Big Greedy Companies

[Chris Auld]

Originally Posted by Coasterdon

When I say stats can prove any point I mean for example:

Poverty has risen in Canada per Stats Can. Doesn't this depend on what you consider poverty to be?

Of course it does. Why is this an example of "stats can prove any point" instead of an example of a case where one must reason clearly to understand the implications of a particular statistical argument?

Crime in Toronto has gone down. Sure crime per person has gone down. Wouldn't that be the case if crime went up but the population of the city went up too?

Another good example of the advantage I previously noted of statistical arguments providing clarity of expression. If someone told you "crime has gone down" and you tried to translate that into a statistical argument, you'd immediately confront the problem that you need to know how "crime" is being measured. Is it absolute number of crimes? Is is per-capita crime? Which "crimes" are being counted, by whom, and in what circumstances?

Oracle is buying Siebel and going to lay off 5000 people. Except for shareholders how does this contribute to society in any way?

This isn't a statistical statement in any sense. (The answer, incidendentally, is that those 5,000 people will go off and do something else, and if the market is working more or less as it should they will be more productive in those other tasks.)

Notice that you have not provided any examples of "stats proving any point." As I said, any argument, statistical or otherwise, can be deceptive. The former are easier, not harder, to reveal as wrong because statistics and mathematics are so closely related.

[Chris Auld]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Well, I have no formal training, but I will give you a few examples:

Last spring there was a Town Hall meeting in Winnipeg to discuss rapid transit. [...]

It can also be how the question is worded. [...]

Please note that the above was just an extreme example, and in no way was intended to offend anybody.

The first example is an example of a phenomenon called "sample selectivity bias." The second is an example of a "framing effect." Both are commonly discussed in first-year statistics courses. Neither shows that "stats can prove anything," rather they illustrate that one must think carefully about what any particular statistic means. (Aside: journalists are not renowned for their keen ability to correctly interpret statistics.)

[Coasterdon]

Originally Posted by GQUEUE

People who own Siebel/Oracle stock in their portfolio/pension funds will see a gain/dividends as a result. This income is then taxed and contributes to our public funds for infrastructure and government (like health care). People spend the net income on goods/services which then employs people who then pay taxes on their income. The layoffs (while bad for those directly involved) theoretically provides the market with additional capacity which may contribute to some other endeavour (say some emerging field).

If the income is in an RRSP it will not be taxed. People may spend the money on goods not made by people in Canada. What emerging field? People always say people will get jobs somewhere else. I don't see that happening. I am glad I'm not 23 and just out of school in today's climate.

Originally Posted by GQUEUE

In the end, not everyone comes out ahead. But, its not the end of the world either.

No it's not.

[57]

Originally Posted by GQUEUE

I think rather than having laws which 'govern' companies, we need to use our tax system as a mechanism to provide incentives for companies (and people) to take more responsible actions. Understanding that the company is a 'psychopath', let's manipulate the conditions so that it will behave in our best interests?

Taxes are "laws". Agreed, let's manipulate those "conditions". Corporations used to pay much more tax than now. Now individuals carry a huge tax burden.

[GQUEUE]

Originally Posted by Coasterdon

If the income is in an RRSP it will not be taxed. People may spend the money on goods not made by people in Canada. What emerging field? People always say people will get jobs somewhere else. I don't see that happening. I am glad I'm not 23 and just out of school in today's climate.

This is really pushing the limits of what I learned in ECON101, but here it goes:

Yes, if its in an RRSP, it is sheltered, but eventually, it needs to be withdrawn and when it does, it will be taxed. Its in the Government's best interest to see that people have as much growth as possible in their RRSPs because when it comes time to withdraw the money, the larger the total value, the larger the minimum withdrawal will be and hence, the greater the tax income. Also, (something which is not obvious to many) income withdrawn from an RRSP is taxed as income, regardless of whether gains were made from capital gains, or dividends. So, from a tax treatment standpoint, having the money grow in an RRSP can be beneficial to the government. In exchange for this, they allow us an immediate deduction on our current year's income. [Because of this, some financial planners say that an RRSP is not the best retirement investment vehicle available.]

