Car cost evaluation

Car_54

DrEskimo said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Grumpy_chap said:

That does not make sense at all that the average car is more than the average salary.

Averages and statistics don't really mean too much as they can very easily be manipulated to make a point.

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

That's not 'manipulation' of statistics. It's using the wrong statistic to make a nonsense statement.

Number of legs is a count outcome. It wouldn't be appropriate to use the mean. You would use the median.

The median value here is one. That is not terribly helpful.

bigadaj

DrEskimo said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Grumpy_chap said:

That does not make sense at all that the average car is more than the average salary.

Averages and statistics don't really mean too much as they can very easily be manipulated to make a point.

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

That's not 'manipulation' of statistics. It's using the wrong statistic to make a nonsense statement.

Number of legs is a count outcome. It wouldn't be appropriate to use the mean. You would use the median. The problem with your statement isn't 'statistics', it's the incorrect implementation of statistical methods that doesn't suit the data. The blame lies with the person making the statement, not 'statistics'.

The idea that 'statistics' can be used to say whatever you want is no different to the way you can use 'language' to say what ever you want. The problem is people are using misleading or wrong statistics, in the same way someone can use misleading or wrong language.

Statistics aren't in themselves inherently misleading any more than language is.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

DrEskimo

Car_54 said:

DrEskimo said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Grumpy_chap said:

That does not make sense at all that the average car is more than the average salary.

Averages and statistics don't really mean too much as they can very easily be manipulated to make a point.

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

That's not 'manipulation' of statistics. It's using the wrong statistic to make a nonsense statement.

Number of legs is a count outcome. It wouldn't be appropriate to use the mean. You would use the median.

The median value here is one. That is not terribly helpful.

Not it isn't, it would be 2. More than 50% of the population don't have less than 2 legs....

DrEskimo

bigadaj said:

DrEskimo said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Grumpy_chap said:

That does not make sense at all that the average car is more than the average salary.

Averages and statistics don't really mean too much as they can very easily be manipulated to make a point.

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

That's not 'manipulation' of statistics. It's using the wrong statistic to make a nonsense statement.

Number of legs is a count outcome. It wouldn't be appropriate to use the mean. You would use the median. The problem with your statement isn't 'statistics', it's the incorrect implementation of statistical methods that doesn't suit the data. The blame lies with the person making the statement, not 'statistics'.

The idea that 'statistics' can be used to say whatever you want is no different to the way you can use 'language' to say what ever you want. The problem is people are using misleading or wrong statistics, in the same way someone can use misleading or wrong language.

Statistics aren't in themselves inherently misleading any more than language is.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

I can lie just as well without statistics. I can also use statistics to provide a compelling argument if I use them correctly.

'Statistics' is no different to 'language'. It's the use of them by the person making the statement that has the responsibility to use them correctly and accurately. Misleading statistics is not a problem with 'statistics' any more than a lie is misleading because 'words' are misleading. It's the person using them inappropriately that's the issue!

Car_54

DrEskimo said:

Car_54 said:

DrEskimo said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Grumpy_chap said:

That does not make sense at all that the average car is more than the average salary.

Averages and statistics don't really mean too much as they can very easily be manipulated to make a point.

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

That's not 'manipulation' of statistics. It's using the wrong statistic to make a nonsense statement.

Number of legs is a count outcome. It wouldn't be appropriate to use the mean. You would use the median.

The median value here is one. That is not terribly helpful.

Not it isn't, it would be 2. More than 50% of the population don't have less than 2 legs....

No. The mode - the most occurring value - is 2. The median is the middle value of the range (0,1,2), which is 1.

bigadaj

DrEskimo said:

bigadaj said:

DrEskimo said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Grumpy_chap said:

That does not make sense at all that the average car is more than the average salary.

Averages and statistics don't really mean too much as they can very easily be manipulated to make a point.

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

That's not 'manipulation' of statistics. It's using the wrong statistic to make a nonsense statement.

Number of legs is a count outcome. It wouldn't be appropriate to use the mean. You would use the median. The problem with your statement isn't 'statistics', it's the incorrect implementation of statistical methods that doesn't suit the data. The blame lies with the person making the statement, not 'statistics'.

The idea that 'statistics' can be used to say whatever you want is no different to the way you can use 'language' to say what ever you want. The problem is people are using misleading or wrong statistics, in the same way someone can use misleading or wrong language.

Statistics aren't in themselves inherently misleading any more than language is.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

I can lie just as well without statistics. I can also use statistics to provide a compelling argument if I use them correctly.

'Statistics' is no different to 'language'. It's the use of them by the person making the statement that has the responsibility to use them correctly and accurately. Misleading statistics is not a problem with 'statistics' any more than a lie is misleading because 'words' are misleading. It's the person using them inappropriately that's the issue!

