is after whatever alleviation has been done, not about how much there is before, otherwise, how would we know how much more alleviation we ought to do?

For example, the US could use the same measurements of poverty as most of Europe (and I think codified by the OECD): post-tax, post-benefit, less than 60% of median income, adjusted for household size.