Image removed by moderator (copyright material)
Link:http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/on/18517/1.html
Link:http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/on/18517/1.html
Yeah well John Howard just won the Australian election, because of this, im not going back to my country for another 3years. Howards government is the most racial government ive ever known in my life!
Till, i have removed the posted image, you may replace it with a link, its copyright material.
Trev
Isn't that a little drastic?
Staying out of your own country because you don't like the fellow who just got elected?
Probably about half the people in any democratic country voted for the other candidate. If everyone did as you are doing, every time the other party won an election, the population would do a complete overhaul.
All the guys from the winning party would move back in, all the people from the losing party would move out.
kelticwizard said:Isn't that a little drastic?
Staying out of your own country because you don't like the fellow who just got elected?
Probably about half the people in any democratic country voted for the other candidate. If everyone did as you are doing, every time the other party won an election, the population would do a complete overhaul.
All the guys from the winning party would move back in, all the people from the losing party would move out.
LOL yeah your right, but when you plan to marry someone and just because they are a certain race they dont let them in, (there is a big pile of underground scandles going on with others too, the latest was with South Africa) i feel that that country isnt worth living in.
The Australian Government also rips people off, its not a cheap country to live in, they are now saying that you have to work until your 70 before you retire!, thats nuts! thats just a couple of things.
I could go on about it all day, but here realy isnt the place to discuss it as no doubt things would get hot in here. I just dont understand somtimes why governments who people are supose to dislike so much, get re elected, its certainly got me beat.
Trev
Heya SY, yeah there are a few in there that are strait forward, kinda the aussie nature
.Howard is shifty no dobt, i found a few interesting articles this morning on the news, including Howard having an automated system to ring people on their mobiles, hang up apon answering, and leaving them a message bank message so the people pay for his speech, kinda rude. I would have posted the link but the news article is over.
Thats only one thing thats only related to the election, living life is no doubt nothing but a big lie, its a joke, and yet people vote him in
. Before i left (3years ago) they said that the average wage was $750 a week, everyone i knew was getting about $500 a week (about 30 people), i was on $1200 a week
(because of what i do), but having a ratio of roughly 30:1 doesnt add upto an average of $750 a week cos hardly any people get that. And not only that, most jobs dont pay it, its all labour work, (atleast in Western Australia).Trev
ace3000_1 said:
Before i left (3years ago) they said that the average wage was $750 a week, everyone i knew was getting about $500 a week (about 30 people), i was on $1200 a week
Okay, just thought I would throw this in, not that I am an economist. Although you can really, really learn a lot of what used to be "inside stuff" by perusing the internet.
There are two figures-average wage and median average wage, (or median wage).
Average wage is the total sum of the wages of all people, divided by the number of people who earn the money.
Median wage is computed like this: you list the wages of everybody, and the wage of the person in the middle is the median wage.
It can result in a big difference.
Suppose we have 5 people. Their yearly income is as follows.
1. $15,000
2. $25,000
3. $35,000
4. $45,000
5. $1,000,000
The average income for these five people is $224,000.
The median income for these five is $35,000.
As you can see, a few millionaires or billionaires can pull the average wage up quite a bit. The median income is the more accurate figure, I believe.
So you might want to check that figure for Australia. That $75,000 figure might be average income. If it is, see if you can find what the median income is, it might conform to your own observations of "normal" income.
By the way, the meidan wage for the full time worker in America, as of last year, was $15.85 and hour.
i doubt the copyright issue
see screenshot on this page
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/on/18517/1.html
moderator, its up to you to move this link into the posting #1
see screenshot on this page
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/on/18517/1.html
moderator, its up to you to move this link into the posting #1
Heya Keltic, yeah your right, but the thing is they dont give you the median wage, only the average, which i feel is wrong, i see it as a motive to make things look better then what they realy are in reality.
Another thing ill mention is the crime rate of Perth (Western Australia). If you calculate the crime in perth like murders, stabbings, bashings, car theifs house theifs, and road ragers, against the crime rate in LA ( Los Angeles) and its population, the crime rate in Perth is actually worse, and thats just Perth. Not counting cities such as Sydney and Melbourne who way outdo Perths crime rate.
Trev
Another thing ill mention is the crime rate of Perth (Western Australia). If you calculate the crime in perth like murders, stabbings, bashings, car theifs house theifs, and road ragers, against the crime rate in LA ( Los Angeles) and its population, the crime rate in Perth is actually worse, and thats just Perth. Not counting cities such as Sydney and Melbourne who way outdo Perths crime rate.
Trev
Trev:
Well, the Australian governemtn does publish the median information, sort of.
What numbers the government routinely uses-whether numerical average or median-is another story.
And what numbers the news reporters and newscasters routinely report to the public is also another issue.
If Australia has anything like the media people we have in America dealing with science or statistics, you're lucky if one in ten knows the difference between "median" and "average".
Anyway, your opinion was not far off. According to the Australian Census bureau, the median income for employed people 15 and over in Western Australia is between $300 and $399 a week.
I think it is fair to say that people between the age of 15 and 18 don't make that much, and in the popular mind we don't really count them as having a "real job" yet. So eliminate the 15 to 18 year olds, and I would think you are almost certain to get a number very near your $500 a week figure.
Here are some pages with the official statistics.
