[Buddha-l] Picture: Distribution of Wealth by Religious Membership

[R B Basham]

On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 12:00 -0700, elihusmith at yahoo.com wrote:

> Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] buddha-l Digest, Vol 60, Issue 19 ...
> Re: "This transparency takes a look at the income levels of America's
> major religious groups, as compared to the average U.S. income
> distribution."
> 
> This transparency and information is not of much use unless we know
> more about it.
> 
> What is the source of the data?
> 
> How does it group religious identification - all "Buddhists" can
> include widely disparate groups; what is the basis of the Buddhist
> ID ?
> 
> How large a sample? 
> 
> etc. etc.
> 
> I could not find any of that in this link.
> 
> Elihu

Elihu, 


1. The Subject should be the appropriate Thread/Subject Title -- in this
case, "Picture: Distribution of Wealth by Religious Membership" not the
aggregated "Digest, vol60, Issue 20".

2. Source was apparent in the graphic, although not via a hot-link and
less explicit than in an academic attribution. I imagine that anyone
could find the data and methodology from the information provided,
especially if one needed to for whatever reasons.

3. Other references to the published source survey, including member
comments, are in the buddha-l archives, IIRC. 

4. Going back to the original posting: 

>>bshmr at aol.com; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:42:56 -0600
>>For what you can get out of it, which will differ amongst individuals
(class, and citizenship). From my point of view, relative parity leads
to harmonies while disparity leads to conflicts. Others will focus on
other dynamics.
>>

A few got less than what is there, you appear to be one. 

On the other hand, I see the source, am able to research from there, as
well as integrate the findings. 

In addition, I appreciated the presentation. I wouldn't have done 'it'
that way but I appreciate their efforts, which incidentally motivated me
to consider other visual representations. 

I shared it because it was relatively complete experiential-ly for me
though it would not be for many for a variety of 'reasons'. 
 

Richard Basham