Is it better to look the mean or median when looking at salery averages? (serious question, as I'm looking at stats for London and the mean and median are quite different).
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
Is it better to look the mean or median when looking at salery averages? (serious question, as I'm looking at stats for London and the mean and median are quite different).
I wouldn't even call it a decent wage in the South East. Pretty tough to survive in London on that.
So I got some stats from here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ict-or-unitary-authority-2010-to-2011#history
Most recent set of figures is for 2015-16 tax year. It gives income and tax data but doesn't include those who earn less than the personal allowance (£10,600 that tax year).
For the 32 London Boroughs and the City of London, I count 24 boroughs less than 30k per year median income, 5 more boroughs between 30-35k per year median income, and 3 with 35-40k per year median income. Only The City of London had higher median income figures, at 60k per year median income.
So the figures are a couple of years old, but the median incomes seem lower than what people might think.
(and this is why I asked @monkeybarry if it makes more sense to use the mean or median figures. I would have thought median is more representative, but I'm not a statistician.)
https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ict-or-unitary-authority-2010-to-2011#history
Most recent set of figures is for 2015-16 tax year. It gives income and tax data but doesn't include those who earn less than the personal allowance (£10,600 that tax year).
For the 32 London Boroughs and the City of London, I count 24 boroughs less than 30k per year median income, 5 more boroughs between 30-35k per year median income, and 3 with 35-40k per year median income. Only The City of London had higher median income figures, at 60k per year median income.
So the figures are a couple of years old, but the median incomes seem lower than what people might think.
(and this is why I asked @monkeybarry if it makes more sense to use the mean or median figures. I would have thought median is more representative, but I'm not a statistician.)
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
I honestly depends on what you want to achieve.
I don't think either are appropriate for this scenario as they are skewed by the outliers.
A proper regional analysis of income Vs costs is more appropriate. Which would be based primarily around housing costs and essential travel costs.
Using just wage stats, taking away the top and bottom 10% would yeald a more accurate picture than mean or median of all values.
A median of the 80% is a good start.
A mean I don't think works because the workforce is larger a lower payscales. Although London is likely to be skewed here - oh wait, that's part of the point of regional analysis.
What do you make of the figures from HMRC in my previous post? I will post some numbers from that data for the rest of the UK when I count it.
It does seem there are far more people earning less than people here think, going on this data.
Just for reference again: https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ict-or-unitary-authority-2010-to-2011#history
I covered London in the other post. Outside of London:
358 boroughs/districts/unitary authorities total outside London (stats for Isles of Scilly are missing)
52 of them -- 26k or above, median yearly income
8 of them -- 30k or above, median income
298 of the 358 boroughs/districts/unitary authorities outside of London below 26k median yearly income. And there are more of these areas (15) with a median income of less than 20k than there are areas with a median income of 30k or above.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see things broken down into areas like that, take a look at the link yourselves.
I covered London in the other post. Outside of London:
358 boroughs/districts/unitary authorities total outside London (stats for Isles of Scilly are missing)
52 of them -- 26k or above, median yearly income
8 of them -- 30k or above, median income
298 of the 358 boroughs/districts/unitary authorities outside of London below 26k median yearly income. And there are more of these areas (15) with a median income of less than 20k than there are areas with a median income of 30k or above.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see things broken down into areas like that, take a look at the link yourselves.
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
I had 25-27k UK AVG (excl top and bottom deciles) and 28-31k in London.
Looks like it might be a little bit lower than what I thought.
Certain gives me a nice perspective on my own income and frustrations - it's not just me, it's everyone that's fudged!
Also shows just how much cost of living Vs income is out of kilter.
My opinion is that there needs to be a lot more social housing built, not just to cover people on the lowest incomes but those around the median too. The cost of housing is just crazy compared to wages.
I mean I honestly didn't know what the figures would turn up, I sort of stumbled on them after some googling and then just counted through the spreadsheet (sad qunt I know). But there must be so many low-wage jobs in London (how many fast-food places or little supermarket or small shops, other small retail places must there be?) where the phuck do these workers live? They can't be doing long commutes to do these type of jobs, they don't earn enough surely?
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
So after 3 years the Brexit deal doggedly negotiated by the UK looks to be worse than staying in the EU. At the same time it hasn’t delivered on what was promised during the campaign to Leave. Not least that leaving would be simple and easy - if Mays deal is passed by parliament today we face years more of this as we try to negotiate how to be out the EU while benefiting from it.
How could anyone deny the people a vote on what has been agreed by May? How could it ‘undermine democracy’ by voting on a certain clear proposal?
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
How could anyone deny the people a vote on what has been agreed by May? How could it ‘undermine democracy’ by voting on a certain clear proposal?
