D. C. Bear said:
boognish_bear said:
These figures seemed lower than I would've guessed. I ran it past Claude and it says the source was BLS data... but these are "medians" and not "averages"...
Is that income from work?
From Claude fwiw:
The numbers in the tweet are real they match BLS median weekly earnings data, with $59,228 for ages 25-34 and a peak of $70,824 for ages 45-54, and 55-64 at $67,392 and 65+ at $62,296. That's essentially identical to the figures in the tweet, so it looks like it's pulled directly from a BLS-based chart (likely the Visual Capitalist/Voronoi "Median U.S. Salaries by Age Group" chart or something using the same source data).
Where the tweet is misleading isn't the numbers it's the label. These are medians, not averages, and the BLS source is median earnings for full-time wage and salary workers only not all people in that age bracket. That distinction matters a lot:
Median vs. average: median is the middle value, which is what BLS actually reports. A true "average" (mean) would likely be higher, since high earners pull the mean up but don't move the median.
Full-time workers only: part-timers, unemployed, and non-workers in each age bracket aren't counted, so the real average income across everyone in each age group would be lower than these figures suggest.
So the tweet isn't fabricating numbers, but it's mislabeling median-of-full-time-workers as "average income," which inflates the picture of what a typical person in each age bracket actually earns. That's a very common conflation in these viral finance tweets/infographics.