Trade Unions will be crushed

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not so. The rate of change was greater for the private sector.

The rate of change is the slope of the line. .

The word slope (gradient, incline, pitch) is used to describe the measurement of the steepness of a straight line. The higher the slope, the steeper the line. The slope of a line is a rate of change.

Which line has the greater slope? The public sector line clearly => the public sector rate of pay increase was greater. Please address my previous points put to you before getting back to me on anything else. I have asked you straight questions and you have simply ignored them and jumped back in on the next page. That's not proper debate.

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

The rate of change is the slope of the line. .

Which line has the greater slope? The public sector line clearly => the public sector rate of pay increase was greater.

Being persistent does not make you right. You are attempting to treat irregular lines as straight lines, even though they have more of the characteristics of a curve. Don't substitute looking at pictures for proper mathematics.

Please address my previous points put to you before getting back to me on anything else. I have asked you straight questions and you have simply ignored them and jumped back in on the next page. That's not proper debate.

Proper debate does not involve going off on wild goose chases of your choosing. I deal with the points that I choose to address.

The core fact is that over the period in Lyons's chart private sector pay increased by a greater percentage than public sector pay. Not only have you not dealt with that, you have denied it.

K-9

joolsveer wrote: »

IBEC is a registered trades union. Would you see it crushed as well?

IBEC represents some employers and haven't come out of this or social partnership well.

seangal wrote: »

Agree but I thing from being on boards the public have turned against the PS employee so if they go on strike they cant really turn against them much more and being honest they don’t care.
Mark my words if the government go ahead with the pay cut the public sector will cause this government to FALL in January. I would go as far as to say that is what the Government want as it give them a way out and avoid cleaning up the mess they made.
I would also say this is the agenda the Unions and Irish Media are working on also.

Maybe, but any new Govt. is going to be faced with the same figures.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's a bit ironic that you describe my view as narrow. I suspect that you don't know what my position is.

The graph shows otherwise: public sector pay rose by 62% between 1998 and 2008; private sector bay rose by 71% in the same period.

It backs up the point that the massive increase in the pay bill has mostly come about through a huge increase in numbers during the period, rather than bigger pay rises.

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Being persistent does not make you right. You are attempting to treat irregular lines as straight lines, even though they have more of the characteristics of a curve. Don't substitute looking at pictures for proper mathematics.

The curves approximate a straight line and if you want to use integration to calculate the area under the curve, it will still show a greater rate of increase for the public sector average pay. I can tell that by looking at the two curves, as can anyone really. Sometimes proper maths is as simple as looking at 'pictures'

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Proper debate does not involve going off on wild goose chases of your choosing. I deal with the points that I choose to address.

Hmmmm, sounds familiar alright.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The core fact is that over the period in Lyons's chart private sector pay increased by a greater percentage than public sector pay. Not only have you not dealt with that, you have denied it.

Wrong. I can see quite clearly that the average wage in the private sector increased on average at a higher percentage than the average wage in the public sector and I (unlike others) would certainly not deny a mathematical truth. That is not the same as the rate of increase being higher however. The public service average pay still increased bý noticeably a greater amount over the 10 years. It increased more in 8 out of the 10 years.

For the rate of increase in the private sector to have been higher, it's curve would have had to have been steeper than the public sector's, which clearly it isn't.

Are you finally accepting now that the public sector curve (which approximates a straight line very well) is indeed steeper than the private sector, something which you claimed the opposite of a couple of hours ago?

The ONLY reason the private sector pay increased by a greater percentage (but much lower in absolute terms) was because the private sector average started out at a MUCH lower average than the public sector.

frman

Can we stop talking about lines on a graph and get back to crushing the unions ?

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

... Wrong. I can see quite clearly that the average wage in the private sector increased on average at a higher percentage than the average wage in the public sector and I (unlike others) would certainly not deny a mathematical truth. That is not the same as the rate of increase being higher however...

So something increases by a higher percentage, but that's not a greater rate of increase? Holding a discussion with you is a waste of time, and I can find more enjoyable ways of wasting my time.

But whenever you affirm that black is white, I will refute it. I just won't spend time discussing it with you.

SkepticOne

The dispute over how the graph is interpreted comes down to whether you absolute increases or relative increases are important. The slope of the graph is useful if you are interested in absolute changes.

Increase in absolute terms:
Public Sector: €19,468
Private Sector: €15,651

However in percentage terms:
Public Sector: 66%
Private Sector: 71%

I don't think either comparison is particularly useful. What we really need to compare is the amount that is being spent on wages overall and the country's capacity to pay it, and then work out how to reconcile those two.

irish_bob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not so. The rate of change was greater for the private sector.

you do love your semantics , typical civil servant

P. Breathnach

irish_bob wrote: »

you do love your semantics , typical civil servant

You don't like it when I try to have things correct, and correctly expressed? I suppose it is an obstacle to misinformed ranting.

