Matthew Stoller has pointed out something interesting—that the conclusion that since 2007 we have lost all the accumulated over the last 18 years:
The recent Federal Reserve analysis of the effects of the Great Recession on household wealth and income was a doozy, showing that median income dropped 7.7% and median net worth fell by 38.8% from 2007-2010. But that may not be the whole truth – the Fed might actually be leaving a very significant group of people out of the sample – the top 400 wealthiest people, or the 0.0000035%.
Since the wealth of the top 0.0000035% of income earners has grown so dramatically over that period, that sounds to me like a significant omission.
I’m not so sure. They acknowledge that the data is selected, and it seems like a logical data population sort. In fact, I’d go the Fed one step further and say they might do well to do a third or fourth sort.
For example, if I told you that the average golfer shoots over 100 it would be true. But it wouldn’t tell you squat about the better club golfer, or the PGA Tour, where they are other worldly. The over 100 stat is just gibberish when you start cutting it that way.
It should come as no surprise that most people, who hold most of their wealth in their home and passive investments in financial assets housed in a retirement vehicle would suffer disproportionate loss in a housing bubble or a public equity bubble.
But when you look at the Forbes 400, or even the so called top 1% – 5%, who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth in active private ownership of corporations or relatively safe financial assets, you would get a totally different result. Seems to me the Fed is making a rationally analytic data sort, and Mr Stoller is out to lunch.
You know, awhile back I noted here that a young and upcoming golfer named Web Simpson was on TV and available to watch on a slow / boring weekend TV day. Know what he did this past weekend? He won the US Open. I’m a damned good golfer, and would wipe the floor with most of the golfing population. Guess what, on my best day Web Simpson would wipe the floor with me. Cruel and unusual punishment. This is the point, apples and oranges comparisons just don’t work analytically.
I don’t know what Mr Stollers angle is. The recession was “unfair” in its wealth destruction and the super rich should have wealth confiscated? That would just be folly.
I think Mr Stoller needs a first class in data analysis, or perhaps a copy of Data Analysis for Dummies.
Just pointing things like this out will get you tarred as a “class warrior” who’s suffused with “envy” these days.
Yeah, a significant outlier.
Most people aren’t among the wealthiest 400, so to include them could skew the results. So not including those observation may give you a more accurate picture of what has happened to those among the observations that are removed.
Basically, the methodology section is saying, “We have left out a group that most would classify as outliers.”
Meh….
Meh
C’mon now, I tried to spice it up with some golf talk……..
I don’t golf…I don’t do well with ball and club sports….
“I don’t do well with ball and club sports….”
I’m sorry to hear about your sex life. 😉
I consider that a form of jujutsu…where when done right both sides win! 😛
Does it count if you just spent the wealth?
C’mon now, I tried to spice it up with some golf talk……..
I just substituted “chess” for golf, me for you, Caruana for Simpson. It all worked out.
Also, I was bummed that Tiger didn’t hold together over the weekend. Neither did Kramnik (or Caruana, for that matter) at the Tal Memorial in Moscow. Grrr.
This may surprise you, ice pick. But I played a fair amount of chess in younger days. In fact , if I took the time, I could refamiliarize myself with the pleasures of the Nimzo-Indian defense. But I probably won’t.
As for Tiger. What few realize is that despite his prodigious length (he won his majors on the par fives plus what I’m about to say) it was the putter. He made more puts. Period. Puts well, wins. Doesn’t put well, back in the pack.
Now, as history would have it, the only man who made more puts was a certain J Nicklaus. Tiger isn’t making puts. And if he doesn’t recover that, he will not catch Jack. Jack made them until 46 yrs old. See: the 1986 Masters. If he recovers that touch, he has a shot.
I could go on about the dichotomy between Jacks driving prowess and Tigers recovery prowess, but people have probably fallen asleep by now. I’m thinking Tiger has one or two more magical moments in him. But I don’t think he gets there. I could be wrong.
Now, if we want to look at the seconds and thirds and ask who really dominated golf”……………………
I was about two paragraphs away from hanging myself.
