Photo courtesy of KungPaoCajun
This has been a very weird four days.
First, I found out that USA Weekend– the weekly newspaper supplement that appears in more than 800 newspapers in the U.S. and is read by 4.7 million people each week — published a cool, little story about Math for Grownups this weekend. ”Man,” I thought. “This is great!”
Then I read the first and only (at the time) comment:
In “Benefits vs. Raise” I am surprised you made the common mistake of thinking you will make less money if you get a raise. If you move to a higher tax bracket it is only the incremental money that is taxed at the higher rate. You should print a correction.
See explanation here
Long story short: my explanation in Math for Grownups is correct. Sadly, for Gregory Connolly, the reporter who wrote this otherwise really nice story, some of the information in the article was not. In a few days the geeky little corner of the blogosphere that pays attention to these things went nuts. I’ve gotten emails, nasty tweets and more — even after I posted what I think is a very level-headed response to the original comment, letting readers know that the error was the reporter’s. And even after USA Weekend posted an excerpt from my book that explains (correctly) how math and the tax system work in this situation.*
Today, more people took notice, with a blog post on Huffington Post (USA Today Fails Math for Grownups), Daily Kos (According to USA Today’s Logic, You Should Ask Your Boss for a Pay Cut) and The Columbia Journalism Review (A More than Marginally Embarrassing Mistake).
Hoo-wee! When math, taxes and mistaken reporting collide, sparks fly!
I’m still trying to figure out if this is a good thing for me or a bad thing. (Is any publicity good publicity?) But this whole experience illustrates a few interesting points:
1. Math matters. When you think that you don’t need to understand how math applies to the tax code, think again, my sister and brother. I’ve got dozens of internet commenters and tweeters begging to convince you differently. And quite honestly, they’re not as nice as I am.
2. It’s critical to check your assumptions. I’m convinced that Mr. Connolly wouldn’t have made the same mistake had he really considered what he was writing. Yes, it’s a common mistake and even an element of misinformed political rhetoric to believe that a raise could actually be bad for a person. But really? Does that make sense? Just like with math problems, checking to see if the answer is reasonable can save anyone from a lot of heartache. (And I’m thinking this reporter has had at least some heartache this week.)
3. There’s good reason that people are scared of math — big, mean, know-it-alls shame us into believing that a simple misunderstanding or mistake will bring down entire civilizations, crush the delicate sensibilities of our dear children and bring us perilously close to either left- or right-wing political domination. In other words, if we don’t get every single syllable and number absolutely correct, we are wrong, wrong, wrong and nothing can save us from eternal shame and damnation.
(How many of you felt this way in school?)
But whether or not these internet commenters, bloggers and tweeters would like to admit it, not much about math will cause such drastic, awful consequences. Sure, there may plenty of people more than willing to shout, “YOU’RE WRONG!” rather than admit that they, too, sometimes feel like math is hard and the tax system can be difficult to comprehend. But in the end, I’m here to say that the basic math that most of us have to do everyday both matters and won’t kill you.
The fact that I’m still alive, sober and writing about this after the frenetic tongue lashing I’ve received over the last few days is testament to this. You can survive making math mistakes (or other’s math mistakes). And I honestly hope that someone is telling the poor Gregory Connolly this very thing.
So let’s fess up. What was your last math mistake? Did it cause the ground to open up and swallow up innocent puppies and kittens? Or did you just lose a little cash or miss the previews at a movie or put too much fertilizer on your lawn?
Share your math horror stories in the comments section.
*Update: USA Weekend is continuing to finesse its response to this situation. The last section of the article has now been rewritten to correct the mistake, and the excerpt from my book has been removed.
How can you say that the explanation in your book is correct, when you suggest that in your hypothetical example, the person reconsider taking a $6,000 raise due to the slightly higher marginal taxes that he may pay on the raise? Granted the summary on USA Today is terrible and worthless, but your original advise in the book is just as bad.
Thanks for visiting Math for Grownups. I’m glad that — despite this controversy — you found us!
I do see your point, but I assert that while the example in Math for Grownups doesn’t suit you, it’s not bad advice per se. The point of this example (and many others in the book) is to show that math can provide a variety of options in these situations. What I do wish I had included in this example is better explanation of how more paid time off could be a good trade off. For example, figuring savings in child-care costs (especially for a large family) and commuting time and costs (especially for a long commute) might actually balance the scales even more. Or not. In all of these scenarios, the ultimate answer is, “It depends.”