Daithinski

What is this thread about again? I enjoyed the maths lessons though...

jackthekipper

If the "Crushing" of the unions doesn't help matters who will get the blame next?

ORLY?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not so. The rate of change was greater for the private sector.

Please, for the love of God, mathematics, science and education in general, go and get a maths book, or a stats book, or an educated friend, or a poster in the maths forum, or just go to wikipedia and clear this up for yourself.

If I'm in a car chasing another car in front of me, given enough time, I'll catch him if I'm accelerating more quickly than he is, otherwise I won't. Simple. Some people here should be embarrassed at their grasp of mathematics. It's as plain as day from the graph that public wages are increasing more rapidly than private, as the gap between public and private gets bigger as time goes on. This is not semantics or spin - the public wages are (according to the graph) increasing more quickly than private wages. I have no interest in the public vs. private squabble, but incorrect interpretation of data just annoys the hell out of me.

P. Breathnach

ORLY? wrote: »

Please, for the love of God, mathematics, science and education in general, go and get a maths book, or a stats book, or an educated friend, or a poster in the maths forum, or just go to wikipedia and clear this up for yourself.

If I'm in a car chasing another car in front of me, given enough time, I'll catch him if I'm accelerating more quickly than he is, otherwise I won't. Simple. Some people here should be embarrassed at their grasp of mathematics. It's as plain as day from the graph that public wages are increasing more rapidly than private, as the gap between public and private gets bigger as time goes on. This is not semantics or spin - the public wages are (according to the graph) increasing more quickly than private wages. I have no interest in the public vs. private squabble, but incorrect interpretation of data just annoys the hell out of me.

It's as plain as day from the graph, is it?

Do the sums, this mathematics you so enthusiastically endorse. SkepticOne did the calculation only a few posts back. Pay rates in the private sector have been, in the terms you choose, accelerating more quickly. Rate of change rather than amount of change -- understand?

The incorrect interpretation of data annoys me. So does your patronising tone.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's as plain as day from the graph, is it?

Do the sums, this mathematics you so enthusiastically endorse. SkepticOne did the calculation only a few posts back. Pay rates in the private sector have been, in the terms you choose, accelerating more quickly. Rate of change rather than amount of change -- understand?

The incorrect interpretation of data annoys me. So does your patronising tone.

tell me something P

does the Revenue tax one on their "rate of change" or their "income" ?

imstrongerthanu

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055761229

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

tell me something P

does the Revenue tax one on their "rate of change" or their "income" ?

Going on the data, the Public Sector would pay far more tax, PRSI and deductions, naturally!

frman

imstrongerthanu wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055761229

Crush the unions is the only way to go.

See the light.

ORLY?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's as plain as day from the graph, is it?

Do the sums, this mathematics you so enthusiastically endorse. SkepticOne did the calculation only a few posts back. Pay rates in the private sector have been, in the terms you choose, accelerating more quickly. Rate of change rather than amount of change -- understand?

The incorrect interpretation of data annoys me. So does your patronising tone.

Yes, it is as plain as day. I don't mean to be patronising but you're simply wrong and keep embarrassing yourself by insisting you're correct when you don't know what is meant by the rate of change. Seriously, show that graph to a friend with a maths background and ask him/her which plot shows the greatest rate of change or ask him/her whose pay is accelerating more quickly. Car one (private sector) travelling at 1mph is trying to catch car 2 (public sector) at 10mph. After an hour their is nine miles between them. If car one then increases his speed by 50% he is going at 1.5mph. If car 2 increases his speed by only 20% he is going at 12mph. After another hour car 1 is at 2.5miles, car 2 is at 22miles. Repeat the speed gain, car 1 is going at 2.25mph and after another hour has travelled 4.75 miles, car 2 is travelling at 18mph and has travelled 40 miles. Simply answer me this, which car is accelerating more quicky, or another way, which car shows the greatest rate of change of velocity?

ei.sdraob

yeh i really dont understand why this rate of change business is being brought up?



the graph is only since 2003, but please do tell me that the PS are not raking it in

P. Breathnach

ORLY? wrote: »

Yes, it is as plain as day. I don't mean to be patronising but you're simply wrong and keep embarrassing yourself by insisting you're correct when you don't know what is meant by the rate of change. Seriously, show that graph to a friend with a maths background and ask him/her which plot shows the greatest rate of change or ask him/her whose pay is accelerating more quickly. Car one (private sector) travelling at 1mph is trying to catch car 2 (public sector) at 10mph. After an hour their is nine miles between them. If car one then increases his speed by 50% he is going at 1.5mph. If car 2 increases his speed by only 20% he is going at 12mph. After another hour car 1 is at 2.5miles, car 2 is at 22miles. Repeat the speed gain, car 1 is going at 2.25mph and after another hour has travelled 4.75 miles, car 2 is travelling at 18mph and has travelled 40 miles. Simply answer me this, which car is accelerating more quicky, or another way, which car shows the greatest rate of change of velocity?

