From the article (first link), he said "condemned the fact that one in five pupils are leaving primary school without reaching the "national average" in English".
You made that into "half", possibly confusing median and average, something that that person did not do, judging by the quote.
> one in five children in primary schools at the age of 11 are leaving primary school without the national average
> "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and all schools must be good
I'm sure there was a certain minister who stood up in parliament declaring it to be an outrage that 50% of our children scored below average but I'm struggling to find a reference, partly because politicians keep making this same gaffe.
My point with the original "quote" ('"quote"' is not a quote either) was to illustrate the absurdity of these types of headlines. They're made all the time and they're always ridiculous.
When most non-mathematicians (yep, SWEs included) use the word "average" sometimes the concept they intend to convey is "mean", and sometimes it is "median" (because of a commonplace implicit assumption that the distribution, even if not normal, is at least roughly symmetrical).
So I try not to use the word "average" at all (unless defined), and to only use "median" and "mean".
On a related note, I think it is perfectly possible that 70 % of all drivers are "better than average". It's a mathematical tautology that only 50 % are better than median, but the distribution of driver skill does not need to be a symmetric distribution, so median and average can be significantly different.
With things like IQ, the distribution is symmetrical by definition.
Oh how we all love ambiguity in language!
We just need a few to bring the average down so much, the rest are above it. Got to use those outliers to make some good PR.
My point is that for internal competition, using a comparison to other members as a target is never going to end well. In the end, the 'average' figure is a pretty meaningless value.
Instead, I think it's more important to target a standard. E.g. a minimum level of literacy/numeracy. "50% of our children can't spell" is a much more meaningful statement. Now as for how you measure that... that's a whole other problem.
1, 1, 1, 1, 11
Salaries not so much...
I think the salary is just one tiny part of the entire equation. As long as you can pay your rent, eat and save a bit you are fine.
Much more important than money is how you will increase your personal market value in the current job as fast as possible. That's the most important part. Then, stuff like your coworkers' smartness and likeliness, your boss (is he a psycho?), location and the actual industry and business model your company is in matters much more than money.
An extreme and unrealistic example, just to illustrate the point: Imagine you make $250K/yr working as a <to not offend anybody, put here some easy job profession which doesn't require too many skills> . You can surf the entire day, be on HN and Reddit. But after three years you are degenerated, you have no story to tell. No achievements at all. Your market value went to zero. And imagine the company is in a small village, there aren't any people who might push your limits and make you smarter. The company's industry is declining. I know, as said, this example is extreme but everyone who is making tons of money now faces some drawbacks, so stop thinking you are underpaid.
A job is a package, the salary is just one part of this package. It's in balance with the other parts and a high salary might compensate for a general weaker package.
Yep, just make sure to never have a family and/or your own home! You'll be just fine...
Heh, people are such greedy delusionals.
- All information about an employee is in a resume
- There is no difference between employers besides salary
- Working for less than maximum achievable salary means one is "underpaid"
edit: Big surprise, I went to the Paysa website and their main sales messaging is Get Paid What You Deserve - Paysa market data shows that 36% of professionals are underpaid relative to market. So this article is basically "Paysa publishes report saying that you should use their service to get more money." Flagged for spam.
But here: https://www.google.co.il/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/one-in...
1) I click it from Google, it sees that Google is the referrer and saves a short-lived cookie that says I'm allowed to see the whole article, just in case I refresh
2) I try the link from HN, it works because I still have the cookie
3) You click the link from HN, you don't have the cookie, it fails
4) I try again in the evening, I don't have the cookie anymore, if fails
Anyway, click the "web" link near the title and click the first Google result.
> More than one-third of tech professionals are earning at least 10% less than they could command if they looked for a new job today
I agree that many technology workers (myself included) are underpaid, but this does not seem to be evidence of that. I think most people could make 11% more money if they went on the job market. That's what the new company has to pay you to overcome inertia.
There is no neccisary exploitation story with good being sold/labour being provided at a price below the average value to the purchaser. However, it could be that buyers collude to pay less than their marginal value for the procuct.
> There is implicit collusion that is taught in management schools and generally accepted as a norm to value labor against living cost, rather than the value that labor generates in the market.
This isn't implicit collusion of a business education. This is a result of the brand of capitalism, and inefficient markets, we have allowing for the manipulation of labor prices.
> Therefore companies are not willing to pay much more than living cost for workers, other than some superstar sociopath who has been able to get the company by the throat and justify say 1/2 million for his position because he's irreplaceable.
They are in fact taught that EVERYONE is replaceable even them.
maybe one in three is overpaid, and one in three is in the mean. But that wouldn't fit a gauss distribution. Just rambling the thoughts those 8 lines triggered.
That seems high from the minority of engineers that produce the majority of the value at large companies. I'd argue a small minority is vastly underpaid, and most engineers are overpaid.