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
All that is needed is that is something irrecoverably out, but with enough leeway to de-may it and move towards proper leave when there's a new PM in May/June. This may just about be this
Imagine Brexit actually finally happening in 2 weeks time! Street party suppliers on speed dial
Imagine Brexit actually finally happening in 2 weeks time! Street party suppliers on speed dial
Baleforce
Ron Henry
So all those damn experts we had had enough of three years ago were right all along?
What were the chances.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
It seems to me that very little has changed. If the EU try to hold the UK in the backstop by nefarious means it will go to independent arbitration. Have I missed something? Seems like a bit of misdirection on Mays part. The UK is still going to fudge itself in a few weeks if this passes.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Its a tax hike, thats what it is.
Changing the name of free money to the lower earners doesnt make it any different.
The extra taxation it creates is the point.
I completely agree politics should be politics (and it hasnt for far too long).
And as usual, even if I dont agree with your view Ill respect it.
Im just looking at it as presented, and it seems to me none at the bottom end of the scale are worse off, those at the top marginally so but those just above the average are penalised.
Which doesnt strike me as a decent idea/policy at all.
Bear in mind, all those on the bottom of the scale will be getting tax credits, housing benefit etc. They will have their income supplimented.
Those at that £37.5k line - around London particularly - will probably only just past needing those benefits. Only just independent and self sufficient.
And its them who will have to pay for this.
And yet - were you someone at that bottom end - you see no difference at all.
no nothings changed - something that Leavers can point to if they chose to change their minds but its bollox and everyone can see that it is.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
That's my reading on it too. If the backstop ever kicks in it will remain until something new that achives the same end result (i.e. no hard border) is put in place, and it will remain there as long as the EU/UK are trying their best. It is a fudge and I will be amazed if it gets the votes.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
MPs will vote on Theresa May's Brexit deal later after she says she secured "legally binding" changes following last-minute talks with the EU.
The PM said the changes meant the Irish backstop - the insurance policy designed to avoid a hard border in Ireland - could not "become permanent".
She insisted that she had delivered what Parliament asked her to do.
Tory Brexiteers and the DUP are taking legal advice on the changes but Labour said the PM had secured nothing new.
The last time Mrs May's withdrawal agreement was put to Parliament in January, it was voted down by a margin of 230.
The BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg said it would be a "political miracle of historic proportions" if Mrs May could overturn such a heavy defeat.
She said the legal arguments were set to "rage" all day, with Attorney General Geoffrey Cox expected to update his advice on the deal, as he faces pressure to appear in person before MPs.
What was agreed?
Two documents were agreed after Mrs May flew to the European Parliament on Monday with Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay for last-minute talks with Mr Juncker and EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier.
The first is a "joint legally binding instrument" on the withdrawal agreement which the UK could use to start a "formal dispute" against the EU if it tried to keep the UK tied into the backstop indefinitely.
The other is a joint statement about the UK and EU's future relationship which commits to replacing the backstop with an alternative by December 2020.
Mrs May is expected to chair a cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning before the motion is debated in the Commons in the afternoon and votes are held in the evening.
Many MPs fear the backstop would keep the UK in a customs arrangement with the EU indefinitely.
After talks with Mr Juncker, the prime minister said she "passionately believed" the new assurances addressed their concerns.
"MPs were clear that legal changes were needed to the backstop. Today we have secured legal changes," she said. "Now is the time to come together to back this improved Brexit deal."
The Democratic Unionist Party, whose support Mrs May relies on in the Commons, said it would be "scrutinising the text line by line" before deciding whether to back the deal.
The Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said the new agreements were an "unambiguous statement" of both sides' "good faith and intentions" - although he made clear they did "not undermine" the principle of the backstop or how it might come into force.
Nevertheless, ex-Brexit Secretary David Davis indicated he might be willing to support the deal if Mr Cox endorsed it, telling LBC if the attorney said it had legal force, it might "make this just about acceptable to me".
The EU warns 'this is it'
Mr Juncker has warned MPs they would be putting everything at risk if they voted down the deal.
"In politics sometimes you get a second chance," he said. "It is what we do with that second chance that counts. There will be no third chance."
Environment Secretary Michael Gove echoed this message, telling MPs "if you don't take this prize, there is the real risk of you will see a diluted, softer or less palatable Brexit deal".
Ministers have insisted the documents agreed would "strengthen and improve" both the withdrawal agreement from the EU and the political declaration on the future relationship.
Another document will also be put forward by the government, known as a "unilateral declaration".
This outlines the UK's position that there is nothing to prevent it from leaving the backstop arrangement if discussions on a future relationship with the EU break down and there is no prospect of an agreement.
Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer dismissed the unilateral declaration, telling the BBC "unless the other side agrees that only gets you so far".
He told Radio 4's Today the other announcements "were all there last time" MPs voted and "therefore there are no changes" to either the exit agreement or declaration on future relations.