It could have been worse. He could have used bowling analogies.
Steve
I was about two paragraphs away from hanging myself.
If I had known that I would have waxed eloquently about the pros and cons of flat vs upright swing, holding off the release, how to hit a stinger……….how much longer do I need to go? 😉
Hey steve, have I ever told you my Dick Weber story…….?
Seriously, In the deepest darkest moments of despair, four bad cervical discs, three fused, a literally paralyzed left arm (C4 nerve root, you will get that) I thought to myself, I’ve either got to take up bowling, or relearn to play golf left handed. How’s that for arrogance.
As you well know, with four impaired discs, and I have a constant left hand tremor from the nerve insult, it’s never the same. Just no way. But I’ve completely rebuilt my swing and am on the road to a lower single digit handicap. I’m thinking 2-3 is where I can be.
It’s a bitch getting old. Oh, and by the way, the bowling thing is just a throw away line, but I did consider playing left handed.
Golf addiction is very serious. A few weeks ago I had a golfer who does very well in local tournaments. She showed up at the ER with a severe headache and a fever. They tapped her and she ended up with a headache. I was asked to see her about an epidural blood patch. We talked over the pluses and minuses. Her big concern was golfing that weekend. She wanted to know if it was ok to golf that weekend if I did the patch. I just laughed. I asked her if anything I said would make a difference. She laughed with me and said that if she was able to move, she would go to her tournament. Anyway, grats on the improvement. Amazing what motivation can do.
Steve
Drew, I actually already knew that stuff. I’m a rare bird, someone that likes watching golf but doesn’t play. (Variety of reasons for that, but the short version is “I don’t play golf.”) I remember watching Jack back in 1986. Hell, I remember watching him back in the 1970s, as my Dad loved watching golf. I don’t really remember any of the competitive stuff from the ’70s, though, just the God-awful clothing.
As for most dominant, I’d have to check but I don’t think Jack ever had a twelve year stretch like Tiger did. Not to mention rebuilding his swing TWICE over that time frame. The stats can’t tell you everything, but they can tell you a lot. Tiger’s average round over that time frame was SICK. And his career PGA win total would probably already be over 100 if he had played a more complete schedule. (Or maybe not, as it might have torn up his body faster. But I don’t think so as Tiger was probably working just as hard or harder when he wasn’t playing an event. I don’t think the extra events would have added to his wear and tear.)
Yeah, Tiger’s length became much less of a thing in the 2000s anyway, the field caught up to him some. It was always the putting and the short game. I’ve thought for years now he just needed to retire the driver. He’s already the all-time greatest grinder, so just go with it. There’s even a Nike ad campaign waiting to happen: “Just grind it.”
I’d also note that Tiger has insane levels of preparation, mentally. How many shots does he take on a given course that he hasn’t already thought about over and over again? The man’s a regular Kasparov I tell you!
Ice pick
Trust me, this could go on forever. And now you’ve got my motor running.
Jack was stronger mentally. You can agree or disagree. I’ve played competitive golf all my life. Jack had every single shot in his mind before he went off on the first tee. And he didn’t care after two rounds where he stood. He knew what the winning score would be, and that’s what he targeted. Watch interviews. And he basically never missed a “must” put. (and see my last paragraph)
What so many people miss is that when he arrived on the scene there was Palmer, Player, Boros and Casper. Hogan was pretty much cooked. None of those guys were scared of Nicklaus. Later it was Watson or Trevino or Miller or Ballesteros or etc. All ended up with 3-8 majors. studs. As ive noted, it was just show up with your sticks and lets go. When Tiger showed up he got majors against who? Who was his Palmer. Who was his Watson etc. tiger got a pass for awhile. And then the Michelsons etc started to come on. Tiger bagged 5 majors before people knew how to deal with it.
People say “well, the fields are so much deeper today.”. True, but they miss a crucial point. In any major, there are only about 10 guys who can really do it frequently. Can someone come out of the blue? Yes. But that was just as true in Nicklaus era as today. But if you’ve ever played competitively, you know there are only a handful who can hold up.
