Originally Posted by Ben Franklin (Post 1964553)

I only have one complaint about the developer, and that is the use of socialism in place of impact fees. They are/were in bed with the politicians to get government to relax the impact fees, which means those of us already here pay for the impact created by those making the impact. But, it's not just this developer, they all do it. They even got the Governor to sign an impact fee ceiling. And then they turn around and tell us we need to accept personal responsibility.

With the impact of so many people, the roads will need to be widened, especially 301, from Warm Springs to Route 44. The other roads are Rolling Acres from 466 to 441 with 2 left hand turn lanes at 466 and Rolling Acres. Granted, those roads are not in TV, but they are impacted by the growing number of people in TV. Other than that, most things run pretty smoothly, at least what I'm aware of.

Originally Posted by Happydaz (Post 1967047)

The problem with an “average” is that outliers or numbers that are much lower or higher than the others can throw the average number off and make it an unreliable figure. In the US, income is concentrated at high levels (top 10% for example) and the rest at low and mid levels. These very high income American raise the “average net worth” to a much higher figure than the “average Joe” in America actually has.

A better number where the distribution of incomes is very wide would be the “median” number. This would show that half have more than the median amount and half have less than the median. So in your source they mention that the “average” household net worth of 55-64 year old household is $1.176 Million. Yet the median reported in the same article is much lower and comes in at $212,500. So the median or middle income household in the USA at age 60 has a net worth closer to $212,500 not 1.2 Million. Where there is a wide difference in numbers a median is more accurate than an average. The American in the middle is not a millionaire.

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 1967122)

:blahblahblah:
:blahblahblah:
:blahblahblah:
Average, median, mean, std deviation, bell curve, etc.
:blahblahblah:
:blahblahblah:
:blahblahblah:

Spare me........My post was in response to a post about "the average guy" can't afford TV.

Originally Posted by Happydaz (Post 1967136)

Originally Posted by Happydaz (Post 1967136)

Is he the 60 year old who makes $85,000 a year and has $1.2 Million in net worth? He doesn’t exist.

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 1967185)

You sure don't seem like Happy Daz.

Here a site for your happiness.
Average Retirement Income 2021: How Do You Compare?
Not my original site, but the income data is very close to what I


If it will help your happiness, I can probably find a net worth site for you.

Originally Posted by Happydaz (Post 1967235)

The article you list here fully explains the difference between average (or mean) and median. Your reference source says that the “median” is a better number for an individual to use rather than the “average” number which is wildly out of line in your example of an “average income and net worth wealth” for a 60 year old. This is due to the large, very wealthy class that sits at the top of the wealth scale in the USA and this makes the “average figure” meaningless and inaccurate.

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 1967194)

Oooooooo but he & she exists....................

Here are a couple sites with the average NW of $1.2mil:

https://www.listenmoneymatters.com/a...net-worth-age/

The Average Net Worth Of Americans—By Age, Education And Ethnicity – Forbes Advisor

Originally Posted by Happydaz (Post 1967243)

Originally Posted by Happydaz (Post 1967243)

You need to read these articles all the way through. This is yet another of your articles that says that “average” is not accurate. It overstates income and net worth. “Median” is what your articles recommend using. So your example of the “average Joe” at 60 making $85,000 and having $1.2 Million in net worth is not in line with what the middle income people actually make and have. It is much a much lower number and may give credence to other posters who thought that The Villages may becoming too expensive for middle income Americans to afford. Your statistical support for your argument that this is not the case is flawed and inaccurate.

Originally Posted by WindyCityzen (Post 1964910)

What a hoot. You say Socialism? What about libraries, fire and police departments, parks, or your free Covid shot? Republicans love to attack “socialism,” but
are total hypocrites in doing so.

Originally Posted by manaboutown (Post 1967286)

It all averages out and I mean it!