TV shows with the highest percentage of wealthiest viewers

[whusurdadi]

Of course Mad Men tops the list

here

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by whusurdadi

Of course Mad Men tops the list

here

It's not a very good show though...

 

[Ataturk]

"Nearly half of 'Mad Men' households make more than $100K"

Turns out I've been "wealthy" all along and never realized it. Horray!

 

[HRoi]

not sure a household income of $100K plus is necessarily wealthy, especially in big cities. that's $50k apiece in a two-income family. better than many, of course, but prolly not truly wealthy.

ps - The Closer is ****. there are 5.1 million people who watch that drivel?

 

[milosz]

"wealthy viewers" /= "wealthiest viewers"

some of y'all need to learn to read

 

[HRoi]

Originally Posted by milosz

"wealthy viewers" /= "wealthiest viewers" some of y'all need to learn to read
so, this graphic doesn't tell you that the report writers are inferring that $100k+ is "wealthy"?

(or if you prefer, rich, loaded or affluent?)

 

[milosz]

The article headline specifically uses wealthiest - in a comparison of TV shows, the income of Mad Men viewers is highest. This makes those viewers the 'wealthiest,' even if not 'wealthy.'

One is used comparatively, one is not.

 

[HRoi]

i see it differently. the writers use a cut off of $100k to define a threshold by which a household would be considered "wealthy" (the definition of which i disagree with), and proceed to find the shows with the highest percentage of viewers above that threshold (i.e. the so called wealthy).

but it doesn't matter. sorry to derail the thread.

 

[videocrew]

Wouldn't the show with the wealthiest viewers just have the highest mean income of viewers? This just shows who has the most (arbitrarily designated) wealthy viewers.

 

[milosz]

Originally Posted by HRoi

i see it differently. the writers use a cut off of $100k to define a threshold by which a household would be considered "wealthy" (the definition of which i disagree with), and proceed to find the shows with the highest percentage of viewers above that threshold (i.e. the so called wealthy).

Except that the article never uses the word 'wealthy.' It uses 'wealthiest,' which is the comparative form.

I make jack ****, but put me in a room with five homeless guys and I'm the wealthiest. I may or may not be 'wealthy.'

 

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by milosz

Except that the article never uses the word 'wealthy.' It uses 'wealthiest,' which is the comparative form.
Uh... I didn't even care enough to click the link, but the graph he xposted uses the words "affluent", "rich" and "loaded". You'd have to be pretty obtuse to deny the implication.

 

[StephenHero]

What does Larry King's viewer make?

 

[milosz]

The argument they were having was about whether or not $100k is 'wealthy' - because the OP used that in his title, despite the actual headline being wealthiest. I'm merely trying to point out that none of them will ever be wealthy if they don't understand the difference in -y and -iest.

The graphic, the headline and the article were all created by different people, so the graphic's wording is a separate issue.

 

[milosz]

Originally Posted by StephenHero

What does Larry King's viewer make?

Depends.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by milosz

Depends.
No, they poop in Depends.