The reason behind the well known quote I used is that statistics can be manipulated though are often presented as irrefutable proof. It's a warning to the population that base data can be manipulated. The same can be of course be done for words, but you'd typically employ a lawyer or journalist to do that, rather than an economist.

DrEskimo

Car_54 said:

DrEskimo said:

Car_54 said:

DrEskimo said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Grumpy_chap said:

That does not make sense at all that the average car is more than the average salary.

Averages and statistics don't really mean too much as they can very easily be manipulated to make a point.

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

That's not 'manipulation' of statistics. It's using the wrong statistic to make a nonsense statement.

Number of legs is a count outcome. It wouldn't be appropriate to use the mean. You would use the median.

The median value here is one. That is not terribly helpful.

Not it isn't, it would be 2. More than 50% of the population don't have less than 2 legs....

No. The mode - the most occurring value - is 2. The median is the middle value of the range (0,1,2), which is 1.

Yes the mode would also be 2.

The median is not the middle value of the possible range of values..it's the middle value of all the observed values when they are placed in rank order.

bigadaj

Car_54 said:

DrEskimo said:

Car_54 said:

DrEskimo said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Grumpy_chap said:

That does not make sense at all that the average car is more than the average salary.

Averages and statistics don't really mean too much as they can very easily be manipulated to make a point.

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

That's not 'manipulation' of statistics. It's using the wrong statistic to make a nonsense statement.

Number of legs is a count outcome. It wouldn't be appropriate to use the mean. You would use the median.

The median value here is one. That is not terribly helpful.

Not it isn't, it would be 2. More than 50% of the population don't have less than 2 legs....

No. The mode - the most occurring value - is 2. The median is the middle value of the range (0,1,2), which is 1.

Yes, it's the middle value of the data set, not the middle number. So the median is 2, as if we take the UK population as 60 million it's the number of legs that person number 30 million has, presumably 2. The mode is the most frequently occurring value, so again this is 2 as for the same uk population presumably around 99+% of people have two legs.

DrEskimo

bigadaj said:

DrEskimo said:

bigadaj said:

DrEskimo said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Grumpy_chap said:

That does not make sense at all that the average car is more than the average salary.

Averages and statistics don't really mean too much as they can very easily be manipulated to make a point.

For example, did you know that I have more than the average number of legs for a human being?

That's not 'manipulation' of statistics. It's using the wrong statistic to make a nonsense statement.

Number of legs is a count outcome. It wouldn't be appropriate to use the mean. You would use the median. The problem with your statement isn't 'statistics', it's the incorrect implementation of statistical methods that doesn't suit the data. The blame lies with the person making the statement, not 'statistics'.

The idea that 'statistics' can be used to say whatever you want is no different to the way you can use 'language' to say what ever you want. The problem is people are using misleading or wrong statistics, in the same way someone can use misleading or wrong language.

Statistics aren't in themselves inherently misleading any more than language is.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

I can lie just as well without statistics. I can also use statistics to provide a compelling argument if I use them correctly.

'Statistics' is no different to 'language'. It's the use of them by the person making the statement that has the responsibility to use them correctly and accurately. Misleading statistics is not a problem with 'statistics' any more than a lie is misleading because 'words' are misleading. It's the person using them inappropriately that's the issue!

The reason behind the well known quote I used is that statistics can be manipulated though are often presented as irrefutable proof. It's a warning to the population that base data can be manipulated. The same can be of course be done for words, but you'd typically employ a lawyer or journalist to do that, rather than an economist.

I agree, and statistics are much more complex to understand (as evidenced in this very thread...).

But I suggest that the bit in bold is just as true as any statement made without statistics. Lying using misleading or factually inaccurate statistics is no different to lying using misleading or factually incorrect words. My issue with the phrase is that it somehow makes out the issue is with 'statistics' in general. Used correctly statistics are very powerful and useful and telling the truth and the onus is purely on the person using them to ensure it is correct, just as it is when they make a statement without statistics.

Grumpy_chap

This thread is starting to grow legs and become a discussion about statistics.
May I bring it back to the OP's point, which is whether people spend too much money on cars they cannot afford, by introducing another statistic?
This website states that the average UK property is £230k https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-house-price-index-for-march-2020#:~:text=on%20average%2C%20house%20prices%20have,UK%20valued%20at%20%C2%A3231%2C855.
Repayment mortgage on that will be around £1k/month
It makes little sense to spend £400 / month on a new car while also repaying a mortgage at this sort of level.  IF that level of money is available, it would be better spent getting an affordable car and then overpaying the mortgage to get to the point where the individual really can afford a car approaching the average take home annual salary level.