I also don’t think it’s fair to assume that the bottom line is what motivates everyone. Doing the math can provide us with the tools we need to better negotiate the intangibles, which may very well be exactly what some people need or want — rather than a heftier pay check.
Finally, I thank you for not poking fun at my (tongue-in-cheek) reference to a better parking space or a cappuccino machine for the break room. Math for Grownups is an irreverent look at how we use math in everyday life — something that either could not be illustrated in excerpting this one section or that flew over the heads of some USA Weekend readers.
As a person who has to pay $140/month to park for work, I consider that a HUGE benefit my company provides me! Not all parking is FREE (certainly not in DC)!
I only got a 770 on the math portion of the SAT
Good response, and I’m glad you got this right in your book. I too wrote USA Weekend about their goof, and was a little tough on them, because a) the journalist got it wrong, and b) it got by an editor, and c) it’s a misconception that I’ve seen held so many times over the years.
That’s quite a score! I wasn’t even close.
Thanks for writing to USA Weekend. I honestly do feel bad for the reporter. As a journalist myself (not as often right now), I know that sometimes these mistakes happen. In the end, I think that USA Weekend’s editors and factchecking process failed him. There by the grace of god go I — and many other writers.
Clearly it hit a big nerve! And since this misunderstanding has been perpetuated many times over, I can see why this pushed folks over the top.
Oh, I bet the hair on the back of your neck was standing up at the sight of the error. My husband is notorious for yelling at the TV and computer screen when reporters misinterpret statistics and mathematical content. We all need to learn how to put information into the proper context. I’m glad you were right and appreciate the lesson you shared.
Thanks, Suzanne. Yes, I was a nervous wreck for a while! I’m not a tax expert, so I was concerned that I had made the mistake. Even with fantastic editors (and I do have really sharp editors), these things can happen.
Having worked in the media for almost 15 years, I’ve made my fair share of errors in print, and I’ve been called on them. Honestly, my biggest complaint — and this is when I shout at the radio — is when reporters allow misinformation to go unquestioned. Journalists don’t need to be experts in everything they write about. But they do need to question themselves and all of the information they encounter.
I’m also not real keen on readers and listeners who rudely assume that journalists are just not doing their jobs. Sometimes that’s true, yes. But we’re all human, and sometimes we make human mistakes. Oh, and sometimes the readers are wrong, and the journalists are right.
But you are absolutely correct: having a basic understanding of math, including statistics, is a critical aspect of good journalism. That’s because critical thinking is a cornerstone of responsible reporting.
I’m sure this attention will only turn out to be good as you get people curious about what is really going on (and thus checking your site!)
As you said – mistakes happen and if we could all just relax about them and use them as an opportunity to explain something better… well, that would just be good, LOL.
My personal favorite math blunder is when I was asked to be part of a podcast about the probability of teams getting in the playoffs in the NFL. Some quick calculation I did was totally off and of course recorded and done by the time I realized it! It was such a basic error too and I have no idea why I would do it – just goes to show you its humans doing math eh? (Damn it my point was still right though…)
Jerimi recently posted..What’s Cooking in the Math Bootcamp’s Kitchen? A Derivatives Book!
Thanks, Jerimi. We’ve all been there, right? But it’s so helpful to know that we’re not alone.
And isn’t it awful when the point is overshadowed by the mistake? Oy.
I feel for the guy who wrote this though – I have noticed there is no wrong that gets more attention than INTERNET WRONG. I’m sure this author is still getting emails, lol. (all while it SHOULDN’T be a big deal)
Laura,
I remain concerned about the conclusion in the excerpt, where you conclude that the individual might do better to negotiate benefits. You specifically suggest a VIP parking space, an extra weeks vacation, and a Cappuccino machine in the breakroom.
Based on how much the parking garage near work charges for an assigned space, I valued the “VIP Parking” at $100 per month. The extra vacation I valued at one weeks take-home pay, assuming one could just take it off in exchange for the pay, which got me $541. I estimated incremental take home of $4115 based on subtracting your estimate of taxes from the $6000 and also subtracted out 7.65% for payroll taxes.
