Slim Posted December 16, 2005 Author Share Posted December 16, 2005 Like the other people at the top, I assumed you were just bitching because you thought it should have been 50% under and 50% over. Na, affluence is pretty much always a pyramid innit, large numbers of poor, fewer average and a pinnacle of filthy rich. Just amused me when he said he wanted to get people above the average wage. If you got people above the current average, the average wage would go up and they'd be below it again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Iirc from my school days, there are 3 types of average: Mean, median, and mode. All calculated differently. They're different statistical measurements. Mode is the most popular Median is the middle value Mean is the average Thus if you've got five people with different earnings One earns £10 One earns £4 Two earn £3 One earns £2 Mode is £3 Median is £3 Average is £3.666 By a process of deduction and what I've been told down the pub, the bloke earning £10 is a bad egg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Iirc from my school days, there are 3 types of average: Mean, median, and mode. All calculated differently. They're different statistical measurements. Mode is the most popular Median is the middle value Mean is the average Thus if you've got five people with different earnings One earns £10 One earns £4 Two earn £3 One earns £2 Mode is £3 Median is £3 Average is £3.666 By a process of deduction and what I've been told down the pub, the bloke earning £10 is a bad egg. The £10 man lives in a house which is valued at 4x the flat which the £3 and £2 men share. The £4 man's house is valued at 5x his income and is worth the mean price of the 3 properties. How much is the £10 man's house currently worth and how long will it take for him to reach his destination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Err 42??? head implodes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTool Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 all the fun goes out of a post once numbers creep in lol, far too technical for my pea brain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonty Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Maybe he feels guilty about the £9000 to £10.000 pay rise he is about to get ? When you think about it their pay rise is probably the average wage for quite a few people. 22.5% That's a mighty figure. I wonder where that comes from? Isn't their pay now linked directly to the civil service rates, and the expected increase is somewhere round 3.5%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I think, bearing in mind all of the overspends and cock-ups that at the very least, they should only take cost of living increases, if take anything at all. Performance related pay anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Its probably what they consider a cunning ruse, watch the birdie type thing to deflect attention from something problematic coming up, MHK pay rises could be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobe Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 The £10 man lives in a house which is valued at 4x the flat which the £3 and £2 men share. The £4 man's house is valued at 5x his income and is worth the mean price of the 3 properties. How much is the £10 man's house currently worth and how long will it take for him to reach his destination? £32, and not very long, as he probably has a helicopter or something. I thought the worst bit about the ministers mathematics is he said he was worried about "relative poverty" with 60% of earning less than the average. Not only does he not understand maths, he doesn't understand economics full stop by the sound of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 £32 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Leaving the finer points of statistical manipulation aside, we have a town councillor - oops, I mean Government minister - who comes up with an impractical concept which he clearly hasn't thought through before opening mouth. And we are governed by people like this? I despair. Vote the b......s out at the election for them never to return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTool Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 "NOW YOU CAN SEE WHY THE ISLE OF MAN IS IS FAILING" Vote out the Leeches They Want 22% pay rise, is that not taking the P*ss, they must think the people of the isle of man are fools. I better not answer that one after all you all voted them in. Next election time comes i am going to vote for the under dog who ever he or she is. Money corrupts anyone with out values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Minister on manx radio this morning, I think it was Rimmington, with the shock announcement that "60% of people earn less than the average wage!". Um, someone care to explain how averages work to the man? It was Bill Henderson MHK who was interviewed on Manx Radio. He is not a minister. Note that many people on the Isle of Man earn less per week than yer average advocate charges per hour. The interview is here if anyone is actually interested: 2005_12_16_Bill_Henderson_Minimum_Wage.mp3 So maybe the matter could be discussed further than to pontificate on whether the average is mode, median or mean, and how that figure was arrived at etc. Although averages are a very interesting subject in itself, it doesn't really come under Local News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobe Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 minister/MHK, still an elected representative. Although I wholeheartedly agree that any employer paying less than the minimum wage should be had, what he said was that as 63% earn less than the average, it raises the spectre of "relative poverty". I dont see that follows. The average wage works out at £12 an hour for 40 hours, more than double the minimum, and the statistics mean nothing. 80% of those 63% could be earning a couple of percent below, which isn't poverty. It sounds more like trotting out meaningless stats along with a scare story to gain airtime/column inches, but then, I'm very cynical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTool Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 The figures show that 40.000 people are in employment 24.000 workers are under the average 16.000 workers are over the average Its quite funny how Mr Bell and his minions say that the isle of man is growing 5% to 6% a year, but the majority of the isle of man that is nearly 2/3rds are struggling to pay thier bills. So is the isle of man doing that well ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.