Australian Census bureau:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@census.nsf/Census_BCP_ASGC_ViewTemplate?ReadForm&Expand=1
Choosing Western Australia:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@...6b9d00208f92/9d7b3b8ed6083e71ca256bbf000171db!OpenDocument
Final Stats:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@...6b9d00208f92/9d7b3b8ed6083e71ca256bbf000171db!OpenDocument#Income
Well, the Australian governemtn does publish the median information, sort of.
What numbers the government routinely uses-whether numerical average or median-is another story.
And what numbers the news reporters and newscasters routinely report to the public is also another issue.
If Australia has anything like the media people we have in America dealing with science or statistics, you're lucky if one in ten knows the difference between "median" and "average".
Anyway, your opinion was not far off. According to the Australian Census bureau, the median income for employed people 15 and over in Western Australia is between $300 and $399 a week.
I think it is fair to say that people between the age of 15 and 18 don't make that much, and in the popular mind we don't really count them as having a "real job" yet. So eliminate the 15 to 18 year olds, and I would think you are almost certain to get a number very near your $500 a week figure.
Here are some pages with the official statistics.
Australian Census bureau:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@census.nsf/Census_BCP_ASGC_ViewTemplate?ReadForm&Expand=1
Choosing Western Australia:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@...6b9d00208f92/9d7b3b8ed6083e71ca256bbf000171db!OpenDocument
Final Stats:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@...6b9d00208f92/9d7b3b8ed6083e71ca256bbf000171db!OpenDocument#Income
Yep that right, great calculating there. For interest, a 15year old in Aust gets roughly $80-$160 a week. A 18 year old gets about $220-$280 a week, though by that age most are in college doing some degree and have a wage far less then what ive stated above, so yeah, not worth counting them.
Probally to get things back on topic here with regards to Tills first post, i wouldnt beleive in the polls, most are grossly incorrect and quite often people change their voting decision on the day. New voters make mistakes also, and quite often, what the polls say is totally incorrect on the day.
From my own research ive found that people on the west coast are for Kerry while people on the east coast are for Bush.
Trev
ace3000_1 said:
From my own research ive found that people on the west coast are for Kerry while people on the east coast are for Bush.
Trev
Actually, Trev, I think it is more a case of people on the West and East coasts are going to vote for Kerry, while people in the middle are going for Bush.
Below is the famous Blue-Red map of counties and how they voted. These are not electoral districts, which have to contain approximately equal population. These are counties, some of which have one electoral district, some of which have many.
As you can see the blue, (Gore), counties contain more people and more electoral districts, but there are more Bush counties. So it came out approximately even.
That line of blue down the East-middle of the country is the Mississippi River.
ace3000_1 said:
....i wouldnt beleive in the polls, most are grossly incorrect...
Trev
I must admit that I am something of a poll watcher.
Some are bad. Some are really, really good.
The best is Zogby, as I am about to illustrate. In the 2000 election, Zogby ran the Reuters/MSNBC poll.
Below is are the final results for the 2000 election, and then for the 1996 election.
First, please note how quickly Gore closed in the 2000 election, making up several points in the last few days. To hear people talk about two or three points weeks before the election is really silly.
Second, notice how Zogby was the only poll that was in existence in 1996 and 2000 which was respectable in both elections. The rest were ridiculously off one year or the other. Sorry, I don't go for this "plus or minus three points" baloney. Get it right or the heck with you, I say.
Some other polls, like Fox, were good but only covered one election so far.
On the basis of the last two elections, Zogby is the best. Please note that since Gore won the popular vote by more than 0.5%, in whole numbers he won by 1%-not dead even.
Also notice that the margin is given as "Bush Minus Gore". In other words, the poll which predicted a Gore popular vote win by 2 points is listed as "minus 2", while the poll which predicts a Bush popular vote win by 2 points is listed as "2".
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
And now for the 1996 election.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Zogby got it within 1.5 points both times. Nobody else even came close. And Zogby corrected predicted Gore as the popular vote winner.
Please not that in the 1996 election, most polls predicted a far greater popular vote margin for Clinton than actually occurred.
But in the 2000 election, most polls predicted a popular vote victory for Bush, which he never got.
In one sense, it evens out. In another sense, I think the polls have begun to unfairly favor Bush slightly because predicting a larger margin of victory for the candidate who wins is not as inaccurate as predicting the wrong man will win the popular vote.
But in the 2000 election, most polls predicted a popular vote victory for Bush, which he never got.
In one sense, it evens out. In another sense, I think the polls have begun to unfairly favor Bush slightly because predicting a larger margin of victory for the candidate who wins is not as inaccurate as predicting the wrong man will win the popular vote.
I don´t know if you did look closely on the screenshot of ap in the link at #1.
Its not a poll. AP (news agency) had a news for about 35 minutes online, which was Bush won the election with xx against zz $, telling everything who had how much %, in which state etcetc.
This means nothing more but they allready have the news bush won prepared and written, and accidently publishes a few weeks to early...
What may THAT mean? someone does know who will win. The one who programmed those voting comuters?
You could very well be right. However...
I remember also people speculating about the USA and UK going to War in Iraq. Ministers high in the UK gov. said that it depended on the search for WMD. When I knew that it was a foregone conclusion that they where going to war. (Nothing would have stopped them from starting that war)
For me personally it is also a foregone conclusion that Bush is going to win. I have no doubt in my mind.
This begs the question. Why? Why do US voters prefer Bush to Kerry.
If you know the answer to this...you'll also know why the US mindset is so very different from the European one.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.