Hope the President does a good job for USA

[t-c]

Why don't you look upthread. If you want tables there are nice little download links on the Explorer program back to 1995. I don't care that statisticians might have to work a little harder for their info. It's not like the FBI just stopped collecting it.

Okay, I did. And I downloaded the tables from CDE Explorer on Homicide offender demographics from Idaho. And you know what I found? Exactly as fivethirtyeight said: that the raw data tables from Explorer provide aggregate 10-year data, NOT individual year data, which is what they're complaining about in the article.

"The FBI noted that in addition to its decision to streamline the report, UCR had launched a Crime Data Explorer, which aims to make crime data more user-interactive. But data contained in the explorer does not replicate what is missing from the 2016 UCR report, and it doesn’t allow users to view data for particular years, but rather aggregates trends over a minimum period of 10 years."​

So while Explorer may provide a little pull-down for the year, don't be fooled: it doesn't provide individual data for that year.

The pictures below are screen shot with arrow annotations to bring your attention to the date range:



You may want to reassess your opinion of the accuracy of that fivethirtyeight article. I'm more than happy to be proven wrong; feel free to post the data tables for individual years.

 

[redwood66]

So? Raw data is still available. Which is what I said previously and 538 also said. But they also contended that race, ethnicity, relationship to victim was not there but it is. If you think it is wise to maintain two types of website info rather than an agency moving forward to a more modern way of displaying data then there is not much more to discuss.

 

[t-c]

So? Raw data is still available. Which is what I said previously and 538 also said. But they also contended that race, ethnicity, relationship to victim was not there but it is. If you think it is wise to maintain two types of website info rather than an agency moving forward to a more modern way of displaying data then there is not much more to discuss.

Read the article again: fivethirtyeight contend that a large number of data tables that used to be provided in previous years' FBI Crime Report are no longer there. They do not contend that the raw data do not exist, it's that they are not provided in the report.

See the passage from the article below and they also address why working with raw data can be problematic (and I would be willing to put down money that if people post raw data analysis that goes against Trump administration assertions, that it would be criticized for not interpreting the numbers correctly or even using the wrong numbers).

"While the UCR says that the data no longer included in the report was available upon request, the FBI only provided a raw data file, which is more difficult to analyze — especially compared to easily accessible data tables — and does not always match the figures posted online in the UCR reports(3).

(3) The raw data usually closely approximates but doesn’t always match the figures formally presented in UCR. The 2015 raw data, for example, showed 757 total gang murders (defined by the FBI as juvenile gang killings plus gangland killings) while the UCR showed 792 total."​

Most people who do actual analysis prefer data tables and not graphical representation of that data. It allows them to look at various data combinations. Simple pivot tables will show you this concept.

 

[redwood66]

And the people who do actual analysis can get the records in table format with no interpretation or manipulation by the government. That is what raw data is.

Oh and here is your idaho homicides table (as an example) by year from the Explorer website.

 

[t-c]

And the people who do actual analysis can get the records in table format with no interpretation or manipulation by the government. That is what raw data is.

Oh and here is your idaho homicides table (as an example) by year from the Explorer website.

AGAIN, re-read the fivethirtyeight article: their contention is the certain data tables that used to be provided are no longer provided for the 2016 crime report. The Homicide table is not one of the missing tables -- certain demographic data are missing, not the homicide rate.

Try again.

 

[redwood66]

AGAIN, re-read the fivethirtyeight article: their contention is the certain data tables that used to be provided are no longer provided for the 2016 crime report. The Homicide table is not one of the missing tables -- certain demographic data are missing, not the homicide rate.

Try again.

You contended upthread with your screen shots that individual year data was not available. Once again I don't care that it is a little more difficult to get the info, it is still there. Make up your mind what you want. I am not content to take everything at face value from an article and look for myself.

TC - So while Explorer may provide a little pull-down for the year, don't be fooled: it doesn't provide individual data for that year....I'm more than happy to be proven wrong; feel free to post the data tables for individual years.

 

[t-c]

You contended upthread with your screen shots that individual year data was not available. Once again I don't care that it is a little more difficult to get the info, it is still there. Make up your mind what you want. I am not content to take everything at face value from an article and look for myself.

TC - So while Explorer may provide a little pull-down for the year, don't be fooled: it doesn't provide individual data for that year.

I admit to being sloppy with that sentence. I mean individual demographic data for each year.

Your original claim is that the fivethirtyeight article is inaccurate and you wrote that you found in Explorer all the 2016 data tables the article says are missing in the 2016 crime report. Do you still stand by that claim?

