Wednesday, 29 October 2008
"Texting reaches record levels"
A common error here, but again one that is probably the sub-editors' fault rather than the journalist. "Texting reaches record levels" is not incorrect, but it is utterly uninteresting, as the amount of texts is something that has been growing for years, and so every new period is essentially a record level.
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Borrowing by the government
A simple headline error this one. It should read 'Borrowing expected to rise to £60bn' or 'Borrowing forecast to rise to £60bn', not 'Borrowing rises to £60bn' as if it had already happened.
Thursday, 23 October 2008
Retail sales at lowest level since early 2006
Here's a classic press error which is not in the original Press Association story, so might be the Independent's fault. Retail sales are NOT at their 'lowest level since early 2006'. The rate of growth has fallen to its lowest level since 2006. In fact retail sales in September were 140.4, compared to a peak monthly level (on a seasonally adjusted basis) of 133.3 in 2006. That means they were 5.3% higher than the highest point in 2006.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Estate agents aren't selling just 1 house a week
Declares the Times. Bizarrely. I know things are bad, but it's not that bad.
Friday, 7 December 2007
Pensions
The figures in this Daily Mail article, partly (I think not wholly) based on this Lib Dem release, are absurd.
First, pensioners do not "now receive less than in 1950" - they receive, if you believe the numbers (and they seem reasonable) a smaller proportion of the average wage. We might - I do - think it should be higher, but we shouldn't pretend it actually means a smaller amount of money.
Second, their conversions to today's money should hae alarm bells ringing. Can it really be true that the average wage, apparently 7.08 pounds a week in 1950, is equivalent to 499 pounds a week today, only slightly less than the current average wage of 549 pounds a week? Of course it isn't, even allowing for a smaller % of people in the labour force (and hence higher wages for those who were). In fact the correct figure is that 7 pounds a week is equivalent to 165 pounds a week today, and the pension of 1950 equivalent to about 31 pounds a week, less than half today's level.
First, pensioners do not "now receive less than in 1950" - they receive, if you believe the numbers (and they seem reasonable) a smaller proportion of the average wage. We might - I do - think it should be higher, but we shouldn't pretend it actually means a smaller amount of money.
Second, their conversions to today's money should hae alarm bells ringing. Can it really be true that the average wage, apparently 7.08 pounds a week in 1950, is equivalent to 499 pounds a week today, only slightly less than the current average wage of 549 pounds a week? Of course it isn't, even allowing for a smaller % of people in the labour force (and hence higher wages for those who were). In fact the correct figure is that 7 pounds a week is equivalent to 165 pounds a week today, and the pension of 1950 equivalent to about 31 pounds a week, less than half today's level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)