Independent Group MP Chris Leslie said the government's "Brexit fudge fools nobody".
Conservative Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general, said he had looked carefully at the documents overnight and concluded that the changes negotiated did not make "any significant difference" to the backstop.
"It does not allow the UK the right to terminate the backstop at the timing of its own choice," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
The UK is set to leave the EU on 29 March 2019 after voting to leave by nearly 52% to 48% - 17.4m votes to 16.1m - in 2016.
The PM said the changes meant the Irish backstop - the insurance policy designed to avoid a hard border in Ireland - could not "become permanent".
She insisted that she had delivered what Parliament asked her to do.
Tory Brexiteers and the DUP are taking legal advice on the changes but Labour said the PM had secured nothing new.
The last time Mrs May's withdrawal agreement was put to Parliament in January, it was voted down by a margin of 230.
The BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg said it would be a "political miracle of historic proportions" if Mrs May could overturn such a heavy defeat.
She said the legal arguments were set to "rage" all day, with Attorney General Geoffrey Cox expected to update his advice on the deal, as he faces pressure to appear in person before MPs.
What was agreed?
Two documents were agreed after Mrs May flew to the European Parliament on Monday with Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay for last-minute talks with Mr Juncker and EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier.
The first is a "joint legally binding instrument" on the withdrawal agreement which the UK could use to start a "formal dispute" against the EU if it tried to keep the UK tied into the backstop indefinitely.
The other is a joint statement about the UK and EU's future relationship which commits to replacing the backstop with an alternative by December 2020.
Mrs May is expected to chair a cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning before the motion is debated in the Commons in the afternoon and votes are held in the evening.
Many MPs fear the backstop would keep the UK in a customs arrangement with the EU indefinitely.
After talks with Mr Juncker, the prime minister said she "passionately believed" the new assurances addressed their concerns.
"MPs were clear that legal changes were needed to the backstop. Today we have secured legal changes," she said. "Now is the time to come together to back this improved Brexit deal."
The Democratic Unionist Party, whose support Mrs May relies on in the Commons, said it would be "scrutinising the text line by line" before deciding whether to back the deal.
The Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said the new agreements were an "unambiguous statement" of both sides' "good faith and intentions" - although he made clear they did "not undermine" the principle of the backstop or how it might come into force.
Nevertheless, ex-Brexit Secretary David Davis indicated he might be willing to support the deal if Mr Cox endorsed it, telling LBC if the attorney said it had legal force, it might "make this just about acceptable to me".
The EU warns 'this is it'
Mr Juncker has warned MPs they would be putting everything at risk if they voted down the deal.
"In politics sometimes you get a second chance," he said. "It is what we do with that second chance that counts. There will be no third chance."
Environment Secretary Michael Gove echoed this message, telling MPs "if you don't take this prize, there is the real risk of you will see a diluted, softer or less palatable Brexit deal".
Ministers have insisted the documents agreed would "strengthen and improve" both the withdrawal agreement from the EU and the political declaration on the future relationship.
Another document will also be put forward by the government, known as a "unilateral declaration".
This outlines the UK's position that there is nothing to prevent it from leaving the backstop arrangement if discussions on a future relationship with the EU break down and there is no prospect of an agreement.
Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer dismissed the unilateral declaration, telling the BBC "unless the other side agrees that only gets you so far".
He told Radio 4's Today the other announcements "were all there last time" MPs voted and "therefore there are no changes" to either the exit agreement or declaration on future relations.
Independent Group MP Chris Leslie said the government's "Brexit fudge fools nobody".
Conservative Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general, said he had looked carefully at the documents overnight and concluded that the changes negotiated did not make "any significant difference" to the backstop.
"It does not allow the UK the right to terminate the backstop at the timing of its own choice," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
The UK is set to leave the EU on 29 March 2019 after voting to leave by nearly 52% to 48% - 17.4m votes to 16.1m - in 2016.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
The legal risk of the UK being tied to EU rules after Brexit "remains unchanged" despite changes to the PM's deal, the attorney general has said.
Geoffrey Cox said the new agreements reinforced the legal rights available to the UK if post-Brexit trade talks broke down due to "bad faith".
But the Brexit-backing European Research Group have said they will not be voting for the PM's deal.
That is a blow to Mrs May's hopes of getting it through the Commons later.
In a statement, the ERG said: "In the light of our own legal analysis and others we do not recommend accepting the government's motion today."
In his advice, Mr Cox said the extra assurances won by Mrs May in 11th hour talks with the EU "reduce the risk that the United Kingdom could be indefinitely and involuntarily detained" in the backstop if talks on the two sides future relationship broke down due to "bad faith" by the EU.
But he warned that the question of whether a satisfactory post-Brexit deal on a permanent trading relationship can be reached remained "a political judgment".