 

[redwood66]

I found the data that they indicated is not there and I never said "all the data tables" now did I? What is your point with this little exercise?

 

[t-c]

I found the data that they indicated is not there and I never said "all the data tables" now did I? What is your point with this little exercise?

This is what you said:

I found the info that "seemed" to be missing just fine in the Explorer program. The accuracy I spoke of is the article not FBI data. All of the raw data is still available for studies.

I asked you to post the tables fivethirtyeight said were missing and you pointed me to the link to look for myself. I did as you suggested and found that fivethirtyeight was correct in saying that Explorer provides 10-year aggregate demographic data but not (single-year) 2016 demographic data.

My point is that you were wrong in asserting that the fivethirtyeight article is not accurate and that you "found the info that 'seemed' (your quotes suggesting the 2016 demographic data tables aren't missing at all?) to be missing just fine in the Explorer program". (I'm still willing to admit I'm wrong if you provide the demographic data tables fivethirtyeight says are missing but that you found in Explorer -- you don't even have to provide all of it.)

I'll make it easy for you. The quotes below has what fivethirtyeight says are missing for 2016:

"Among the data missing from the 2016 report is information on arrests, the circumstances of homicides (such as the relationships between victims and perpetrators), and the only national estimate of annual gang murders."

"The expanded homicide data from 2016 doesn’t include statistics on the relationship between victims and offenders; victims’ and offenders’ age, sex, race or ethnicity; or what weapons were used in different circumstances....Additionally, data tables used to identify the number of women murdered by their partners are similarly no longer available."

"Richard Rosenfeld, former president of the American Society of Criminology and a professor at the University of Missouri, St. Louis, noticed that the 2016 report no longer had data for a trend area that he tracks — homicides related to the narcotic drug trade."​

But don't take fivethirtyeight's word for it. Among the list of discontinued tables according to the FBI are:



So that was my point. What was yours?

 

[redwood66]

My point is the information is not "missing." It is still available, though not in a convenient xls download that a professor has been using for years. Data analysts might have to actually do data analysis from a raw file rather than plug a new file to their existing database. And why does the raw data not match the report in 2015? Don't you think someone would want to find out rather than just take the report at face value? At this point I am done and we will leave it where it is because your contention is something nefarious is happening. My post to Tekate was that I had some issues with the article and I liked the website better than data tables.

Edit - You want the government to do all the legwork for people and I don't.

 

[t-c]

My point is the information is not "missing." It is still available, though not in a convenient xls download that a professor has been using for years. Data analysts might have to actually do data analysis from a raw file rather than plug a new file to their existing database. And why does the raw data not match the report in 2015? Don't you think someone would want to find out rather than just take the report at face value? At this point I am done and we will leave it where it is because your contention is something nefarious is happening. My post to Tekate was that I had some issues with the article and I liked the website better than data tables.

Edit - You want the government to do all the legwork for people and I don't.

But the data can't be found in Explorer as you asserted. The raw data can be requested from the FBI, but it cannot be found in Explorer as you asserted. So, move the goal posts as much as you like, but I won't let you do it without pointing it out.

There are lots of reasons why raw data may not match final data tables -- there could be duplicates or data that are deemed invalid. What analysts want to do is work with a consistent set of numbers for their own analysis; that used to be provided by the FBI in data tables in the crime reports. Otherwise you have one group eliminating some data for one reason and maybe another group eliminating some data for another reason. Now this doesn't mean statisticians swallow everything provided to them hook, line, and sinker -- these guys are analysts; it has been drummed into them until it's tattooed on their brain to look at data and results critically.

Aside from the fact that you were the one who engaged me on this issue to specifically point out that the article was not accurate (I was willing to do a fly-by on this with my first comment), don't get personal by saying I expect the government to do all the legwork -- I don't (if I did, I would be happy with their graphical presentations -- like you are). But I do agree with fivethirtyeight questioning the fact that the FBI stopped providing data tables that they used to provide as recently as last year. If your work suddenly stops providing your available vacation and sick days, wouldn't you ask why even if you can easily calculate how much you have?

 

[redwood66]

But the data can't be found in Explorer as you asserted. The raw data can be requested from the FBI, but it cannot be found in Explorer as you asserted. So, move the goal posts as much as you like, but I won't let you do it without pointing it out.

There are lots of reasons why raw data may not match final data tables -- there could be duplicates or data that are deemed invalid. What analysts want to do is work with a consistent set of numbers for their own analysis; that used to be provided by the FBI in data tables in the crime reports. Otherwise you have one group eliminating some data for one reason and maybe another group eliminating some data for another reason. Now this doesn't mean statisticians swallow everything provided to them hook, line, and sinker -- these guys are analysts; it has been drummed into them until it's tattooed on their brain to look at data and results critically.

