Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Walt Palmer (poacher) is proof that wealth does not trickle down and that the rich are undertaxed. [View all]Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)24. So you agree, 50K is excessive.
However, you may not be aware how skewed that "average cost" cited by CNN really is. From a Slate article:
But even accounting for regional variation, these numbers seem exorbitant. And the New York number is positively Gatsby-esque. My fiancée and I always knew we were not particularly well-off by Empire State standards, but we couldnt believe that our fellow Manhattanites were shelling out a sum that exceeds our combined annual salaries on a single decadent days worth of nuptial festivities....
The first problem with the figure is what statisticians call selection bias. One of the most extensive surveys, and perhaps the most widely cited, is the Real Weddings Study conducted each year by TheKnot.com and WeddingChannel.com. (Its the sole source for the Reuters and CNN Money stories, among others.) They survey some 20,000 brides per annum, an impressive figure. But all of them are drawn from the sites own online membership, surely a more gung-ho group than the brides who dont sign up for wedding websites, let alone those who lack regular Internet access. Similarly, Brides magazines American Wedding Study draws solely from that glossy Condé Nast publications subscribers and website visitors. So before they do a single calculation, the big wedding studies have excluded the poorest and the most low-key couples from their samples. This isnt intentional, but it skews the results nonetheless.
The first problem with the figure is what statisticians call selection bias. One of the most extensive surveys, and perhaps the most widely cited, is the Real Weddings Study conducted each year by TheKnot.com and WeddingChannel.com. (Its the sole source for the Reuters and CNN Money stories, among others.) They survey some 20,000 brides per annum, an impressive figure. But all of them are drawn from the sites own online membership, surely a more gung-ho group than the brides who dont sign up for wedding websites, let alone those who lack regular Internet access. Similarly, Brides magazines American Wedding Study draws solely from that glossy Condé Nast publications subscribers and website visitors. So before they do a single calculation, the big wedding studies have excluded the poorest and the most low-key couples from their samples. This isnt intentional, but it skews the results nonetheless.
And the people publishing this tripe either lack a basic knowledge of statistics ("average" = mean, not median) or they publish the mean as a marketing ploy for wedding vendors:
Apologies to those for whom this is basic knowledge, but the distinction apparently eludes not only the media but some of the people responsible for the surveys. I asked Rebecca Dolgin, editor in chief of TheKnot.com, via email why the Real Weddings Study publishes the average cost but never the median. She began by making a valid point, which is that the study is not intended to give couples a barometer for how much they should spend but rather to give the industry a sense of how much couples are spending. More on that in a moment. But then she added, If the average cost in a given area is, lets say, $35,000, thats just itan average. Half of couples spend less than the average and half spend more. No, no, no. Half of couples spend less than the median and half spend more.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/weddings/2013/06/average_wedding_cost_published_numbers_on_the_price_of_a_wedding_are_totally.2.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
123 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Walt Palmer (poacher) is proof that wealth does not trickle down and that the rich are undertaxed. [View all]
tenderfoot
Jul 2015
OP
depends if you're also flying relatives in, because they can't afford to be there otherwise.
haele
Jul 2015
#79
Oh to hear that knock at the door, the driver standing there with a steaming box --
byronius
Jul 2015
#75
I hope the 30+ year free ride the wealthy have been enjoying comes to an end.
tenderfoot
Jul 2015
#34
Oh the poor put upon doctors who charge through the nose for their services.
tenderfoot
Jul 2015
#39
It's not about 'confiscation of excess income,' it's about taxing wealth more than we do now
Gormy Cuss
Jul 2015
#42
At one time the rich were taxed a rate of 94% currently they pay no more than about 35%
notadmblnd
Jul 2015
#51
perhaps a luxury tax of $500 on every $250,000 hunt? or a Federal tax of dollar a bullet?
Sunlei
Jul 2015
#29
telling people what they can do with their own $$ is only okay when it involves poor people...
tenderfoot
Jul 2015
#45
I can only imagine the convenience of possessing a mind which allows one to see in terms...
LanternWaste
Jul 2015
#55
50k is cheap for those hunts because it was a lion.They cough-up much more for endangered species.
Sunlei
Jul 2015
#13
It is pretty clear what you were touting, so why do you ask me to explain what you stated? No role
lonestarnot
Aug 2015
#121