View previous topic | View next topic

Revolting Teachers :-)

Page 23 of 24
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 22, 23, 24  Next

suze
1242125.  Tue Jul 11, 2017 4:55 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Stop digging!


The statistically-minded husband reckons that I can probably carry on digging on this occasion, much as I was doing it blind earlier on!

To prove the point would require data that we don't have any more than you do, but he's comfortable with the notion that the distribution of pay rises will be more or less normal. And when we're dealing with an eight digit population - ie the British workforce - "more or less normal" is probably good enough for anything on which lives do not depend.

PDR wrote:
A Gaussian distribution would require some pay rises to be negative and others to be infinite.


Provided that "almost all" of the observations are within three standard deviations of the mean, we can ignore the handful that aren't. But in any case, some pay rises were negative. A negative pay rise is known as a "pay cut", and while it's not a common thing it's by no means non-existent.

A pay rise which is actually infinite is of course non-existent, but there will be a small number of people who had a pay rise in excess of 100%. As you've already suggested, they will be so small in number that we can ignore them.


crissdee wrote:
My friend who still remains in their employ (but expects redundancy before the winter) made some vague comments about joining a union once, but afaik didn't follow it through. The general opinion was that the company would claim not to have the money to raise salaries if we were to press for it.


The company might well have claimed that, and it might even have been true. Without looking at the company's accounts I can't say whether such a claim would have been true or not, but if a union were active within the company it would have found that out and raised merry hell if it were not.

I often hear people say things along the lines of "What is the point of being in a union?". I could write an essay in reply to that question, but for now I'll reply to the question with two other questions.

What is the downside of being of a union? Assuming that there is none - and the vast majority of the time in Britain there isn't - what is the point of not being in a union?

 
barbados
1242129.  Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:04 pm Reply with quote

Consider that those on minimum wage recieved a 4% pay rise this year, You end up with a heck of a lot of people earning similar salaries as teachers who are not getting a pay rise. Now ask yourself how many of your teaching colleagues are currently (or have recently been) under consultation, you really aren't doing too badly, because there are as many "average" employees in the private sector that are getting the pay rises you suggest as there are teachers that work from 8:45 - 15:30 and get 13 weeks holiday a year.

 
Efros
1242132.  Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:21 pm Reply with quote

If the job is that attractive, go do it.

 
bobwilson
1242134.  Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:26 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
A pay rise which is actually infinite is of course non-existent, but there will be a small number of people who had a pay rise in excess of 100%. As you've already suggested, they will be so small in number that we can ignore them.


Is an infinite payrise actually non-existent? If you join the labour force (ie start receiving an income related to work), isnít that an infinite pay rise? Just for statistical completeness I mean.

Quote:
What is the downside of being of a union? Assuming that there is none.....


Iíve had enough trouble with partners, let alone agglomerations as big as a union, to know that there will always be something (oftentimes many things) where I disagree with the union. Their authoritarian power structures just donít sit right with me. I have no objection to them and Iím sure they do a lot of good Ė but I wouldnít join one. Similarly, if it were actually possible, Iíd love to renounce my citizenship Ė I never agreed to join that club either; it was simply pressed on to me.

Much as I admire suze and her comrades for manning the barricades (sts), I think itís time we moved on from that style of progress.

 
Jenny
1242143.  Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:55 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
barbados wrote:

I'd have a guess that the fat cat rises of "bosses" would go some way towards pushing that average up,


Very, very unlikely - the "fat cats" are such a tiny proportion of the population that their effect on the mean would be essentially un-noticeable. For precisely the same reason why punitively taxing the "fat cats" provides no significant contribution to the national tax pot.

