Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 April 13
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 12 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 14 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
April 13[edit]
Single black women's median net worth in Fed Survey of Consumer Finances, 2007-present[edit]
In 2010, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette made national headlines exposing the fact that the Federal Reserve found that single black women had a median net worth of only five dollars in 2007.[1] Since then, I have been unable to find anything more on that specific statistic. For example [2] points out that blacks of all genders and marital status had a net worth of $17,600 in 2016, but there's absolutely nothing about the median net worth of single black women specifically. Can anyone determine from the 2016 and 2010-2013 data what the figures were for those years? The 2019 data isn't expected until October, for whatever reason. EllenCT (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- This (pdf) is the original study the article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was based on. --Lambiam 08:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I spent 20 minutes (all I can afford at this time) looking at the 2016 Survey of Consumer Finances, and the only thing that jumps out at me is that the data are all about families, not single people. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, I can't repeat the $5 finding. I downloaded the pertinent data from [4], processed it as per [5] and came up with [6]:
![[6]](https://i.imgur.com/3hywUwA.png){kind=link}
Median net worth of single adults in 2016 dollars RACE Black Hispanic Other White SEX Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male YEAR 1989 1828 5345 1212 3545 20002 66051 95270 127951 1992 7186 20728 1710 1509 46957 128144 82033 102066 1995 4361 10179 4854 11337 11290 48232 83115 109620 1998 5016 8026 7672 9885 21873 33640 90061 125192 2001 4755 14496 5012 11042 10987 53381 84813 147881 2004 4959 16762 3433 9856 11573 272415 69184 158209 2007 5680 9032 3995 23027 26715 85403 122112 194500 2010 5532 8897 5305 12711 32386 11335 61710 81794 2013 5681 4949 5454 8578 11342 62454 59814 76574 2016 5230 9000 6430 11970 30000 48600 91820 103500
I wonder if the Post-Gazette can remember how they got $5 instead of $5,680. EllenCT (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- A link to the original study the article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was based on is given above. --Lambiam 03:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Median net worth of singles age 36 to 49 in 2016 dollars RACE Black Hispanic Other White SEX Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male YEAR 1989 690 31029 0 22688 20002 196288 61646 180176 1992 7680 41490 43041 0 114761 46874 50395 111517 1995 7970 20107 0 63203 7360 43691 61371 113143 1998 10608 11803 22869 31235 9324 547320 53013 123864 2001 8129 880 5283 11678 11726 62865 72647 147881 2004 8222 8139 3433 36245 98505 1586548 37072 112807 2007 1042 5963 5639 17561 13346 214753 62880 124370 2010 6854 10644 12490 16414 9284 7847 14921 57919 2013 4804 4784 4846 9073 10311 83246 16201 73208 2016 5260 13010 6100 14260 75350 59650 34580 85800
Median net worth of singles age 20 to 39 in 2016 dollars RACE Black Hispanic Other White SEX Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male YEAR 1989 18 2612 0 1865 11913 16503 11288 38492 1992 167 14909 0 1006 6540 78771 9056 25826 1995 876 6232 626 14955 6577 21610 16756 25056 1998 1785 3482 1445 0 13721 43821 6506 16230 2001 1693 1625 0 7722 0 62865 6367 15851 2004 2734 13353 4324 9856 190 22001 5424 20221 2007 1495 3010 2200 26634 124081 10561 6398 19686 2010 464 5305 3537 7074 19044 7571 5311 14159 2013 206 3196 4521 6681 11032 26190 4490 15012 2016 275 2785 3540 3800 17100 21000 5170 13340
- @Lambiam: Well, that's not it. I'll try contacting Mariko Chang tomorrow. Thank you for your help. EllenCT (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Are these figures based on very small sample sizes especially for the 'other'? Some of them are very weird, e.g. the 2004 other male comparing to other years and female and different age ranges. Does 0 mean it's actually zero or there is no data? It's median so having a few outliers shouldn't affect things much unless the sample size is tiny so the median happens to fall within what is probably an outlier. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: I thought so too, but here are the counts for single respondents between the ages of 20 and 35:
- Are these figures based on very small sample sizes especially for the 'other'? Some of them are very weird, e.g. the 2004 other male comparing to other years and female and different age ranges. Does 0 mean it's actually zero or there is no data? It's median so having a few outliers shouldn't affect things much unless the sample size is tiny so the median happens to fall within what is probably an outlier. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: Well, that's not it. I'll try contacting Mariko Chang tomorrow. Thank you for your help. EllenCT (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Count of singles age 20 to 35 in the Fed SCF RACE Black Hispanic Other White SEX Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male YEAR 1989 215 50 50 35 40 40 385 360 1992 225 105 130 60 64 45 516 630 1995 355 90 80 55 30 45 610 670 1998 325 125 105 65 55 30 615 625 2001 356 80 138 53 35 42 601 580 2004 290 155 90 92 25 35 588 528 2007 315 130 105 50 30 50 410 380 2010 471 155 301 190 56 91 707 844 2013 496 164 190 185 70 100 744 731 2016 425 179 190 120 90 176 640 760
- I think 0 is a very common median value for net worth, because a lot of people especially in the lower age have no assets or liabilities. One thing that really jumps out at me though, is why do they have so many more black women respondents than black men? Granted, 25 samples is a pretty low value for the other-race females in 2004, and that category's outlier had 30 samples in the next 2007 survey. But that honestly seems like it shouldn't produce the anomalies observed. Well, now I know why people are so fascinated by the confidence interval of the mean. I will take another look at https://repl.it/@EllenCT/FedSCFnetworths when I get off of my absurdly scheduled teleconferences, and with luck sleep some. EllenCT (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Even if 0 is the most likely outcome, which requires that there be just as many individuals with a negative net worth as with a positive net worth in the population segment, the probability of finding three median values that are exactly zero after rounding to a whole number is really small even for such low sample sizes, definitely less than 1%. Perhaps some respondents just answer "0" because they have no method for estimating the value of their assets. --Lambiam 20:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Astonishingly there is no way for respondents who hold only cash to include it in their net worth. Therefore these counts as a subset of the previous table must rent without owning a vehicle or a bank account:
- Even if 0 is the most likely outcome, which requires that there be just as many individuals with a negative net worth as with a positive net worth in the population segment, the probability of finding three median values that are exactly zero after rounding to a whole number is really small even for such low sample sizes, definitely less than 1%. Perhaps some respondents just answer "0" because they have no method for estimating the value of their assets. --Lambiam 20:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think 0 is a very common median value for net worth, because a lot of people especially in the lower age have no assets or liabilities. One thing that really jumps out at me though, is why do they have so many more black women respondents than black men? Granted, 25 samples is a pretty low value for the other-race females in 2004, and that category's outlier had 30 samples in the next 2007 survey. But that honestly seems like it shouldn't produce the anomalies observed. Well, now I know why people are so fascinated by the confidence interval of the mean. I will take another look at https://repl.it/@EllenCT/FedSCFnetworths when I get off of my absurdly scheduled teleconferences, and with luck sleep some. EllenCT (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Count of singles with zero net worth age 20 to 35 in the Fed SCF RACE Black Hispanic Other White SEX Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male YEAR 1989 50 20 15 10 0 0 5 10 1992 65 5 35 5 4 0 21 15 1995 55 10 15 5 0 0 25 13 1998 55 10 15 16 5 0 30 21 2001 46 5 55 5 10 0 45 5 2004 35 10 10 0 1 0 28 0 2007 42 9 20 0 0 0 9 0 2010 66 5 25 20 5 0 20 10 2013 45 5 1 10 0 0 5 15 2016 0 0 5 15 0 10 2 0
- I figured out how to find plenty of negative net worth singles; send them to college:
Median net worth of singles with college degree age 20 to 39 in 2016 dollars RACE Black Hispanic Other White SEX Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male YEAR 1989 -6717 N/A N/A 1866 8023 27960 20524 79038 1992 11153 55243 -4562 153116 6541 228668 17827 38841 1995 42517 2349 10743 103756 11291 295897 51365 58443 1998 34349 15787 -10992 -22279 39247 34858 24566 41460 2001 88336 10209 27666 36310 37800 45997 23032 21501 2004 3179 20984 -6804 106448 175379 243127 23274 54687 2007 5941 5385 23050 -23044 184124 26866 12333 67049 2010 -5416 6135 -884 5902 40455 16580 5527 40378 2013 6960 -17833 17034 24128 30933 39451 14734 21024 2016 -10545 -12430 6791 46395 50510 42030 3750 30000
@Nil Einne and Lambiam: The reason so many of the counts are divisible by five is that the SCF makes extremely heavy use of imputed data, which invalidates the use of medians. Most of these tables have so few observations as to be completely useless. For such a simple survey with so few actual respondents, they sure do take a long time to produce it. EllenCT (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)