Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
you're not interesting
to stop the unstoppable UKIP juggernaut
is more a mini metro when it comes to the GE.
And what I gleaned half listening to the news.
It sounds good to me.
I don't understand what the plan actually it.
I look forward to the incredibly watered down version once the Tories say it will disproportionately help Romanians, or something.
aaaaargh you've done it again mate!!!!!
Sometimes work AND starve
Gotta take what you can get right now. We clearly need more protection, this might be a gesture towards that I reckon. Particularly for zero hour and seasonal jobs and migrant workers.
Did I read some 'fact' over the weekend that 66 or so Labour MPs employ people on zero hour contracts?
Could well be making it up, but sure I read it somewhere.
Labour should not be trying to introduce legislature which helps these people because they employ them?
Just to make that entirely clear to those listening at home.
You expect too much of me.
more pay = more spending - the poor spend a much higher percentage of their income than the rich, and a substantial chunk of our economy is based on retail.
And wages altogether
Then we'd all be super happy sex millionaires
But how much of a minimum wage is too much? At what point does the minimum wage become too high?
as you also do not take things you discuss seriously most of the time (you have said so yourself on several occasions)
Basically you are cajouling guntrip to bite seriously so that you can then skip away, tittering to yourself that you wern't serious, that you were onlu trying to get a rise out of people.
The poor people already have their share we can't give them anymore!
It's not necessarily more jobs we need right now but less exploitative work.
People might begin to realize what a fucking con working at all is eventually
most people who claim housing benefit are employed, it's just that their wages are too low and their housing costs too high. so we're subsidising both their landlords and their employers there. yay! efficiency!
boosts the economy's spending power, and cuts government subsidies to big businesses.
don't really see how anyone could disagree with either of those things.
It appears that he wants the minimum wage to be a % of the average wage, now surely that means that it will constantly needed to be recalculated (unless you add an "as at! caveat clause (this could be a one off or annual or monthly etc).
Also isnt another issue that this refers to hourly pay, is it not the case that the number of zero hours contracts are increasing and that any such legislation as to hourly rate might therefore further increase the use of zero hours contracts (it appears that his party are not seriously against zero hours contracts.....I would have thought that if you talk about the minimum wage in such a way then you would, simultaneously also have to have caveats about zero hours contracts)
It doesn't matter how you change the wage of people either side of the median, as long as you don't change the number of people either side of it.
If they fuck up with the language to such an extent then I am bound to draw erroneous conclusions.
They should learn to be more precise in what they say (yes I know, I am famous for my imprecision, but the thing is, its not that important with what I say, as no one bases anything on it, I am not important, the leader of the opposition IS important and he should learn precision with things where precision is paramount for people drawing conclusions)
Thank you for pointing out to me that what I heard was erroneous.
they should only be paid a percentage of their pay?
is when the interview starts and they soon launch into bandying 'average' about
Mean, Median and Mode (amongst others) are all forms of average, so it's not inaccurate.
Colloquially "average" is generally understood to mean the mean though, so it would help for them to be more precise.
that is how most peoples maths questions were phrased.
Because this was a public broadcast to the public, and they used a term that most of the public would think of as 'mean' then this is what I interpreted them as meaning.
R4 and Milliband have, as a key part of their job, the duty of communicating ideas (sometimes precisely) clearly to the public, so "In all fairness" they are falling far short of it.
I know I'm unclear, but I'm not paid an awful lot of money to be clear in my 'communications' to the public, I'm an amateur, they have a lot of responsibility to be clear and precise.
I'm not sure how you would propose communicating the idea clearly. They can use the word average, which people sort of understand, but might misinterpret (as you did), or they could use the word median in which case plenty of people wouldn't have a clue what they meant.
Fortunately it doesn't matter.
