Robert Gentel wrote:
And you accuse me of cherry picking data?
Yes, because you are.
No, I'm not according to the normal usage of "cherry picking." If you want to redefine "cherry picking" to your personal definition, OK but don't expect people to respect you or your misuse of language.
What the hell do you think "life expectancy is taken into account" means in the methodology?
Exactly what it says. It takes the life expectancy, and projects those scenarios based on the life expectancy. That gives a forecast for people who live to that projected expectancy but the forecasted return rate doesn't include the significant (1 in 6) number of people who don't get any return.
Wow. Did you really just say that? Let's see what life expectancy is..
Life expectancy is a statistical measure of the average life span (average length of survival) of a specified population.
Life expectancy is an AVERAGE of the life span. If they excluded everyone that died there would be no average, would there? Since the life expectancy is an average that includes those that died any formula based on life expetancy DOES include those that died. They are in the formula because life expectancy puts them in.
Of course some people get zero and some people get more than the average. It's you that is ignoring the data by claiming something was not included when you haven't even looked at the methodology which clearly takes into account what you say it doesn't.
Nonsense. Answer this simple question: have you cited one single statistic that gives an accurate return rate for the entirety of the program or are you picking between forecasts for specific scenarios?
Picking between forecasts for specific scenarios doesn't make my use of that scenario "cherry picking." Since no one that is 30 years old has yet received any SS in retirement yet, all scenarios are projections. I have to use projected scenarios unless I want to use only existing SS recipients to show what SS returns and that would be deceptive, don't you think?
I don't think you even know what the term "cherry picking" means.
Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
So.. could you please point out the significant portion of the data that contradicts my position.
I have already done so. About 1 in 6 Americans would get no return rate.
You have only proved you don't understand what terms mean. Life expectancy includes those that don't reach 65.
So far you have only come up with small subsets while my number is lower than the majority of subsets which confirm my position.
So? Your number still doesn't indicate the return rate of Social Security, just the return rate for the specific scenario being forecasted.
So? You however accused me of cherry picking in choosing that particular subset.
So.. just to be clear... the market return over 10 years was less than the return for the following groups according to Heritage numbers on SS return rates.
30 year olds married- 2 earners - low income
30 year olds married - single earner low income
30 year olds single female - low income
30 year old single males - low income
30 year olds married- 2 earners - average income
30 year olds married - single earner average income
30 year olds single female - average income
40 year olds married- 2 earners - low income
40 year olds married - single earner low income
40 year olds single female - low income
40 year old single males - low income
40 year olds married- 2 earners - average income
40 year olds married - single earner average income
40 year olds single female - average income
50 year olds married- 2 earners - low income
50 year olds married - single earner low income
50 year olds single female - low income
50 year old single males - low income
50 year olds married- 2 earners - average income
50 year olds married - single earner average income
50 year olds single female - average income
30 year olds married- single earner - high income
40 year olds married- single earner - high income
50 year olds married- single earner - high income
Heritage also charted for the ages in between and older than the numbers there. In all instances the older the person in the group was, the better their return on SS. The high income figure used by Heritage includes only about 6% of households. So anyone of an age between the numbers posted or older would also have a return higher of 1.2% or higher.
If you want to accuse someone of cherry picking you should have data to support your accusation.
No, you didn't. Your "data" was not actual data but is based on misinterpreting data from Heritage. Plus you made up a meaning for the phrase "cherry picking".
You have provided no data.
That is a lie.
You only provided made up data based on your misunderstanding of life expectancy and your cherry picking of 21 year old black males which is a subset of ALL males.
You have only made specious claims which are obviously false and done your own cherry picking of really small subsets.
Go call a waaaambulance. You haven't established that I posted any false data and any subset that you are ignoring is indicative of your data not being reflective of the totality of Social Security.
Funny stuff there. The data I used was LESS than the return for the majority as I already showed in a previous post. At least 80% of those age 30 or older will have a return of 1.2% or higher according to the Heritage. That means at least 80% would have a return higher with SS than the market has returned over a 10 year period. I don't think I ever said my numbers were the totality of return on Social Security because there is no such thing as a totality since it is an open ended projection. Younger people have a lower return based on changes in retirement age and tax rates. I haven't denied that. People born in 2050 might have a negative return on SS but that is not anywhere in the literature and is a SWAG.
All it takes to demonstrate that you have not established what the return rate for Social Security is is to show that you are using forecasts that exclude any of the dataset.
Gosh, I guess that means I can't ever show the true rate of return because I can't project what the people born in 2050 will get from it. If you consider "cherry picking" to excluding ANY data then all science is cherry picking. Statistics is cherry picking. Heck, even common algebra would be "cherry picking" since it excludes imaginary numbers. You don't like the numbers so you have falsely accused me of cherry picking when it is clear I have not done so.
So showing you any data your forecast excludes shows you that you have not established the return rate for social security.
No, it shows you don't know what the hell you are talking about.