 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| MattyD wrote: | So I wonder if people would rather get Julia back? Anyone?
##pleasegodnever |
Yep me in a heartbeat especially without the destructive influence of a self absorbed self interested Rudd!
##where is myxomatosis when you need it
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
 |
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Considering the majority of people earn less than $50,000 you could be right while the average wage is $75,000 that is per person not for a couple. |
Actually the maths doesn't support you there, unless I misunderstand your point. If the average wage is $75k, that suggests that 50% of people earn $75k or more and the other 50% earn $75 or less. Assuming a standard bell curve, the majority of people earn more than $50k. |
Not even close.
The "average" wage is indeed often claimed to be around $73,000, but never by anyone who has a clue about basic statistics. (Not blaming you here, more the moron who you are taking these bent figures from.) We are not talking about advanced level number-crunching here, we are talking about the basic stuff that is generally taught in primary school around about Year 5 or Year 6, revised in high school, and revised again during the first week of first year statistics - literally, in Week 1 of Statistics 101.
There are three main ways to measure central tendency (what most people call an "average") and you can't interchange them at will as selecting the wrong one can and often does provide a grossly misleading number.
The mean is good for symmetrical distributions - your bell-shaped curve is a good example. If you fold the graph of a symmetrical distribution in half, both sides look roughly the same. The mean also has lots of technical uses in advanced statistics for distributions of all different kinds - but not as a measure of central tendency (or "average"), simply as one of the component numbers you do complex sums with for various obscure statistical purposes.
The median is a much more robust measure. It is around about as as good an indicator of central tendency ("average") as the mean is for symmetrical distributions, but is more tedious to calculate and doesn't have some of the important abstruse mathematical qualities that the mean has, so it tends not to be used for these. Where the distribution is skewed (not symmetrical), the mean is basically useless as a measure of central tendency, and the correct type of "average" to use is the median. Unlike the mean, the median is robust and provides a good, trustworthy "average" for almost any distribution.
The mode is an odd sort of statistic and the simplest one of all; it too can be useful but it can be quite misleading if not used with care.
Wages, wealth and income all have heavily skewed distributions, similar to the graph below.
Income is very skewed. There are vast numbers of Australians with low incomes, and only a tiny number with very high incomes. (In fact, the real distribution is even more skewed as the wealthy have all manner of ways of reducing their apparent income (to avoid tax) which the majority at the other end of the scale do not.
Average income in Australia is around $43,000. 50% of Australians earn this amount or less; 50% earn this amount or more. Only one quarter of Australians earn what you called the "average wage", which is of course not a genuine "average" at all insofar as an "average" is supposed to be an indicator of the norm or the central tendency.
You will find that this article makes useful background reading: http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/05/what-is-the-typical-australian-income-in-2013/
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
3.14159 
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself"!
|
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | 1061 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Considering the majority of people earn less than $50,000 you could be right while the average wage is $75,000 that is per person not for a couple. |
Actually the maths doesn't support you there, unless I misunderstand your point. If the average wage is $75k, that suggests that 50% of people earn $75k or more and the other 50% earn $75 or less. Assuming a standard bell curve, the majority of people earn more than $50k. |
Not even close.
The "average" wage is indeed often claimed to be around $73,000, but never by anyone who has a clue about basic statistics. (Not blaming you here, more the moron who you are taking these bent figures from.) We are not talking about advanced level number-crunching here, we are talking about the basic stuff that is generally taught in primary school around about Year 5 or Year 6, revised in high school, and revised again during the first week of first year statistics - literally, in Week 1 of Statistics 101.
There are three main ways to measure central tendency (what most people call an "average") and you can't interchange them at will as selecting the wrong one can and often does provide a grossly misleading number.
The mean is good for symmetrical distributions - your bell-shaped curve is a good example. If you fold the graph of a symmetrical distribution in half, both sides look roughly the same. The mean also has lots of technical uses in advanced statistics for distributions of all different kinds - but not as a measure of central tendency (or "average"), simply as one of the component numbers you do complex sums with for various obscure statistical purposes.
The median is a much more robust measure. It is around about as as good an indicator of central tendency ("average") as the mean is for symmetrical distributions, but is more tedious to calculate and doesn't have some of the important abstruse mathematical qualities that the mean has, so it tends not to be used for these. Where the distribution is skewed (not symmetrical), the mean is basically useless as a measure of central tendency, and the correct type of "average" to use is the median. Unlike the mean, the median is robust and provides a good, trustworthy "average" for almost any distribution.
The mode is an odd sort of statistic and the simplest one of all; it too can be useful but it can be quite misleading if not used with care.
Wages, wealth and income all have heavily skewed distributions, similar to the graph below.
Income is very skewed. There are vast numbers of Australians with low incomes, and only a tiny number with very high incomes. (In fact, the real distribution is even more skewed as the wealthy have all manner of ways of reducing their apparent income (to avoid tax) which the majority at the other end of the scale do not.