And he said "the legal risk remains unchanged" that if no such agreement can be reached due to "intractable differences", the UK would have "no internationally lawful means" of leaving the backstop without EU agreement.
In a statement to the Commons, Mr Cox later said: "Were such a situation to occur, let me make it clear, the legal risk as I set it out in my letter of November 13 remains unchanged."
Reaction from MPs
The last time Mrs May's withdrawal agreement was put to Parliament in January, it was voted down by a margin of 230.
The BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg said it would be a "political miracle of historic proportions" if Mrs May could overturn such a heavy defeat.
Mrs May earlier addressed a meeting of Conservative MPs, in an effort to change the minds of those opposed to her deal.
Conservative MPs leaving the meeting suggested half of those who voted against deal last time will switch to support it later, said BBC's Chief Political Correspondent Vicky Young.
Former minister Grant Sharps said the vote would be close and Mrs May "needed the DUP" to back her deal.
Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd said she believed the prime minister's deal would go through "otherwise instability will follow which would be so unwelcome".
But Mark Francois, a member of the Brexit-backing European Research Group, said he was "wholly unconvinced" by Mrs May's improved deal.
And ERG chairman Jacob Rees-Mogg said: "The unilateral declaration doesn't add anything because it simply says 'we could ask to leave the backstop'.
"We've always been able to ask to leave the backstop, that is not in any sense an improvement or a development."
Labour's Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer said: "The government's strategy is now in tatters."
What was agreed with the EU?
Documents were agreed after Mrs May flew to the European Parliament with Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay for last-minute talks with Mr Juncker and EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier.
The PM has claimed the new documents addresses this issue and urged MPs to back the "improved deal".
And leading Tory Remainer Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general, said the UK would still not be able to terminate the backstop at a time of its own choosing.
Geoffrey Cox said the new agreements reinforced the legal rights available to the UK if post-Brexit trade talks broke down due to "bad faith".
But the Brexit-backing European Research Group have said they will not be voting for the PM's deal.
That is a blow to Mrs May's hopes of getting it through the Commons later.
In a statement, the ERG said: "In the light of our own legal analysis and others we do not recommend accepting the government's motion today."
In his advice, Mr Cox said the extra assurances won by Mrs May in 11th hour talks with the EU "reduce the risk that the United Kingdom could be indefinitely and involuntarily detained" in the backstop if talks on the two sides future relationship broke down due to "bad faith" by the EU.
But he warned that the question of whether a satisfactory post-Brexit deal on a permanent trading relationship can be reached remained "a political judgment".
And he said "the legal risk remains unchanged" that if no such agreement can be reached due to "intractable differences", the UK would have "no internationally lawful means" of leaving the backstop without EU agreement.
In a statement to the Commons, Mr Cox later said: "Were such a situation to occur, let me make it clear, the legal risk as I set it out in my letter of November 13 remains unchanged."
Reaction from MPs
The last time Mrs May's withdrawal agreement was put to Parliament in January, it was voted down by a margin of 230.
The BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg said it would be a "political miracle of historic proportions" if Mrs May could overturn such a heavy defeat.
Mrs May earlier addressed a meeting of Conservative MPs, in an effort to change the minds of those opposed to her deal.
Conservative MPs leaving the meeting suggested half of those who voted against deal last time will switch to support it later, said BBC's Chief Political Correspondent Vicky Young.
Former minister Grant Sharps said the vote would be close and Mrs May "needed the DUP" to back her deal.
Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd said she believed the prime minister's deal would go through "otherwise instability will follow which would be so unwelcome".
But Mark Francois, a member of the Brexit-backing European Research Group, said he was "wholly unconvinced" by Mrs May's improved deal.
And ERG chairman Jacob Rees-Mogg said: "The unilateral declaration doesn't add anything because it simply says 'we could ask to leave the backstop'.
"We've always been able to ask to leave the backstop, that is not in any sense an improvement or a development."
Labour's Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer said: "The government's strategy is now in tatters."
What was agreed with the EU?
Documents were agreed after Mrs May flew to the European Parliament with Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay for last-minute talks with Mr Juncker and EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier.
- A "joint legally binding instrument" on the withdrawal agreement which the UK could use to start a "formal dispute" against the EU if it tried to keep the UK tied into the backstop indefinitely.
- A joint statement about the UK and EU's future relationship which commits to replacing the backstop with an alternative by December 2020.
- A "unilateral declaration". stating there is nothing to stop the UK from leaving the backstop if discussions on a future relationship with the EU break down and there is no prospect of an agreement.
The PM has claimed the new documents addresses this issue and urged MPs to back the "improved deal".
And leading Tory Remainer Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general, said the UK would still not be able to terminate the backstop at a time of its own choosing.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
DUP officially not backing Mays deal.
Does that kill it already?
Does that kill it already?