|
|
01-05-2008, 01:52 AM
|
|
1552
Pardon me for saying this. Are the statistics overstated?
I am still studying my degree, I have a few friends who graduated already and from everything I have heard, their monthly incomes are not that high.
They earn around $2,500 - $2,800 only. Not the median of $3,250...
|
04-05-2008, 10:19 AM
|
|
1585
John, you're confusing median with average. If there are super-earners in your age group, the median will tend to be shifted higher than if one takes an average. The average will be smeared by numbers, you see, and will be closer to your friends' salaries, I think.
So I guess if one is just above the median one has a good deal. If one is just above average then it's precisely that... a little above average.
Hope this helps.
|
10-07-2008, 09:54 AM
|
|
2148
Did they include the bonus too?
Say Bonus is 1.5 month. So it become 14.5/12 multiply by monthly pay.
Say 2,800 => 3,383
So this is just painting picture to suit their stats.
As we all know 2800 has to be multiply by 0.8 first. ( CPF )
|
11-07-2008, 01:11 PM
|
|
2158
Folly - it's the other way around. For example, you have a sample size of 5 people making $1k, $2k, $2.5k, $3k and $50k a month.
In this case, the average is $11.7k. Everybody in that sample would be "below-average" other than the $50k a month guy. So, as you can see, the average can really be skewed if there are a few really high income earners.
The median, on the other hand, is $2.5k, irrespective of how much the top income earner makes. That's a better indication of where you stand in the population sample.
|
11-07-2008, 01:13 PM
|
|
2159
Dude - the amount that most of your peers in the sample are getting is the Mode, not the Median. The Median is the exact amount that the guy in the middle, if you ranked everybody from First to Last Place, gets.
|
18-11-2008, 10:05 AM
|
|
3318
thanks for the maths lesson I guess I'm that median.
|
21-12-2008, 05:35 PM
|
|
3695
well thats quite a rosy figure be grateful when as long as you can put food on table and live life debt free
|
23-01-2009, 06:55 AM
|
|
3894
Hmm, based on the figures IN 2007, well of course its a rosy picture to know. I would personally give at least a 10% to 15% discount to the pays stated because its not the figure you would get now in 2008/09... owing to the cuts, retrenchment etc. Pay cuts are quite the norm now if u ask me.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» 30 Recent Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|