I valued the Cappuccino at $2.50 per serving. Assuming our friend Kyle works 48 weeks per year (3 week vacation with the new one, plus a week of paid holidays) he works 240 days, so he has to drink about 4 Cappuccino’s per day to make the trade-off break-even in raw monetary terms.
Based on this, I really disliked your suggestion on the benefits trade-off, unless Kyle really likes Cappucino and really needs that parking spot (being flip, maybe he needs to be close to the bathroom because of all the Cappuccino.)
You never really discussed this particular aspect of some of the negative things being said, but you might want to address it specifically.
You are welcome to remain concerned. That’s the beauty of negotiations, right? What works for one person may be a dumb idea for someone else.
I also invite you to read my book. The problem with excerpting this book is that some of the humor is lost. I don’t claim to be a great comedienne or satirist, but there are plenty of irreverent and silly examples in Math for Grownups. In one, Glinda, the Good Witch of the East, is deciding whether or not to buy a BTV (Bubble Transportation Vehicle). Clearly, I don’t intend to imply, suggest or convince anyone that such a vehicle exists or that Glinda could even afford one on her paltry good witch salary. (That was another joke.) The possibility that her gown budget and teas with the Wizard could even partially cover what she’ll need to come up with to get out of debt is downright laughable. Right?
(God, I hope so.)
I don’t mean to be flip at all. The point of Math for Grownups is to help reduce fear and introduce some levity into the subject. I understand that taxes and salary negotiations are serious business, but my book is not intended to be a guide on either one. It is simply meant to be a tool for those who don’t understand math, feel very insecure in their math abilities or are plain afraid of it an opportunity to learn something and maybe even have a little fun.
I want readers to feel inspired to play with math, try out some calculations on their own — and not worry that someone will tell them they’re dumb, wrong or sorely misguided. Unfortunately (and ironically), that’s been the message of this entire USA Weekend debate and what I tried to explain above. In this context, it’s okay to make mistakes, to negotiate a benefits package that doesn’t make sense to someone else or forget that we have a marginal tax system. Because it’s all about learning something new, and learning is plain difficult when you feel like someone is waiting for you to screw up.
The implications of math are to me as interesting as the math itself, and this is where your explanation falls apart for me.
Given your premises, would you ever recommend to anyone to do the trade-off that you suggest? If you had a friend or relative who was making about $26.5K take-home, and could boost their income by over $4K or get a better parking spot, another weeks vacation, and some free coffee, would you recommend that?
The words in your book makes it seem like a potentially reasonable trade-off or even an overall good idea, but a more complete analysis suggests it simply doesn’t make sense.
And I agree, we all makes mistakes, and we have to accept that and move on. But we also have to take responsibility for them, especially when they affect others. You presented some facts, and led to a dubious conclusion, and seem dismissive of that, which is why I remain concerned.
No I wouldn’t advise anyone of anything, because that’s not what this book is about. The advice in this book and blog is simple: use math because you need it, face your fears, notice where you are using math (because it’s happening more often than you think). I never intended it to be a personal finance guide.
Again, I invite you to read the book. You might actually agree with me: that I haven’t advised anyone of anything related to finances.
By the way, you can even download the book for free until Saturday. My publisher has a special promotion that is good for Kindle, Nook and tablets. So you wouldn’t even need to put out any cash.
(And honestly, I don’t mean to be dismissive. I apologize for coming across that way. Internet communication can be so limiting can’t it?)
Laura
Oh, and I should have commended you on your math. I say this in all seriousness: you have demonstrated a solid understanding of the basic math we do everyday — and you seemed to do it effortlessly. I know I made a lot of jokes in my earlier response to you, but you illustrated my premise for this book and blog. Math is necessary and not too terribly difficult.
Laura
We need to understand that sometimes (often) they have their tight red lines, and they are running like crazy to get the stuff done in time.
Marlene recently posted..How to choose a degree
That’s very true, Marlene. At the same time, this piece was likely in the works for a while, so as much as I’d like to give Mr. Connolly the benefit of the doubt with that excuse, I can’t here.
Perhaps the bigger issue is that his editors and factcheckers didn’t catch the mistake. Hopefully it was a big wakeup call for them. Hate that it happened so publicly.
Thanks for commenting, Marlene!