Aside from the fact that you were the one who engaged me on this issue to specifically point out that the article was not accurate (I was willing to do a fly-by on this with my first comment), don't get personal by saying I expect the government to do all the legwork -- I don't (if I did, I would be happy with their graphical presentations -- like you are). But I do agree with fivethirtyeight questioning the fact that the FBI stopped providing data tables that they used to provide as recently as last year. If your work suddenly stops providing your available vacation and sick days, wouldn't you ask why even if you can easily calculate how much you have?

I am sorry I engaged you at all. We will agree to disagree. Have a wonderful day.

 

[t-c]

I am sorry I engaged you at all. We will agree to disagree. Have a wonderful day.

The availability of 2016 crime demography data tables from Explorer is not a subjective thing that you can agree to disagree about. I’ve asked you to provide them since you claim they are there. You can’t. Fact.

 

[redwood66]

The availability of 2016 crime demography data tables from Explorer is not a subjective thing that you can agree to disagree about. I’ve asked you to provide them since you claim they are there. You can’t. Fact.

Spin my original post to Tekate however you like to fit what you want to say because I never claimed that the "2016 crime demography data tables" were available on Explorer. Fact. So we will agree to disagree on this since you seem quite hung up on being right. My original post to her stated that the victim relationship, race, and ethnicity is available on the Explorer website. It was based on this paragraph from the article.

There were 15 tables of murder data in 2015, but in 2016 there were only a few tables offering expanded insights on homicides. The expanded homicide data from 2016 doesn’t include statistics on the relationship between victims and offenders; victims’ and offenders’ age, sex, race or ethnicity; or what weapons were used in different circumstances. Practically speaking, that means that researchers can no longer easily identify the number of children under the age of 18 murdered by firearm in a given year. Additionally, data tables used to identify the number of women murderedby their partners are similarly no longer available.

and this

...But data contained in the explorer does not replicate what is missing from the 2016 UCR report

 

[redwood66]

Is the left willing to discuss this?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-issued-under-trump-is-missing-a-ton-of-info/

Hey @Tekate thanks for posting the article because I really like the Explorer website they linked to and did not know about it before. So much easier and more interesting to get the info I am interested in rather than staring at pages of text files, which I have been doing for years! I love poking around in websites like this.

 

[t-c]

Spin my original post to Tekate however you like to fit what you want to say because I never claimed that the "2016 crime demography data tables" were available on Explorer. Fact. So we will agree to disagree on this since you seem quite hung up on being right. My original post to her stated that the victim relationship, race, and ethnicity is available on the Explorer website. It was based on this paragraph from the article.

There were 15 tables of murder data in 2015, but in 2016 there were only a few tables offering expanded insights on homicides. The expanded homicide data from 2016 doesn’t include statistics on the relationship between victims and offenders; victims’ and offenders’ age, sex, race or ethnicity; or what weapons were used in different circumstances. Practically speaking, that means that researchers can no longer easily identify the number of children under the age of 18 murdered by firearm in a given year. Additionally, data tables used to identify the number of women murderedby their partners are similarly no longer available.

and this

...But data contained in the explorer does not replicate what is missing from the 2016 UCR report

It seems to me you’re the one spinning, because it was never your post to @Tekate I’m responding to, it’s always been your post to me:

I found the info that "seemed" to be missing just fine in the Explorer program. The accuracy I spoke of is the article not FBI data. All of the raw data is still available for studies.

Right there in the first sentence, you claimed you found what fivethirtyeight said was missing: 2016 data tables on crime demographics (see the passage you quoted for what 538 says are the missing data tables — so no spin from me). Right there in the second sentence, you claimed the article was not accurate because you found the data.

I’m not hung up with being right. I can readily admit to being wrong when shown proof — in this case you haven’t shown proof. (BTW, I actually followed the links you provided and downloaded the data you said were the tables. It was just too bad for you it supported 538’s claims.)

 

[redwood66]

It seems to me you’re the one spinning, because it was never your post to @Tekate I’m responding to, it’s always been your post to me:



Right there in the first sentence, you claimed you found what fivethirtyeight said was missing: 2016 data tables on crime demographics (see the passage you quoted for what 538 says are the missing data tables — so no spin from me). Right there in the second sentence, you claimed the article was not accurate because you found the data.

