How have you treated students? LW has a large student population. I notice that LW incomes are below US median in the 15-24 bracket but above US median in the 25-34 bracket. I suspect LW also has a large population of people who have spent longer at university than most (e.g., PhDs) which will tend to depress earnings at the young end but maybe boost them later on.
It seems (at least according to self-reports) that the LW population gives a little more, as a fraction of income, than the US population at large. I wonder what the distributions look like.
I updated the chart to be a bit more useful: I broke the <$100000 bracket down into $25000 increments.
Now students are accounted for indirectly: there is an extremely strong correlation between age and average income for that age among LWers. (r^2 of .83). So it's safe to assume that there are a large number of 15-24 year olds in that "<$25000" income bracket.
Note: Three data points were removed from the sample due to my subjective opinion that they were fake. Any self-reported IQs of 0 were removed. Any self-reported income of 0 was removed.
*89% of the LW population is between the age of 15 and 34.
**88% of the LW population has an IQ between 125 and 155, with an average IQ of 138.
****Median numbers were adjusted down by a factor of 1.15 to account for the fact that the source data was calculating household median income rather than individual median income.
[1] Internal Revenue Service, Charitable Giving by Households that Itemize Deductions (AGI and Itemized Contributions Summary by Zip, 2012), The Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics
[2] U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2013 and 2014 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.
[3] Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth, income and financial distress Intelligence, Vol. 35, No. 5. (September 2007), by Jay L. Zagorsky
Update 1: Updated chart 1&2 to account for the fact that the source data was calculating household median income rather than individual income.
Update 2: Reverted Chart 1 back to original because I realized that the purpose was to compare LWers to those in similar income brackets. So in that situation, whether it's a household or an individual is not as relevant. It does penalize households to an extent because they have less money available to donate to charity because they're splitting their money three ways.
Update 3: Updated all charts to include data that is filtered for US only.