Cutting through the verbiage: car 1 is accelerating by 50%, and car 2 is accelerating by 20%. Car 1 is accelerating faster. Assuming no speed limits, car 1 will eventually overtake car 2.

ORLY?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Cutting through the verbiage: car 1 is accelerating by 50%, and car 2 is accelerating by 20%. Car 1 is accelerating faster. Assuming no speed limits, car 1 will eventually overtake car 2.

You see, there is the problem, read through it again. Car 2 is accelerating faster. Car 1 will never overtake car 2. NEVER. Ever ever. In fact, he'll just get further and further away from him.

P. Breathnach

ORLY? wrote: »

You see, there is the problem, read through it again. Car 2 is accelerating faster. Car 1 will never overtake car 2. NEVER. Ever ever. In fact, he'll just get further and further away from him.

Wrong. Quit wasting your time and mine.

ceret

Stark wrote: »

A few one day strikes here and there? Big deal. It's not like a Thatcher's Britain style war that we're facing into.

Yeah pretty soon all the shops in Newry will have run out of stuff.

ORLY?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Wrong. Quit wasting your time and mine.

I can assure you that you are the one that is wrong. How am I wasting my time? I'm trying to explain what should be simple Junior Cert level maths to you. It's frustrating but not a waste of time, eductation is never a waste of time. It's certainly not a waste of your time either, you need to be able to understand this stuff.

P. Breathnach

ORLY? wrote: »

I can assure you that you are the one that is worng. How am I wasting my time? I'm trying to explain what should be simple Junior Cert level maths to you. It's frustrating but not a waste of time, eductation is never a waste of time. It's certainly not a waste of your time either, you need to be able to understand this stuff.

You would have me believe that (1 x 1.5^n) < (10 x 1.2^n) for all values of n. No, thank you. I'll stick with my Intermediate Certificate maths.

I don't think that the "new maths" brought in since my schooldays has changed the fundamentals.

SkepticOne

This thread is really about ego. We're arguing about slight differences in the speeds of cars while forgetting that they're both headed for the same cliff.

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

This thread is really about ego. We're arguing about slight differences in the speeds of cars while forgetting that they're both headed for the same cliff.

For me, it's about truth.

ardmacha

Cutting through the verbiage: car 1 is accelerating by 50%, and car 2 is accelerating by 20%. Car 1 is accelerating faster. Assuming no speed limits, car 1 will eventually overtake car 2.

You see, there is the problem, read through it again. Car 2 is accelerating faster. Car 1 will never overtake car 2. NEVER. Ever ever. In fact, he'll just get further and further away from him.

This forum is littered with people posting things that aren't true, in a way that would do justice to certain political parties. Of course Car 1 will overtake Car 2, in year 11.

Car1 Car2
1.00 10.00
1.50 12.00
2.25 14.40
3.38 17.28
5.06 20.74
7.59 24.88
11.39 29.86
17.09 35.83
25.63 43.00
38.44 51.60
57.67 61.92
86.50 74.30

Now this doesn't prove anything useful about the matter at hand, but untruths are never helpful to honest debate.

As for the above charts they show that public sector numbers have not grown as a proportion of employment and the use of 2003 gives a certain impression that the use of a different year would not.

Stark

Only problem is car 1 was gaining gradually until 2003 when car 2 gave it some more gas and started pulling away again.

ORLY?

ardmacha wrote: »

This forum is littered with people posting things that aren't true, in a way that would do justice to certain political parties. Of course Car 1 will overtake Car 2, in year 11.

Car1 Car2
1.00 10.00
1.50 12.00
2.25 14.40
3.38 17.28
5.06 20.74
7.59 24.88
11.39 29.86
17.09 35.83
25.63 43.00
38.44 51.60
57.67 61.92
86.50 74.30

Now this doesn't prove anything useful about the matter at hand, but untruths are never helpful to honest debate.

As for the above charts they show that public sector numbers have not grown as a proportion of employment and the use of 2003 gives a certain impression that the use of a different year would not.

Apologies, for the use of an incorrect example, it wasn't an untruth, I've been up the walls today and rushed through an example. My example was not linear, so the graphs will intersect. However, the point stands that just because one variable increases by proportionately more than another over a certain time period does not mean that it is accelerating more quickly. This can be seen from the first few points in my example. Acceleration, (or rate of change) is defined by the slope of the graph or acceleration at a point as the slope at that point. The original pay graphs are linear (roughly) and will not intersect, hence the top one is accelerating more quickly. There is no denying this, that is all I have to say on the matter.