The problem there is that if that table is accurate, the baseline assumption isn't a 50/50 split, it's that you're more likely to side with the plaintiff than the defense. (How much more likely depends on the prevalence of "under 50k" people relative to "over 50k" people.) So learning that you make "over 50k" moves you towards the defense from the position of no information (no information other than the table, that is).
No, it doesn't. The baseline presumption is that the question doesn't reveal anything useful about the juror's leanings.
A salary below $50k indicates a strong preference for the plaintiff, but the reverse is not true (i.e., that a salary above $50k indicates a strong preference for the defense). Rather, the table indicates that a salary above $50k doesn't provide any useful information one way or the other about a prospective juror's leanings.
That isn't true, though. As other sibling comments have explained, a salary above $50k indicates a stronger preference for the defense than would be expected. If counsel for the defense is choosing between (a) a person known to make over $50k, and (b) a person about whom nothing is known, then that table will inform them that person (a) is the correct choice, as they are biased in favor of the defense relative to person (b). Similarly, the table informs counsel for the prosecution that person (b) is biased in favor of the prosecution relative to person (a), and that a person known to make under $50k would be even more so.