You do bring up an interesting point: in their prime. As a totalbody of work, it’s just silly. Jack has as many seconds in majors, and 10 thirds, as firsts. Tiger isnt in the same ballpark. The domination was unbelievable. The question becomes Sunday afternoon, in their primes, Jack vs Tiger. We will never know. But there is a story. Nicklaus arrives at the Masters and simply walks Through the locker room and stares at a couple of the combatants. No words. A guy says, what’s that all about?
Guy turns to him and says “those are the steely blues. You see, Jack knows you can’t beat him, and you know you can’t beat Jack……..but the worst part of it is, Jack knows that you know you can’t beat him. You are finished.”.
Tiger won some majors that way. No chance in hell he would have beaten Nicklaus with that. Can you say Turnberry?
Tiger won some majors that way. No chance in hell he would have beaten Nicklaus with that.
Conversely there’s no way Nicklaus would have beaten Woods with that.
Ice pick
I think you are probably correct, although I’m not sure. If you know anything about Nicklaus he always said “I win with my sticks, not the other guys.”
But if you look at Woods record, he didn’t have the Palmer and Watsons of the world for a period of time, and he currently is a mental basket case.
Only time will tell. But look at this year. He won where he is comfortable: Bay Hill and Memorial. He folded at the Open. Just folded.
I love good golf, but I’m not buying “woods is back.”
I’m not buying he’s back either, not even if he does win a major. That would merely put him on par with the other top flight golfers of the moment, which is a good THIRTEEN MAJORS short of “back”!
And are you telling me that Nicklaus never had bad major performances? Let’s see, that’s 46 1rsts, 2nds and 3rds by your count (I didn’t know about that third place numbers, but I’ll assume you are correct) over about a 24 year span IIRC. Four times 24 is 96. So that leaves 50 unaccounted for. That’s pretty impressive! But I’m pretty sure he had some bad runs in there, even without looking. That’s golf.
Also, did Nicklaus ever win a US Open with one good leg over 90 holes? How often did he redo his swing? I know Jack had some injury issues, but did he have anything as bad as the problem Woods’ has had with his knee? That thing is a creaky death-trap of a knee. That would get into anyone’s head. (I’m asking because you have much deeper knowledge than I do.)
Really, though, if I could see one guy win a major I would love to see Watson do it again. He got pretty close recently, and damn it felt good to cheer for someone older than me for a change!
Ice pick
I don’t know what your agenda is, but as a high level golfer, you are getting way, way out there.
Nicklaus’ record in the majors is so stupefyingly superior to anyone else that argumentation is absurd.
I need to go over to OTB, where they are defending Holder.
So, is it thirteen loops in a noose?
Sorry, michael, I had dozed off there for a while. What was it you were asking about?
I don’t miss an opportunity twice, Michael. That’s exactly correct. Go for it…………..
Promise?
I don’t know what your agenda is, but as a high level golfer, you are getting way, way out there.
Why are you assuming an agenda when (a) I’m largely agreeing with you (but not on everything) and (b) asking for information that you have and I don’t?
Judas H. Priest, Drew, you are such a fucking putz. Is there ANY topic where you don’t pull a Topper? I was going to pass along an interesting quote on chess to you (that would be pertinent to your relationship with the game currently) and even pass along a book recommendation on the off chance you ever took it up again. I was going to do that as a simple courtesy, but never mind. I’m sure you are at least as much better at chess than me as Kasparov is, if not twice that good.
Two questions, though. Since you are so fucking fabulous at every fucking thing you do, why haven’t you cured cancer yet or created world peace? Is it just that you hate the rest of us so much for not being as fucking fantastic as you are?
PS I’m pretty sure I could find some quotes by some golfers a helluva lot better than you who think Tiger is the best. Disagreement is a natural part of taliking sports without it being agenda driven, or for one person to constantly state how much better they are than the people they’re arguing with.
Fucking putz.
I’ve been called worse.
Icipick – I just call them like I see them. It’s my business. If I didn’t have that trait I wouldn’t be good at what I do. I’m sorry it offends you at times.