Now what happens if people spend the money on non-Canadian goods? As long as they used Canadian dollars to buy them, no problem, because that non-Canadian company will still need to spend those dollars in Canada. There is no such thing as a currency exchange. If you have $1M CDN and you need US $, you need someone who will 'buy' your Canadian $ and give you US $ as payment. If there is a sudden glut of Canadian $ on the market, the 'price' of the Canadian dollar would fall (a la supply/demand), much to the detriment of those who sell non-Canadian goods in Canada. And even if those $ are sold, the person who bought them would still need to use the money in Canada (perhaps to pay Canadian wages or buy goods/services in Canada). This is exactly why Free Trade is principally a good thing for both sides. You might remember in the 80's there was a fear that the large Japanese mega-corporations were going to own large chunks of the US. Here we are, 25 years later and the US is still largely intact (less some sections of the gulf coast).

Now, you say you don't see the next emerging field. No one ever does. Do you think Bell (Alexander Graham that is) knew that telecommunications would be the mega-industry it is now. When we discovered the electron, there was no practical application of it all. Today, we have an entire economy that is reliant on it. The next emerging field isn't obvious until it is already happening. That may not give you any reassurance, but it is what has repeatedly happened over time.

Lastly, I agree there are challenges for those who are just starting out today. But not unlike the challenges for people who grew up during the Depression or war times or during recessions. Our society has endured much more challenging circumstances than those at present. What we need to do as a society is to best prepare our kids for those challenges ahead so that when the time comes, they are ready for it. I see a lot of kids complain that going to University was a waste because they can earn more money as waiter or driving a cab. What they don't say is that they got a degree in English or Geography because that's what they wanted to do or that had the easiest course load, etc... I am in a position where I hire a lot of new grads and a large proportion of them (say one in three) ultimately quit because they say they don't want to work that hard (this is in IT). If that's the attitude coming out of our young people, what are their chances of succeeding at anything. [On a side note, those who do know how to work hard and try their best are exceptional workers and you can see that some of them will succeed no matter what.]

[os]

Originally Posted by GQUEUE

I am in a position where I hire a lot of new grads and a large proportion of them (say one in three) ultimately quit because they say they don't want to work that hard (this is in IT). If that's the attitude coming out of our young people, what are their chances of succeeding at anything. [On a side note, those who do know how to work hard and try their best are exceptional workers and you can see that some of them will succeed no matter what.]

The guys that work hard are the idiots. They sell their lives for some extra change in their pockets. They will be finished by the time they are 35, especially in IT. But I agree, from the point of view of the big corporation that hired them, they are "exceptional" workers (unless they fake the hard work, which a lot of guys in IT are doing).

[GQUEUE]

Originally Posted by os

The guys that work hard are the idiots. ...

Well your view is a little jaded for my taste but to each his own. IMHO, there's a lot to be said for people willing to work hard at their jobs (no matter what the job is). No doubt, there are those who take advantage of that effort and even more who probably abuse it. But I don't think that validates telling people they are idiots for working hard.

BTW, there are still huge opportunities for people in IT. Its just not like the 90's where salaries were escalating out of sight.

[Lurker]

Per Gordon Geco, Wall Street, "Greed is good."

[os]

Originally Posted by GQUEUE

Well your view is a little jaded for my taste but to each his own. IMHO, there's a lot to be said for people willing to work hard at their jobs (no matter what the job is). No doubt, there are those who take advantage of that effort and even more who probably abuse it. But I don't think that validates telling people they are idiots for working hard.

BTW, there are still huge opportunities for people in IT. Its just not like the 90's where salaries were escalating out of sight.

