Great mathematical conclusions of our time

[davywavy]

I see that the National Union of Journalists are up in arms over the shocking statistic that 50% of people earn less than the average wage.

I can only conclude that a qualification in basic maths is not a requirement for becoming a Union activist these days. In fact, in the light of the above evidence I suspect that such a qualification would be a serious handicap.

Comments

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The difference being, of course, that FD is a stated job title, and there's no union representing that single title.
However, it is reasonable to assume that the NUJ represents people from the top to teh bottom of both ability and seniority (indeed, I think Journos have to join to get accreditation? I may be wrong) and so the Cat up Tree correspondent for the local rag is represented in the sample just as is the horrendously overpaid Polly Toynbee.

[budgie-uk.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, but the same applies to Financial Directors, some of whom (to my cretain knowledge) earn £35k a year, with others earning more than ten times that amount.

Every profession or trade (replace FD with 'accountant', and bingo, I'm a member of ACCA, one of the trade bodies for accountants) has people at the top and bottom of ability and seniority.

However, my point was that you're saying that the stupid journalist didn't realise that you're always going to get 50% above and 50% below "the average". That's not the case if you're talking about two different populations.

You could accurately say it's accurate that, say, "50% of people who blog post more often than the average person who blog". But equally accurate could be "70% of people on livejournal post more often than the average person who blogs".