Call me average

I was watching a CNN interview where a particular controversial question was posed to a government official: “What to you think the average person’s opinion is about your demonstrated incompetence?”

Needless to say the official was shocked at the directness of such an impertinent question and replied, “I don’t know, you should ask the average person.”

Since I have previously thought of myself as non-average based upon what my mother said, I decided to think about that person who is considered average.

I really don’t know anyone by the name of “average.” As an economist I have had many occasions to deal with mathematical averages. One example is that of an average family size of 4.2 people per household. I have never seen two tenths of a person in a household—or anywhere else for that matter.

Still another type of average is a “median” value. For example, the median household income in the CNMI 10 years ago was $22,898. Median is a middle value meaning that there are as many values below that figure as there are above that single middle value.

A third type of average is the “mean” value. The mean household income in the Commonwealth 10 years ago was $37,015. “Better to be mean than median,” my friend Poteet Prickins might say.

Seriously, mean is the middle value between two extremes. An example might be “If you stand on a pan of ice water with your head in a hot oven, on the average (“mean,” I mean) you feel fine.” Take your pick as to which suits your fancy—average, median or mean or meanest.

To avoid all the confusion and to cast modesty aside, I am going to self appoint myself as the average person; or perhaps as a median American; or how about the mean married man (who has learned he has two choices—a man can be right or happy—but not both. On average it doesn’t take long to learn that). I shall be whatever average classification is needed by society. I shall do this without pay.

Therefore, by appointing myself as “average” I can speak on any subject of concern to all of “us” average people. This is better than bitching; it lends more credibility to any issue of interest to the average person and doesn’t carry the connotation of frustration. It has a factual ring about it and is more respectable. For example, “The average retiree in the CNMI is quite pissed at some members in the Legislature and the central government for their total disregard for the deteriorating condition of all the retirees’ future financial security.”

Many people ask economists to review statistics such as the above and advise them as to what the future may bring—at least in terms of the economy. One of the things I have learned is that economic forecasting is very difficult especially if it’s about the future. For this reason, he who attempts to earn a living by a crystal ball should also be prepared to eat ground glass.

When it is necessary to examine various economic data within a series of statistical tables and one searches for a decision as to which data to evaluate first, the decision is often like trying to determine which side of a slice of bread to butter; on average it won’t matter.

A story is told about an average man whose bread fell from the table and landed buttered side up. He ran straight away to an average economist and reported this deviance from one of the basic laws of the universe, which holds that the bread should have fallen buttered side down on an expensive carpet. After much discussion he finally convinced the economist that it had actually happened. After hours of pondering this strange event the economist reasoned that the bread must have been buttered on the wrong side.

[I]Editor’s comment: The author has been employed as the director of the 1973 census for all of the Trust Territory, co-director of the CNMI’s 1990 census and participated in the Commonwealth’s 1995 mid-decade census. He has been unsuccessful in finding employment as a humorist.[/I]