FAKE MATH
We wish we didn’t have to Fact-Check the Media. Unfortunately, math is one of the most common ways that Media misreports. On one day I found more fake math media examples than I can report in a regulation-sized post… The following samples are for your amusement:
One article said that the car owner’s fuel cost per mile was nearly double what it mathematically could be. To get that figure his RAV4 had to be getting a mere 11.4 mpg. But I know that even a poorly running older RAV4 gets over 20 mpg. In a recent survey of 7,163 older RAV4s still on the road you’d have to chose one produced before 1996 (30 years ago) to find one averaging below 20 mpg.
Buy an EV if you want. However, since the very beginning there has been no way to make them cheaper to buy and own than a gas engine version. The out-dated government incentive which paid $7,500 helped balance it a bit, but with the higher price tag, interest on a bigger loan, additional sales tax on purchase, high e-insurance rate, faster depreciation, and buying tires more often, an EV cannot save money for its owner. You buy one if you don’t travel much and want to reduce worldwide carbon emissions by a fraction. That is the entire SELL in a nutshell.
The second problem with EV comes with lack of charging stations. The simple solution is to double the cost of charging. Wait! Why? Because installing and maintaining them takes a ton of money. So, if you doubled the price more would be installed. Near me are 3 gas stations that have plenty of room for chargers, but don’t. Cost to install can be over $10k EACH. (5 charger ports = $50,000). Annual maintenance, electricity, land lease, and insurance is $2k each. Potential gross earnings per port may only be $3-4k/year each. Do the math. It takes way too long to break even. No one goes into business to break even.
EV articles seem to be the among the most common places to find egregious math. This article from NPR claims it is financially a winner to own an e-car. To prove it the writer included this math: “Working with Higuera, she started with a $0 cost for his Jeep, since he already owned it. For the EV, she entered $23,000 ($45,500 purchase price, minus the $7,500 tax credit and $15,000 from selling the Jeep).” STOP. Did you see the fake math there? The value of his Jeep was thrown away. If he merely sold the Jeep he would have $15,000 in his pocket. Then with the loan on the e-car ($23,000) his investment is $38,000 (with government subsidy) not $23,000. The EV cost HIM $38,000 and American taxpayers $7,500. Why allow someone to hoodwink you like this? Poor math and poorer reasoning.
Did you know that an annual survey says that 51% of American adults are financially ignorant? So, 51% of American adults would not have caught this math error.
Slate has this article: “Wave Goodbye to the Last Normal Year for American Schools.”
They decry Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Act that will slightly change how schools are funded. The change “will kick in during the middle of the next school year, in January 2027.” They whine that “It brings us back to the bad old days, to the failed and inadequate divided school budgets from before the Civil War. Trump’s plan brings back the devasting (sic) problem that our modern public school systems were designed to fix.”
Here’s the math reality: Schools have become proficient at spending money. But it usually makes no difference in student grades or truancy. In fact one nearby school district has been mishandling finances for so long that when they were caught auditors proclaimed they were bankrupt. Did someone buy a vacation home in the Bahamas?
The only “problem” schools should be “fixing” is student proficiency. It was being done prior to 1960. Proficiency improved tremendously between 1900 and 1960, then the scores began to slip. Now some districts have dropped to HALF. Meanwhile the funding has increased and the number of administration positions has multiplied. After decades of spending, spending, and spending we still have over 20% of our students who “graduate” without basic third grade skills (things these kids will need to know for the remainder of their lives). There is plenty of evidence that proficiency CAN be much better than it is now, and at a time when the cost to run a school was far less (in today’s dollars). Use that money to TEACH and hold kids accountable to know.
MoneyWise has this headline: “Joe Rogan stunned after Caleb Hammer says US boomers should have $2M-$5M savings — no ‘sympathy’ otherwise. Is he right?”
My answer is “NO! Because the math is wrong.”
Here’s the information which mislead Caleb Hammer and others: “According to the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) national average wage index (2), the average wage in 1990 was $21,027.98. By 2024, that figure had risen to $69,846.57.” As I’ve mentioned before, [AVERAGE] is absolutely not the same as [MEDIAN.] In regard to income, average compares dollars (a billionaire has lots more dollars, but is one person), but median compares people (middle is a true middle). The Median adult does not have an income of $69,846. He or she has an income lower than $50,000. A median person would NOT have $2 million in investments using the formula given. That person would be fortunate to have $1.2 million if he/she did not have student loans to repay, high medical bills, or lived in a place like California or New York. The real world has a lot of “stoppers.”
USA Today goes over the top to create FEAR about Social Security: “Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033.”
In the article: “Newly retired, average dual-income couples planning to retire in six years should expect to receive $16,900 less in annual Social Security benefits if Congress continues to do nothing ….”
The math doesn’t square. First they claim these are “average” dual-income couples. In reality they aren’t talking about “average” at all. In order to receive $16,900 less SS benefit as a couple they’d both have to receive the maximum benefit available. That benefit is for individuals whose income was north of $150,000 per year. However, the “average” wage in America (as we just learned) is near $70,000. For the math-challenged, that’s half.
Second, they say: “The trust fund that supplements incoming payroll taxes to pay monthly Social Security benefits is expected to run dry by the end of 2032….” While technically true, most people have no clue what this means. There are TWO sources for Social Security benefit payments. ONE is the “Trust Fund” mention here. The SECOND source is payroll taxes. The incoming payroll taxes won’t go away. It is only the “Trust Fund” which will run dry. What is the trust fund? Money that wasn’t spent in previous years. Guess what!! They KNEW it would run dry 35 years ago. Suddenly it is an emergency!!! Who is responsible for this mess? Legislators who were in office 35 years ago, not today’s Congress.
If the Press can’t understand math, what else can’t they do? Math is BASIC.
Copyright 2026 Donald Whelpley
[PLEASE NOTE that Don is always open to discussing the thoughts and opinions he shares here and welcomes comments as shared in the comment section. He doesn’t use other social media platforms and won’t see whatever you’d like to share with him if you post it elsewhere.
ALSO, Don is always open to offer his thoughts on various topics. If you have a specific request, you can let him know in a comment; he reads – and replies to – them all. ~ Sherry]
See more GUEST POSTS from Don
Comments