PDR


Is that true? I don't think it is on this side of the Atlantic:

Pew Research wrote:
In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed,


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

Given that this is achieved from an income tax level of approximately 23% paid by these higher earners, it seems to me that even a nudge to, say, 25% would make a palpable difference.

 
barbados
1242148.  Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:21 pm Reply with quote

Efros wrote:
If the job is that attractive, go do it.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous comment

barbados wrote:
While I don't doubt I could not do suze's job - similarly she couldn't do mine. However where ability to do each others job is equal which would prefer? A 1% pay rise and security, or a 1% pay rise and threat of redundancy?

 
PDR
1242165.  Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:15 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
PDR wrote:
Stop digging!

The statistically-minded husband reckons that I can probably carry on digging on this occasion, much as I was doing it blind earlier on!


I guess Andy and I would have to agree to differ on that. In my environment it is regarded as a technical faux pas to use a Gaussian distribution to model any parameter which has truncated bounds. The distribution is asymptotic at both ends, where as salary changes are truncated at -100% (and arguably also at some upper bound where the value of the salary exceeds the available wealth on the planet), so the distribution would produce population predictions which have no meaning for that parameter - which is why we would always lean more towards modelling it as a log-normal or perhaps weibull distribution.

PDR

 
barbados
1242168.  Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:27 am Reply with quote

I'd err towards your explaination PDR, particularly when the sample was a very small one.

I'm not sure how many businesses there are in the UK but the 700 of them that the researchers did approach would surely be a small enough section to be considered insignificant, particularly when more than half didn't respond.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1242171.  Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:32 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
What is the downside of being of a union? Assuming that there is none - and the vast majority of the time in Britain there isn't - what is the point of not being in a union?


Aren't there fees associated with being in a union? Around here there are, and if you're not earning a lot, that can be seen as a luxury.

 
cnb
1242179.  Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:16 am Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:

Is that true? I don't think it is on this side of the Atlantic:

Pew Research wrote:
In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed,


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

Given that this is achieved from an income tax level of approximately 23% paid by these higher earners, it seems to me that even a nudge to, say, 25% would make a palpable difference.


Income inequality in the UK is not so great, so to reach the point where 51.6% of Income Tax is being paid you have to include 6-7% of taxpayers, which means you'd be including anyone earning over £70,000 in the 'fat cats'. The UK also taxes higher earners far more - although someone on £70,000 is paying around 24%, someone earning the equivalent of $250,000 pays 38% in Income Tax.

 
crissdee
1242182.  Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:33 am Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
suze wrote:
What is the downside of being of a union?
Aren't there fees associated with being in a union?


That was a point I was going to make. Also, isn't it rather an "all-or nothing" deal? If only 2 or 3 of the workforce are in the union, and the other 47 are not, wouldn't it make your bargaining position somewhat weaker?

 
PDR
1242195.  Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:55 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
I'd err towards your explaination PDR, particularly when the sample was a very small one.

I'm not sure how many businesses there are in the UK but the 700 of them that the researchers did approach would surely be a small enough section to be considered insignificant, particularly when more than half didn't respond.


We've had this discussion before - no, a randomly selected sample of 700 will always be statistically significant. The size of the population doesn't affect this. Any element of systemic selection in the sample stratification can reduce the significance, but as long as the selection is random the probability that a sample of 700 does not reasonably represent the population is very small.

PDR

 
dr.bob
1242204.  Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:49 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
a randomly selected sample of 700 will always be statistically significant.


That's not true.

PDR wrote:
as long as the selection is random the probability that a sample of 700 does not reasonably represent the population is very small.


That is true, and a much better way of putting it.

Minor quibble over. Apologies for distracting everyone from the conversation :)

 
PDR
1242209.  Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:18 am Reply with quote

Valid quibble conceded.

PDR

 
barbados
1242211.  Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:46 am Reply with quote

So from the 3.8*million businesses in the UK 700 is a repreeentative sample?


* https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporated-companies-in-the-uk-january-to-march-2017/incorporated-companies-in-the-uk-january-to-march-2017#key-points

 

Page 23 of 24
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 22, 23, 24  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group