"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments.
Yesterday, ABC News gave a lot of air time to a newly released report about Indigenous Australian's participation in the workforce.
Key points of the report are:-
Indigenous Australians make up 3.3% of the Australian population,
Indigenous Australians make up 2.2% of the workforce,
Indigenous Australians are under-represented in the workforce,
Indigenous Australians are being unfairly treated in respect of employment.
Sounds very straightforward, yes?
It also sounds like an unsatisfactory state of affairs that Australia, as a nation, should address, yes?
But, wait . . . .
There are SEVERAL apparently credible reports available that state that 65% of Indigenous Australians live in remote communities (where there are no jobs available for anyone) and 35% live in urban areas (where jobs are available).
So, 3.3% x 35% = 1.15%.
Therefore, Indigenous Australians living in urban areas, where jobs are available, make up 1.15% of the population and they make up 2.2% of the workforce.
But, in the words of the late, great Tom Petty:-
Listen it don't really matter to me baby,
You believe what you want to believe
Peter_n_Margaret said
02:37 PM May 25, 2022
Mein wrote:
There are SEVERAL apparently credible reports available that state that 65% of Indigenous Australians live in remote communities (where there are no jobs available for anyone) and 35% live in urban areas (where jobs are available).
So, 3.3% x 35% = 1.15%.
Therefore, Indigenous Australians living in urban areas, where jobs are available, make up 1.15% of the population and they make up 2.2% of the workforce.
In fact, there are many jobs in remote communities that range from storekeepers, local Rangers, health workers, school teachers and many many others.
Cheers,
Peter
Izabarack said
12:09 PM May 26, 2022
Descriptive Stats are simply factual data. Interpreting and the extrapolation of those data is where the problems happen. In the absence of consensus of the validity of assumptions made, interpretations are open to dispute.
In fact, there are many jobs in remote communities that range from storekeepers, local Rangers, health workers, school teachers and many many others.
Cheers,
Peter
So how many actual jobs are there. Storekeepers, limited amount of stores, probably already with staff so let's just over hire staff to give them a job, hire 20 poeple to do a 5 person job. That works. Local Rangers. They would be the best for that job in that area but how many Rangers do you need. Lets over hire Rangers, lets go 100 for the area, but we only need 25, never mind we have an extra 75 with a job, they might not do anything but they have a job. Health Workers, well don't they have to be trained and have qualifications that takes years. Well maybe we can just give them a first aid course and their right. Then hire 50 odd to man 5 or 6 heath centres, that are already staffed, be it part time only. School teachers, well the best to teach their culture but need trained and have to be qualified to teach the white fella world. Then hire 40 or 50 to man the dozen or so schools around the area.
Yeah your right plenty of jobs in all sorts of areas to employ heaps of those living in remote areas. We have just eliminated unemployment in these areas. Pity its not all that easy to achieve.
But maybe my assumptions are not right.
-- Edited by Corndoggy on Thursday 26th of May 2022 01:07:32 PM
-- Edited by Corndoggy on Thursday 26th of May 2022 01:09:32 PM
Wannabe nomad said
05:42 PM May 27, 2022
What I learned at uni as a mature student in the late 1990s was to take all statistics with a huge pinch salt.
How is the data collected, the criteria, what's the perspective of the person collating the data, that data can be manipulated to suit your bias. Mistakes can be easily made bla bla bla. When I actually took statistics as a subject I was horrified when I learned that the unemployment figures are collated by how many people are actively seeking employment and does not include the discouraged, long lerm unemployed, disabled, those studying because they can't get a bloody job, or the under employed and bla bla bla I quit listening or believing or quoting any stat's.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments.
Yesterday, ABC News gave a lot of air time to a newly released report about Indigenous Australian's participation in the workforce.
Key points of the report are:-
Indigenous Australians make up 3.3% of the Australian population,
Indigenous Australians make up 2.2% of the workforce,
Indigenous Australians are under-represented in the workforce,
Indigenous Australians are being unfairly treated in respect of employment.
Sounds very straightforward, yes?
It also sounds like an unsatisfactory state of affairs that Australia, as a nation, should address, yes?
But, wait . . . .
There are SEVERAL apparently credible reports available that state that 65% of Indigenous Australians live in remote communities (where there are no jobs available for anyone) and 35% live in urban areas (where jobs are available).
So, 3.3% x 35% = 1.15%.
Therefore, Indigenous Australians living in urban areas, where jobs are available, make up 1.15% of the population and they make up 2.2% of the workforce.
But, in the words of the late, great Tom Petty:-
Listen it don't really matter to me baby,
You believe what you want to believe
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Your assumptions are just as bad.
In fact, there are many jobs in remote communities that range from storekeepers, local Rangers, health workers, school teachers and many many others.
Cheers,
Peter
Descriptive Stats are simply factual data. Interpreting and the extrapolation of those data is where the problems happen. In the absence of consensus of the validity of assumptions made, interpretations are open to dispute.
So how many actual jobs are there. Storekeepers, limited amount of stores, probably already with staff so let's just over hire staff to give them a job, hire 20 poeple to do a 5 person job. That works. Local Rangers. They would be the best for that job in that area but how many Rangers do you need. Lets over hire Rangers, lets go 100 for the area, but we only need 25, never mind we have an extra 75 with a job, they might not do anything but they have a job. Health Workers, well don't they have to be trained and have qualifications that takes years. Well maybe we can just give them a first aid course and their right. Then hire 50 odd to man 5 or 6 heath centres, that are already staffed, be it part time only. School teachers, well the best to teach their culture but need trained and have to be qualified to teach the white fella world. Then hire 40 or 50 to man the dozen or so schools around the area.
Yeah your right plenty of jobs in all sorts of areas to employ heaps of those living in remote areas. We have just eliminated unemployment in these areas. Pity its not all that easy to achieve.
But maybe my assumptions are not right.
-- Edited by Corndoggy on Thursday 26th of May 2022 01:07:32 PM
-- Edited by Corndoggy on Thursday 26th of May 2022 01:09:32 PM
How is the data collected, the criteria, what's the perspective of the person collating the data, that data can be manipulated to suit your bias. Mistakes can be easily made bla bla bla. When I actually took statistics as a subject I was horrified when I learned that the unemployment figures are collated by how many people are actively seeking employment and does not include the discouraged, long lerm unemployed, disabled, those studying because they can't get a bloody job, or the under employed and bla bla bla I quit listening or believing or quoting any stat's.