Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-01-2009, 10:17 AM
 
Location: CA
371 posts, read 1,822,949 times
Reputation: 306

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
First of all, this is a 2 year old stat and secondly there are so many things to consider when reading something like this: 1-how many people in the area a are retired, students or as pointed out farm workers who work, only part time? How many work in fast food restaurant or other jobs that require no skills, and how many in pockets where poverty is the norm? The larger the county, the more likely the workers are among the working poor?

I take stats and studies with a grain of salt..

Nita
No need to take the data with a grain of salt... just know what it's telling you. These data report an average of wages across every job in a county. Somewhere on the DOF website there should be a breakdown of criteria they used to count the jobs. The most obvious factor, of course, being part-time versus full-time. There are numerous other factors to consider too, like if it's a higher percentage of full-time jobs in a county that raises average wages, or is it higher wages overall? What you need to take a grain a salt with is how people interpret statistics: i.e. the media, laymen, etc., not the people reporting the data. The media misinterpret studies all the time. They do that because typically, the studies did not report anything near as exciting as they want to make it sound. So they take one thing and spin it and say that that's what the study means, when in reality the study does not make those conclusions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:44 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top