That's unlikely to be correct. Whatever your measurement, the average could easily be skewed towards one part of the population. E.g. including or excluding Bill Gates and other billionaires will change the average wealth.

Define unlikely? I mean just as easily the opposite could be assumed.

Huh? The likelyhood that an average comes out to divide a population exactly 50/50 seems low. You'd expect it to be off by a point or two, at least. I'm just pointing out that your statement that 50% of X are below average is not usually true. Unless you meant at least 50%. In which case it's a: misleading, B: still wrong.

You've simply conflated symbols (ie, ≈ ≠ = etc).

The original uses shorthand "~=" for coarse equality, in lieu of {option+x}.