I’m not hung up with being right. I can readily admit to being wrong when shown proof — in this case you haven’t shown proof. (BTW, I actually followed the links you provided and downloaded the data you said were the tables. It was just too bad for you it supported 538’s claims.)

Yep you're right. You win. Yay you. It couln't possibly be that we weren't talking about the same thing in the first place right? When I posted to you I was still talking about what I said to her. Get it yet? At this point normal people realize it was a miscommunication. So I am sorry for not interpreting what you wanted correctly.

 

[Tekate]

Nope they don't. They make 55K.

the stock market only for the rich? an avg person don't own any 401K or IRAs?..

 

[ksinger]

Nope they don't. They make 55K.

Indeed. And to add some to that, here's one from Forbes. You know, that much-reviled ultra-liberal fake news site. (entire text below. Any big bold emphasis, mine)

The Retirement Crisis: Why 68% Of Americans Aren't Saving In An Employer-Sponsored Plan
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauras...g-in-an-employer-sponsored-plan/#2aed88e32152

And another one that supports the one above.
Why Gen X And Late Boomers Aren't On Track For Retirement
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauras...s-arent-on-track-for-retirement/#544f80707419

Few Americans are saving enough for retirement, suggesting many workers may face a retirement with a lower standard of living, according to a recent study released by the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School.

Since Social Security cannot fully replace income in retirement, other savings is needed, and that usually comes in the form of funds accumulated in employer-sponsored retirement plans such as 401(k)s.

However, in 2011, almost half of working Americans were not offered a retirement account by their employer — the result of a longer trend in which, from 1999 to 2011, the percentage of workers being offered such plans declined from 61% to 53%. The report, “Are U.S. Workers Ready for Retirement?” authored by the New School’s Joelle Saad-Lessler, Teresa Ghilarducci and Kate Bahn, used the United States Census Current Population Survey to find out retirement plan coverage and participate rates.

When you add in people who did not participate in a plan offered to them or who were not working, a staggering 68% of working-age people (25-64) did not participate in an employer-sponsored plan.

Ghilarducci gives a few reasons why employer-sponsored accounts are on the decline. “More and more people are working for small employers, so people are working for employers who are less likely to have a 401(k) or defined benefit plan,” she said. Additionally, the decline in unionization and the increase in contingent workers, such as independent contractors, have decreased workers’ bargaining power.


“If employers would really calculate in a systematic way how much turnover costs to them, they would pay more attention to clever ways of compensating workers, like adding a 401(k) account to their benefits,” Ghilarducci says. “It doesn’t really cost that much, because the 401(k) contributions are flexible, employers can stop them whenever they want, most of the contribution can come from their employees, and employees really like them.”

But even those fortunate enough to have a plan and the means to participate in it are not guaranteed a similar standard of living in retirement. People in certain types of retirement plans, such as pensions, are more likely to be able to keep up their lifestyle than those in 401(k)s.

(In pensions, classified as “defined benefit” plans, the employer invests the assets and guarantees the pension, while the worker takes home reduced earnings. In retirement, the pension delivers a certain percentage of pay based on years of service until the worker dies. In contrast, “defined contribution” plans, such as 401(k)s, have the worker volunteer to participate, decide the contribution amount themselves, and during retirement, manage the nest egg to provide enough income every year without depleting the funds before death.)

Sponsorship Rates by Demographic

The decline in employer sponsorship rates didn’t affect all groups equally. Some of the groups hit the hardest include the self-employed (28% drop in sponsorship), non-citizens (22%), workers in personal services (20%) and Hispanics (19%). (Read here for more on the racial wealth gap.)

The self-employed can establish retirement plans for themselves, such as the solo 401(k), the simplified employee pension plan, or SEP, IRA, and the SIMPLE-IRA. But in 2011, this group had the lowest participation rates — 13%, compared to 83% of workers in public administration. (Freelancers, here's how to save for retirement.)

Other groups with especially low participation rates include those who work at firms with only 1-24 employees (23% participation), workers in the personal services industry (24%), non-citizens (28%), Hispanics (34%) and those working in construction (35%).

Other groups with high participation rates include those covered by a union contract (82%, as opposed to 56% of those without a union contract), public sector employees (82%) and those at firms of 1,000+ employees (74%).

Employee Participation Rates

Some workers offered retirement plans do not or cannot participate, since employers are permitted to exclude employees from participating in their retirement plan if they have less than one year of service, work part-time or are younger than 25. But participation rates also are lower than sponsorship rates because most workers have the choice of participating or not participating in the plan. While 85% do, the 15% that opt not to lead to an overall rate of non-participation in a retirement plan of 68% among all working-age adults.