To clarify, I meant that people who work hard for a corporation are idiots. The corporation takes all the profits when things go well, and the employee gets kicked off when the growth rate goes down.
In IT there are still huge "opportunities", but the large profits are going in the hands of a few CEOs, while the people who actually create the products get some crumbs in exchange for their "hard work".

[Nanuuk]

Not entirely true. We benefit from the corporate paid training we get that we can use in the next job! Really, I have no use for anybody that dogs it. Which is my major beef with unions. At the same time, I agree that there are way too many senior level managers getting paid ridiculous amounts of money and bonuses for doing what consultants tell them. Might as well fire them and call the consultants whenever we need a decision!

[unclepercy]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Well, I have no formal training, but I will give you a few examples:

It can also be how the question is worded. An extreme example would be:
Do you support the recent same sex marriage bill?
(A)- Yes, I believe in the Charter of Rights
(B) - No, I am too homophobic to support this.

Of course, a differently worded set of questions and answers would give different results.

Please note that the above was just an extreme example, and in no way was intended to offend anybody.

I love it! Well, boys, Uncle has a minor in stats - it's a little old, but I seriously doubt that math has changed that much over 20 years....

My favorite example of how statistics can be manipulated is this one:

More ice cream is eaten in the summer than in the winter.
More people drown in the summer than in the winter.

Conclusion: Eating ice cream causes drowning. HA!

Another - similar to your homophobic idea - and so apt - is:

How important is sex in your everyday life?

Men under 35 - very important
Nursing home residents - huh?

Can anyone tell me what the problem is with this conclusion?

1,000 men and 1,000 women of the same demographic background were polled by phone in August. The results show that women are more philanthropic than men.

Yep, stats can be bent like a pretzel.

Uncle

[Chris Auld]

No one ever claimed misleading arguments cannot be made with statistics (notice everyone has their favorite example of falacious statistical reasoning, and everyone can explain why the example is misleading). The claim was that "statistics can prove anything." That claim is, of course, not correct. It is usually a claim which one hears when someone has been confronted with statistical evidence which contradicts a previously held notion as a way of dismissing the evidence.

[GQUEUE]

Originally Posted by os

To clarify, I meant that people who work hard for a corporation are idiots....

I understood what you meant...I still think its jaded.

Originally Posted by os

In IT there are still huge "opportunities", but the large profits are going in the hands of a few CEOs, while the people who actually create the products get some crumbs in exchange for their "hard work".

Not definitively so...lots of talented and skilled people in IT are making tonnes of money. And yes, lots of incompetent and untalented people are also making tonnes of money. But this isn't a new phenomenon. It's always been this way.

[new-guy]

Originally Posted by GQUEUE

Not definitively so...lots of talented and skilled people in IT are making tonnes of money. And yes, lots of incompetent and untalented people are also making tonnes of money. But this isn't a new phenomenon. It's always been this way.

That is what ticks me off about my employer... You can come in to the IT department doing a job that basically requires you to install windows and other software on new PCs... the kicker is that a level 1 in this position is being a offered a starting salary similar to my own. Whats wrong with that? If you can get that job thats good for you. But for me it is a kick in the teeth. Why? well mostly these new installs are simply a matter of copying a ghosted image onto the pc. I have been here for 5+ years and have some specialized training and post secondary education... My corporation's view of my skills and job is weird. They are giving better compensation in departments that seem to require less training and skills.
In general, I dont have anything against IT people. But there sure are a lot of clueless ones where I work!

[GQUEUE]

Originally Posted by new-guy

In general, I dont have anything against IT people. But there sure are a lot of clueless ones where I work!

Wouldn't you say there are a lot of clueless ones in any field? Ever talk to a sales person at a FS or BB? Ever had bad service in a restaurant? Ever seen Holmes on Homes and seen the kind of stuff that people try to pass off as professional? Such behaviour is not limited to IT. Happens in any field.