[Aberlour10]

Politicans who complain at the afternoon about self-indulgence and unscrupulousness of the top bankers and drink with them cocktails at the evening.

[gwnn]

People who call the director too often.

People who think I call the director too often.

[kenberg]

BunnyGo, on 2012-January-18, 00:09, said:

I hate when people talk about modifying percentages by a percent in an ambiguous way. An example from today's headlines "Gov. Christie proposes 10% cut to NJ income tax." Is that saying we'll save 10% more of our income, or we'll pay 10% less than what we're paying now? This also comes up a lot in political polls.

There is a fine example of this in an opinion piece in today's Post
http://www.washingto...LfsQ_story.html

The relevant portion:

Quote

Congress did pass the supplemental that summer, bringing the total 2001 defense budget to $310 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that is equivalent to about $423 billion today. By comparison, the Pentagon is requesting $525 billion for 2013.

Yes, that $102 billion delta is still a lot of money, but military salaries and benefits have increased almost 90 percent during this interval — roughly 30 percent more than inflation — and now consume a third of the budget.

I'm willing to listen to a guy explain why we need money for defense, but this 90% is 30% more than inflation in what sense?

He explains that 310 billion in 2001, adjusted for inflation, is 423 billion. If we divide we get 423/310 is 1.36452, so we have an inflationary increase of about 36%. There are two possible interpretations to his claim that 90% is 30% more than the inflationary 365. First try just adding: 36+30 is not 90. Ok, that's a crummy interpretation anyway. More reasonably, multiply (1.36) by 1.3) You get 1.77. So there is a reasonable sense in which a pay increase of 77% is 30% better than inflation, namely you first adjust the 2001 pay to account for inflation and then you multiply by 1.3.

How to get 90% as 30% better than inflation, using his measure of inflation? I haven't a clue. Added: My best guess is that he is comparing current figures with the figures before the 2001 increase, figures he does not put in the article.


People who put percentages in articles would be well advised to keep in mind that a percentage is always a percentage of something. If something is 30% more, than it must be possible to multiply something relevant by 1.3 and get some other relevant number. If they cannot identify what the relevant numbers are, they should give up on percentages and not try to fake it.

[BunnyGo]

kenberg, on 2012-February-06, 08:21, said:

There is a fine example of this in an opinion piece in today's Post
http://www.washingto...LfsQ_story.html

The relevant portion:


I'm willing to listen to a guy explain why we need money for defense, but this 90% is 30% more than inflation in what sense?

He explains that 310 billion in 2001, adjusted for inflation, is 423 billion. If we divide we get 423/310 is 1.36452, so we have an inflationary increase of about 36%. There are two possible interpretations to his claim that 90% is 30% more than the inflationary 365. First try just adding: 36+30 is not 90. Ok, that's a crummy interpretation anyway. More reasonably, multiply (1.36) by 1.3) You get 1.77. So there is a reasonable sense in which a pay increase of 77% is 30% better than inflation, namely you first adjust the 2001 pay to account for inflation and then you multiply by 1.3.

How to get 90% as 30% better than inflation, using his measure of inflation? I haven't a clue. Added: My best guess is that he is comparing current figures with the figures before the 2001 increase, figures he does not put in the article.


People who put percentages in articles would be well advised to keep in mind that a percentage is always a percentage of something. If something is 30% more, than it must be possible to multiply something relevant by 1.3 and get some other relevant number. If they cannot identify what the relevant numbers are, they should give up on percentages and not try to fake it.

I got upset just reading this.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2012-February-06, 08:21, said:

How to get 90% as 30% better than inflation, using his measure of inflation? I haven't a clue. Added: My best guess is that he is comparing current figures with the figures before the 2001 increase, figures he does not put in the article.

I think he may have added a zero.

36% in 11 years is a little less than 3% APR. 90% in 11 years is 6% APR. So the difference is about 3%. If he really wanted to make his case, he could have said that military pay has been increasing more than twice as fast as inflation.

[blackshoe]

The question is whether, or perhaps how much, if you go back further, increases in military pay did not keep up with inflation. In my experience (twenty years of active duty) the government would frequently let military pay lag behind inflation, and then try to play "catch up".

[kenberg]

I think he just screwed up the figures. This happens a lot with percentages. Sometimes intentional misrepresentation, often, and I suspect that is the case here, just carelessness or ignorance.

Many years back I was listening to one of these shows where a host has guests discuss a topic of interest, in this case it was capital punishment. They were discussing the data on something, I forget exactly what, and one guest was speaking of a 3% change the other guest was speaking of a 50% change. Same data. I would fault the host here, who just let them prattle on as if there were no way to resolve this. The simple request "You are saying that x is y percent of z, please replace the x,y,z by specific quantities" should rein in such nonsense.

Here, I would say that when he screws up such simple matters, he reduces his argument to "I believe we need to spend more on defense and I will now supply incoherent numbers that do not add up in support of my view".

