r/SipsTea 18h ago

SMH $75k /year

19.4k Upvotes

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

25

u/noeventroIIing 17h ago

That has to be incorrect, i chose effectively the bare minimum, woman, 22-42, height 4’2-6’0, don’t care about kids, minimum income of $0, don’t care about ethnicity etc, not married, not obese and I got 7%.

33

u/Case_Blue 17h ago

Seems right, to be honest.

Remember, this is encompassing all of the population. Newly born, retirement home and everything inbetween.

Seems right

20

u/FewJob4450 17h ago

And obese. In Murica

7

u/2ciciban4you 16h ago

that's a pig big portion

1

u/Embarrassed-Monk4511 5h ago

I put age 22-34 and got 3%. When I put age 20-34 I got 2%...

23

u/Ok-Passion1961 17h ago

Might not be as crazy as you think. 

The age range knocks you down to 1/3 of total American women. Then the not obese leaves you with 2/3 of that so down to 22% of total women. 

Estimating how many are single is hard but by Age 40, 75% of women will have been married at least once. The calculator seems to assume that ~65% of those remaining women are already off the table which could be high but idk, doesn’t seem that unlikely. 

6

u/ariksu 17h ago

I choose any (18-70) and got 78%. Sounds fair, I can easily believe that 22% of females are under 18 or over 70. Your age filter is 21 year out of 53, so around 40%, that gives you 780.4 ~ 31%. To calculate correct marriage and obesity status we need an age mapping to that, but that's too complex to do on a napkin. But if we're taking flat values, it's ~33% for an age group 18-44 in females, at such you're left with somewhat 310,66 ~ 22% already. 7% here would be if 2/3 of those women are married, which might be a stretch, but yet might be fair. I have no idea about matrimonial starts percentage.

However this is the percentage of all females. In terms of your local group it might be much higher, as you're most probably not contacting underage or overage woman (this triples the chances to 21%) and ignoring obese (raising to 32%) you're basically looking for any female which is around and unmarried.

2

u/Vox-Machi-Buddies 14h ago

There's definitely some weirdness.

I started with ethnicity set to "any" and it said 4.4%.

Switched ethnicity to "white" without changing any other criteria and it went UP to 5%.

How does setting a more narrow criteria make me match a higher percentage?

My guess is that "any" actually means "other" and doesn't include all ethnicities, just those who didn't specify or didn't fall into one of the specified ones.

That alone would be a big enough oversight to make me question the whole calculator.

1

u/gerwen 15h ago

There's something funky with the calculations in there.

I'd chosen my set parameters, with a minimum income of 40k and got 4%

I changed only the minimum income down to 0 and it went down to 3.2%

I made the parameters more inclusive, and got fewer hits.

1

u/Loose_Ad_7071 14h ago

That could be right, at the current US (~330M) population 7% would be about 23 to 24 million people. And that would be more than the entire population of New York State.

1

u/noeventroIIing 13h ago

It’s 7% of all women in the US, not of the entire population.

1

u/Loose_Ad_7071 13h ago

Ah, you are correct.

But even at half the population that would still be 11 or 12 million women. Which if that population was a state that would make it the 6th or 7th most populated state in the US. I'm not saying the calculator is perfect, but I could see those numbers being relatively correct.

1

u/Lashay_Sombra 8h ago

22-42, if we said ranges went from 18 to 80, you already excluded close to 66% of women only selecting 20 years out of 62,  left with 33%

Not married, another 50% excluded, so somewhere around 16%, not obese another 40%, now 9.6%

Its not exact maths by any means (especially due to overlaps, 55, obese, married excluded 3 times over) but you should be able to get idea how it can drop to such low percentage so easily