City Councilor questions median income ranking

An Abbotsford city councilor emailed to ask about my source for the statement about Abbotsford having the highest median income. The table included with the email was for families which I questioned. The second table the councillor sent, while for individuals, was not the data I had used. Unfortunately having become homeless again means my computers and notes are stored and not accessible.

But the few data points and notes I have access to make clear that the numbers from the councilor’s chart are much lower than the numbers I had used/calculated. My first thought when I looked at the chart sent by the councilor was that the income levels seemed far to low and against logic. In fact the median individual income from the chart supplied is barely above the salary paid to a councilor for part time work and thousands of $$$ lower than council’s salary after the approved raise takes affect.

Fortunately being homeless does not deny you access to your brain, nor does it mean you suddenly lost ability to cerebrate. Which is very good news as being homeless the ability to use and exercise the mind with one’s power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments is a must if you have any hope of escaping the system and getting your life back.

My mind tends to chew over interesting facts or ideas as well as questions raised – would that our “leaders” minds worked that way. Apparently my subconscious has been chewing on this matter and when a quiet mental moment came tossed points up for consideration. I liked to review the “unsolvable” situation/problem then sleep with a pen and paper, beside the bed because my subconscious was so good at untangling complex puzzles and problems. I would wake up, write it down in detail and when I got up in the I had my solution.

Tonight as I was relaxing after my swim, with my mind quiet, up drifted the resolution. Leaving me shaking my head at how dense I had been. The table of individual income sent by the councilor had quantifiers applied to the table. I read the quantifiers and and simply failed to note what needed to be noted: “Government transfers represented the second largest source of income; All income data for individuals are … after the receipt of transfers”.

This is why there was such a difference between the councilor’s chart(s) and the data I had been using. Remember median is the middle, not the average. The more very low income individuals added to the bottom end of the “pile” the lower the median (middle point) moves on the pile.

The councilor’s chart included “… after the receipt of transfers”. Thus the councilor’s income pile includes individuals whose income is GST, OAS, CPP, welfare and any other government transfer which is classed as income and we have a situation where “Government transfers represented the second largest source of income”. This results in a very large number of very low incomes with the effect of pulling the median income to unexpected low levels.

The numbers I was working with were based on wages earned with the effect that the median income was several times higher since all the low “incomes” resulting from government transfers were eliminated moving the median (middle point) much higher on the incomes pile.

I think that it is reasonable to argue that individual median incomes based on wages is a more realistic chart to use when speaking of donations, rather than a chart distorted severely downwards by the inclusion of people whose incomes are solely government transfers. This is not to imply the poor are of less generous spirit, but merely acknowledges the reality that with the lack of affordable housing in this city the poor simply have no money to donate and must instead give of their time.

One of the other points that bubbled up is that in fact this number says nothing about the generosity of a city. What do you need for a median donation of $620? The median or middle income needs to be $620 so you could have a median donation with donations of $1 + $620 + $621 = $1242. Compare that to a city with a median donation of $1 made up of 50,000 $0.99 + $1.00 + 50,000 $1.01 = $100,001. Which city is “more generous”, the median of $620 and a total of $1242 or median of $1 and a total of $100,001? A median donation of $620 tells us nothing about the total the city gave or anything about the generosity of the city.

To me the concept of median donation has no real meaning or value outside of bragging rights. When it comes to bragging I was always told: “actions speak louder than words”. The proof of a city’s generosity or lack of generosity lies on the city’s streets among its homeless, among families, children and seniors who struggle to find food, clothing, shelter and other necessities and in the hunger of women, children and seniors. Do not be fooled by this meaningless number, median donation. Look around the city, see the need that grows daily in our city and then consider just how generous Abbotsford really is?

Leave a Reply