Once, while shopping, there were $40 shirts, on sale for 20% off, discount to be taken at the register. A well-dressed customer asked the sales clek what the price would be. Neither had any idea. I expect, or at least I hope for, better from a secretary of the Navy and from editors at the Washington Post.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2012-February-06, 15:30, said:

Once, while shopping, there were $40 shirts, on sale for 20% off, discount to be taken at the register. A well-dressed customer asked the sales clek what the price would be. Neither had any idea. I expect, or at least I hope for, better from a secretary of the Navy and from editors at the Washington Post.

Why should the secretary of the Navy know the sales price of shirts? I would think he would be too busy trying to figure out the percentage above inflation his budget runs.

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2012-February-06, 18:37, said:

Why should the secretary of the Navy know the sales price of shirts? I would think he would be too busy trying to figure out the percentage above inflation his budget runs.

He might have trouble doing that if he can't work out 20% of 40.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-06, 18:53, said:

He might have trouble doing that if he can't work out 20% of 40.

That's what his yeoman is for, isn't it?

[kenberg]

If I may say just a little more on this: I fully admit that at times I have, even when sober, said some dumb things. But this was not an off the cuff remark in a bar, it was a prepared piece by a man of substance on a subject of importance to him, and appearing in a major newspaper. If he spoke of the Civil War as being fought in 1830 or of Hawaii being in the Atlantic, people would be stunned and the error would be caught. But he hacks up elementary school arithmetic and it just floats buy the editor. I don't get it.

[Elianna]

kenberg, on 2012-February-06, 21:18, said:

If I may say just a little more on this: I fully admit that at times I have, even when sober, said some dumb things. But this was not an off the cuff remark in a bar, it was a prepared piece by a man of substance on a subject of importance to him, and appearing in a major newspaper. If he spoke of the Civil War as being fought in 1830 or of Hawaii being in the Atlantic, people would be stunned and the error would be caught. But he hacks up elementary school arithmetic and it just floats buy the editor. I don't get it.

For the same reason that English teachers can tell students that Math is really hard, and it's ok if they don't work at it, because they don't get it themselves whereas if I told students that reading is really hard and it's ok if they don't read because I don't, I would be shunned and treated as an ignoramus.

[gordontd]

kenberg, on 2012-February-06, 15:30, said:

Once, while shopping, there were $40 shirts, on sale for 20% off, discount to be taken at the register. A well-dressed customer asked the sales clek what the price would be. Neither had any idea.

I took ten identical items, each priced at 50p, to the cash till. The assistant rang up 5...0...ENTER ten times and then looked doubtfully at the sub-total, surprised that it came to exactly £5.

[kenberg]

Elianna, on 2012-February-06, 22:30, said:

For the same reason that English teachers can tell students that Math is really hard, and it's ok if they don't work at it, because they don't get it themselves whereas if I told students that reading is really hard and it's ok if they don't read because I don't, I would be shunned and treated as an ignoramus.

Yes, i have often thought along these lines. There are people who take pride in not being able to "do math". I have never met anyone who takes pride in not being able to read.

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2012-February-07, 05:57, said:

Yes, i have often thought along these lines. There are people who take pride in not being able to "do math".

Naturally their pride is misplaced; everyone can "do math", ie sit down and do a long division problem or multiply together two numbers of several digits. It is the speed and agility with which one can do mental arithmetic that varies a lot between individuals. I am not so good at it, and it takes me forever to do a pip count at backgammon. I plug away until I have the answer, but I can totally understand preferring a pencil and paper or even a pocket calculator.

[mycroft]

Yeah, but Gordon, what would have happened if you'd brought 10 things, each priced at 10/-? Would there have been the same surprise?

(Yes, I know, the cashier hasn't actually seen a shilling in his life)

[blackshoe]

Back in the 1970s, cash registers that actually totaled your bill, computed the tax, and figured out what change to give (particularly the last part) were pretty new. I bought a Big Mac, fries and a coke (and maybe some other stuff) at a local Micky D's in Albuquerque. The bill came to, iirc, $6.24. I gave the girl at the register a twenty dollar bill, a one, and a quarter. She looked at the cash register - it wasn't working, so didn't tell her what change to give. She looked at the money in her hand. She looked back at the cash register. Then she looked at me and started to cry. That's when I knew this country is doomed.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-07, 12:30, said:

That's when I knew this country is doomed.

There are lots of things people once considered routine skills, but technology has removed the need for people to learn them. We use those brain cells for other things.

I'll bet there were people who said the same thing about young people not being able to start fires by rubbing sticks together -- they'll be screwed if they run out of matches. Somehow we survived the loss of that knowledge.

[jjbrr]

people still use matches?

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-07, 06:05, said:

Naturally their pride is misplaced; everyone can "do math"

That is just as true as saying that everyone can read: i.e. not true at all.

Rik