Average income in Australia is around $43,000. 50% of Australians earn this amount or less; 50% earn this amount or more. Only one quarter of Australians earn what you called the "average wage", which is of course not a genuine "average" at all insofar as an "average" is supposed to be an indicator of the norm or the central tendency.
You will find that this article makes useful background reading: http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/05/what-is-the-typical-australian-income-in-2013/ |
Yeah I remember mean, mode and median from high school maths.
How did you manage to reverse mine and 1061's quotes?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Every past Labor pollie whose asked seems to reluctantly agree that Gillard and Krudd stuffed up. I heard Graham Richardson this morning echoeing Hawke and keating. |
Please, Stui, naive just doesn't suit you; what you've heard is textbook public relations arising from an organisational slate-clearing event, not rigorous analysis.
Even if nothing much went wrong, or no one really knows what went wrong, or the claims of what went wrong make no sense whatsoever, or there are simply two choices and one has to lose, people/parties have to say they stuffed up to make the public feel good about itself so it wipes the slate clean and reconsiders them next time.
Don't believe any opinions leading into an election or out of a slate clearing event because people have to reiterate the necessary PR lines as a matter of "commitment". Go back and look at what the same people have said elsewhere, and preferably over a period of time, if you want to know what they actually think (and on that Keating was definitely not keen on them removing Rudd, so that's one thing we can verify). |
have you read my signature lately?
This is politics we're talking about. All for one, one for all, every man for himself.
When the opportunity to rewrite history to make yourself look better comes along, grab on and don't let go.
How many books have we had so far from the Labor people after the last election? I think Krudd, Gillard and Carr so far. Each one trying to make sure that their own place in history is secure.
I don't know who authored it, but a quote I've always liked : "History is merely propaganda written by the victors"
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | How did you manage to reverse mine and 1061's quotes? |
Hmmm ... put it this way: at university, I got As for statistics and failed English.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| OK I will put it there. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Have you read my signature lately?
This is politics we're talking about. All for one, one for all, every man for himself.
When the opportunity to rewrite history to make yourself look better comes along, grab on and don't let go.
How many books have we had so far from the Labor people after the last election? I think Krudd, Gillard and Carr so far. Each one trying to make sure that their own place in history is secure.
I don't know who authored it, but a quote I've always liked : "History is merely propaganda written by the victors" |
Sorry, fair enough; just preaching to the converted 
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | How did you manage to reverse mine and 1061's quotes? |
Hmmm ... put it this way: at university, I got As for statistics and failed English. |
I always thought averages were about sampling a group of people and dividing the result by the number sampled.
In a case were say they sample 100 people find out what each individual earns add it all together then divide by 100 to come at the average wage. Are you telling me that it's not how it is done, if so then it seems to be creative accounting and extremely misleading to me an unedumacated nong! |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| If the media attacked the Born to Rule Party with the same venom that they attacked Gillard I would say all is well. It appears it's the softly softly, we all have to share the pain approach by the media. All but the filthy rich. I found a few attacking articles but nothing equal to the days of the Juliar Gillard attacks. |
|
|
|
|
Brenny
Joined: 05 Apr 2011
Location: Westpac Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | I don't particularly want Gillard back, but I would still vote for her 100 times before I voted for the current mob. |
I'm exactly the same.
I detested Rudd. I hate the look of him, I hate the sound of him, I hate his smug smirk and I certainly could not stand another term with him.
I didn't agree with all Labors policies, likewise Liberal, but there was no way in hell I was going to vote Labor to have him back.
If Gillard was still in, I'd have voted for her; albeit, just.
I wasn't overly stressed by it, seeing Scullin has been safe Labor since Peters in 1955.
Though I'd probably move just so I can live in na na na na na na na na Batman! |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | How did you manage to reverse mine and 1061's quotes? |
Hmmm ... put it this way: at university, I got As for statistics and failed English. |
I always thought averages were about sampling a group of people and dividing the result by the number sampled.
In a case were say they sample 100 people find out what each individual earns add it all together then divide by 100 to come at the average wage. Are you telling me that it's not how it is done, if so then it seems to be creative accounting and extremely misleading to me an unedumacated nong! |
That's the 'mean' average, arguably the one that's most commonly used. As Tannin points out, though, the 'median' average is probably preferable where highly skewed figures are involved (as is the case with income).
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wouldn't median then be better broken down into percentages as lumping it in with averages seems dishonest. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It's not reallyboth are equally established forms of establishing averages (there's also stuff like mode and standard deviation). Perhaps more people think of 'mean' when they say the word 'average', but it's really just another form of averaging.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| It's like year 9 maths all over again. Mode if I remember is the value that occurs the most. So if more people earned $23,000 than any other value, then that's the Modal Average. Not sure where that's useful but I'm sure it is somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