I did not interpret what they meant. due to their choice of words, due to the FACT that most people would interpret 'average' as 'mean' (although they might not define it as that), since they were doing something which is meant to 'Inform the public', I would have assumed that they would know that most people take the word 'average' as meaning 'mean' (I assumed they would be aware of this basic aspect of the general publics understanding) and so therefore I quite reasonably defined (the vague term of average to mean what we all know most people think of it as)
You say that when talking about earnings "average" almost always means median.
I would place a fairly large bet that If you took the entire population of the UK and asked them to work out 'the average' of a set of peoples wages (assuming they can do the mathematics) that the large majority would work out the 'mean', rather than 'median'
You or anyone else can pretend that you don't know this, but like I said I would be willing to place a bet.
You are however quite right, it doesn't matter, as does all the discussion about anything political on here, and yet I suspect in some way it also DOES matter to some people.
the rather far-fetched idea you appear to be proposing is that the leader of the opposition and/or the national broadcaster have failed in this instance to adequately inform the public on a matter of importance.
So I would be interested in your take on precisely what they should have said to have satisfied you.
political debate is not geared to satisfy me.
My satisfaction or agreement or understanding or co-operation, is not considered necessary by the rather large dramacratic political process.
The reason that I brought up 'the average' meaning, was because I commented on something else and someone else corrected me on it, I therefore said that my post was based on being misinformed by the R4 Milliband interview, and from there things have progressed in an uneccessarily convoluted manner.
and my thoughts, their prime concern must be for larger groups, (which incidentally makes it more prudent to kind of align enough povs so that they can be more effective at gaining votes)
consequence to them
if you can't yourself, with the benefit of further clarification, compile a version that you feel wouldn't misinform you.
and it is so obvious that I didnt thing you required it spelling out.....a phrase like "linking the minimum wage to the median average wage"
if they had used the term "median" hardly anyone would have understood that either.
Incidentally I don't share your faith in the numerical skills of the Great British Public. In my opinion, if you asked a sample of them to calculate an average of some numbers, any type of average, most of them wouldn't be able to do it at all.
And I don't feel I'm really getting the best out of creaky either.
which is why he says its great, he's poked me and I've gone off, you responded to my 'going off on one' which has precipitated a chain reaction whilst he gets out the popcorn and feels all potent, for minimal effort
Im angry, (not you or anyone on dis) today, and it has to go somewhere.......I might go and chop some logs
Just cleared up what the policy proposal is.
communication skills (for which they have a job that is handsomely renumerated) to explain that then. Especially as the median wage is obviously going to be lower than the mean.
I, know my place and with my appalling english language skills, have not had the temerity to presume that I might follow a career in journalism or politics.
then one of the reasons it doesn't matter is that the proposal is to uplift the minimum wage as a proportion of the "average" wage, and since both the mean and the median increase by similar if not identical rates each year, the effect would be the same whichever were to be used. In practice the median would be used, if only because it's the most widely published statistic.
that the mean is a constantly (increasing) moving target if you're increasing below-mean wages?
.....originally, I had lost sight of that somewhat
I am sure that R4 and Milliband will weather on, despite my harshness.
but which, would you deduce, would be the higher 'average' wage?
the mean or the median?
As a result of the eyewateringly high wages that those at the top of the scale are paid.
many well paid jobs can be more fullfilling than say a cleaning job, so why, pile on the misery by having some essential unpleasent unrewarding jobs, also being so lowly paid that someone cannot live on them, it seems appalling that society is prepared to see people without the requisite attributes to get a 'good job' should be destined to have a 'shit job' and always struggle to make ends meet for the rest of their lives...........that for me indicates that our society is far from the ideal and yet it blithely congratulates itself on how much better it is than other horror shows, and insists that it therefor doesn't need to change.
i'd follow him to the end of the earth i would.
Ice cream for all! (in 2026)
Just as it was a good coalition policy to raise the tax threshold. Putting money back in the lowest earners pockets is always a good thing for the country.
Presume you look at the predicted rise of inflation and the cpi over the next 5 years and bring it into line with an acceptable standard of living.