Another factor affecting participation is the fact that defined benefit plans like pensions are rarely available. To study this impact, the authors turned to the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), by the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of working-age Americans with an employer-sponsored retirement plan available to them, 16% had a defined benefit plan, and 63% had a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k). (Twenty percent did not participate.)

Both older workers and people employed by the government were found to be more likely to have access to a defined benefit plan.

Readiness Among Those Nearing Retirement

Employer-sponsored accounts make up only one of several potential income streams in retirement. Using SIPP data, the authors looked at the comprehensive financial assets of respondents, which include the value of their bank accounts, bonds and securities, savings bonds, stocks and mutual funds, life insurance policies, IRAs and KEOGH accounts, defined contribution accounts, real estate holdings, and home and business equity. They also accounted for debt owed.

The median net worth among households near retirement (ages 55 to 64) show that only about a quarter can expect an adequate cash income stream from their retirement savings.

When looking only at liquid assets that can be easily converted to an annualized income stream (and excluding home equity since it is unrealistic to expect homeowners to sell their homes upon retirement), 30% of U.S. households at or near retirement age have less than $10,000 in assets. Twenty-four percent have only between $10,000 and $99,999. That means 54% of American have too little saved to produce an income stream in retirement. Annualizing $50,000 for a single male turning 65 in 2014 yields only $70 a week. A married couple in which both members turn 65 in 2014 would receive only $58 per week.

The 26% of Americans who have liquid assets of $300,000 are the only group who will be able to rely on their savings to produce an income stream in retirement. (Read here for more on why Gen X and Late Boomers are unprepared for retirement.)

By plan type, the households who are enrolled in a defined benefit plan like a pension fare the best, with a median net worth of $116,973, compared to $107,250 for those in a defined contribution plan, and $4,450 for those without an employer-sponsored plan.

This translates into the finding that workers with a defined contribution plan are most likely to be able to maintain their standard of living upon retirement. They are expected, in retirement, to produce an income stream equivalent to 75% of their pre-retirement income. (Many retirement experts and financial advisors recommend saving enough to replace at least 70% of one’s pre-retirement income to maintain one’s standard of living.)

Workers with defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s are expected to be able to replace only 62% of their pre-retirement income, which indicates they will not be able to retire comfortably. And those with no retirement plan will be able to replace only 57% of their income.

Projected Poverty Rates For Those Near Retirement Age

The authors use the threshold of twice the federal poverty line to demarcate those who are likely to be poor or near-poor in retirement and conclude: 9% of near-retirement workers (ages 55- to 64) will face extreme poverty, earning less than the poverty threshold. Another 24% will live in near-poverty, with income below twice the federal poverty line.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Nope they don't. They make 55K.

I advise my daughters to max out their 401k and Roth IRA

 

[HollyS]

I'm a Human Resource Manager for a large corporation. Only about 30 - 35% of the employees avail themselves of our 401K plan. Some of these people make good money; hopefully, they are investing elsewhere. But most of the lower income employees won't even consider it.

 

[House Cat]

The stock market is overinflated.

The housing market is also overinflated.

Congress is about to pass a huge tax cut.


Does anyone else see what I see?

 

[Matata]

Does anyone else see what I see?

History repeating itself....

 

[Dancing Fire]

The stock market is overinflated.

The housing market is also overinflated.

Congress is about to pass a huge tax cut.


Does anyone else see what I see?

A big crash coming soon.

 

[minousbijoux]

We seem incapable of really learning from past history...

 

[redwood66]

I hope no crash but we definitely seem to be rousing again like nothing ever happened. New home building is booming here and there seems no end in sight. Makes us contemplate selling our home because property closer to town like we are is scarce and expensive. Maybe we can hide out from all the madness in the wilderness.

There is a place I like in an area with no cell service and definitely no internet.

 

[Dancing Fire]

That's not "playing" the stock market, and you know it. Bit different when someone's sitting in an office silently and inactively collecting interest/money vs actively playing the freaking market.

Good to know that our IRAs/401K won't go south when the market crashes.

 

[ABKIS]

 

[Dee*Jay]

Good to know that our IRAs/401K won't go south when the market crashes.

One factor I could definitely see sending the market into a tailspin is the sudden lack of new funding when people don't get the tax benefit from 401(k) deductions if the tax bill comes out with a big reduction in the deductible cap.

What a GREAT idea -- disincentivise people from putting money away for retirement because, yanno, Social Security will just save us all.

 

[E B]

Oh, I remember.