OT: Apologies

[Al C-F]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>
> This year I won't need to buy another Brompton (don't tell Herself
> this) so I should be quids in
>
So what will you spend this year's budget on?

Remember, you have to spend all of your budget in year, otherwise you
get less next year. S'like the civil service really.

 

[Peter B]

"Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> >
> > This year I won't need to buy another Brompton (don't tell Herself
> > this) so I should be quids in
> >
> So what will you spend this year's budget on?
>
> Remember, you have to spend all of your budget in year, otherwise you
> get less next year. S'like the civil service really.

In that case buy some very expensive, but totally useless, square wheels

Pete
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/Stuff

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:38:49 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 05 Jan 2006 21:09:12 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >I'd be surprised if the average cyclist has above average salary,
> >though it may be true that a cyclist is more likely to have an above
> >average salary than a non-cyclist, or that average salary for cyclists
> >is higher than average salary for non-cyclists (or indeed, for the
> >population as a whole). Is there a source for the assertion?
>
> http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/oct01.htm was the first I
> saw, but there was an AA survey specific to the UK which I will find
> again Any Minute Now....

I think I'll have to file a self-selecting self-assessed survey
answered predominantly by people in a different country that asks
merely about 'average income' with the chocolate beverage preparation
vessels in terms of usefulness to the question at hand.

I remain extremely sceptical that more than half of cyclists have
above average salaries. As noted, I'm willing to believe cyclists
have a higher average salary than the population as a whole, but I
doubt that most cyclists have above average salaries.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Ian Smith wrote:
> I remain extremely sceptical that more than half of cyclists have
> above average salaries. As noted, I'm willing to believe cyclists
> have a higher average salary than the population as a whole, but I
> doubt that most cyclists have above average salaries.
>
Particularly as John Caudwell has a very high income and high annual
mileage, I guess.

--
Ambrose

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 08 Jan 2006 19:00:44 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>I remain extremely sceptical that more than half of cyclists have
>above average salaries. As noted, I'm willing to believe cyclists
>have a higher average salary than the population as a whole, but I
>doubt that most cyclists have above average salaries.

I'm not sure the difference makes a difference. FWIW I have an
above-average salary.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Tony Raven]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>> I remain extremely sceptical that more than half of cyclists have
>> above average salaries. As noted, I'm willing to believe cyclists
>> have a higher average salary than the population as a whole, but I
>> doubt that most cyclists have above average salaries.
>>
> Particularly as John Caudwell has a very high income and high annual
> mileage, I guess.
>

And Madonna, Guy Ritchie, Sir Rocco Forte, Jeremy Paxman, Jeff Banks,
Paul Smith, Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger, Billy Connolly, Des Lynam, Jon
Snow......and David Cameron.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006, Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08 Jan 2006 19:00:44 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >I remain extremely sceptical that more than half of cyclists have
> >above average salaries. As noted, I'm willing to believe cyclists
> >have a higher average salary than the population as a whole, but I
> >doubt that most cyclists have above average salaries.
>
> I'm not sure the difference makes a difference. FWIW I have an
> above-average salary.

Of course it does. Very few people have above-average income (from
memory, 17% in the UK), because a very very few people have very very
large salaries.

To say more than half of cyclists have an above average income is a
very different statement than to say the average income of cyclists is
above the average for the population as a whole. One means that over
half of cyclists are drawn from the highest-earning 17% of the
population. The other can be satisfied drawing just one person (that
phone chappie, presumably) from the highest-earning 17%, while all the
rest have average income. Assuming a continuous distribution
resembling even remotely something like normal, I think the former
implies a much higher 'typical' income than the latter.

Depending what you mean by "makes a difference". If the sole purpose
of citing the statistic is to feel smug about riding a bike, no, it
probably doesn't make a difference.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[p.k.]

Ian Smith wrote:
>
> Of course it does. Very few people have above-average income (from
> memory, 17% in the UK), because a very very few people have very very
> large salaries.

The data:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2004/pdf_files/chapters/chapter_2_hbai05.pdf

"The income distribution was clearly skewed towards
the lower end and had a long tail at the upper end. On
a Before Housing Costs basis, over 60 per cent of
individuals had an equivalised household income that
was less than the national mean average."


pk

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 08 Jan 2006 21:27:48 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> I'm not sure the difference makes a difference. FWIW I have an
>> above-average salary.

>Of course it does. Very few people have above-average income (from
>memory, 17% in the UK), because a very very few people have very very
>large salaries.

You are hypothesising that cyclists incomes are distributed
differently from the population as a whole. Occam's Razor suggests
another interpretation.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:24:39 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08 Jan 2006 21:27:48 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >> I'm not sure the difference makes a difference. FWIW I have an
> >> above-average salary.
>
> >Of course it does. Very few people have above-average income (from
> >memory, 17% in the UK), because a very very few people have very very
> >large salaries.
>
> You are hypothesising that cyclists incomes are distributed
> differently from the population as a whole. Occam's Razor suggests
> another interpretation.

It's you that's claiming that cyclists have higher than average
incomes. How, precisely, do they manage that without having a
different distribution than the population as a whole?

All I am hypothesising (as I explicitly stated, but you have not
quoted) is that cyclists incomes are distributed in a continuous
function.

If you're going to criticise a post, you really should read all of it
(at teh moment you're looking very like you didn't bother).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[James Annan]

Ian Smith wrote:


> Depending what you mean by "makes a difference". If the sole purpose
> of citing the statistic is to feel smug about riding a bike, no, it
> probably doesn't make a difference.

I doubt the smugness factor would be changed by saying that average
cyclists's salary is higher than the average non-cyclists's salary, or
other roughly equivalent (and strictly true) versions. In fact, as shown
by this thread, many people barely realise there is a difference. So
although your nit-picking may give you some reason to feel smug about
yourself, it's not really much to get excited about.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> I remain extremely sceptical that more than half of cyclists have
>>> above average salaries. As noted, I'm willing to believe cyclists
>>> have a higher average salary than the population as a whole, but I
>>> doubt that most cyclists have above average salaries.
>>>
>> Particularly as John Caudwell has a very high income and high annual
>> mileage, I guess.
>>
>
> And Madonna, Guy Ritchie, Sir Rocco Forte, Jeremy Paxman, Jeff Banks,
> Paul Smith,

^^^
Now that's a turn up for the books

> Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger, Billy Connolly, Des Lynam, Jon
> Snow......and David Cameron.

Leader of the opposition's not a very high salary.
--
Ambrose

 

[Tony Raven]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>
>> And Madonna, Guy Ritchie, Sir Rocco Forte, Jeremy Paxman, Jeff Banks,
>> Paul Smith,
>
> ^^^
> Now that's a turn up for the books
>

Ermmm...the Paul Smith that doesn't have to beg for a living that is ;-)

>> Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger, Billy Connolly, Des Lynam, Jon
>> Snow......and David Cameron.
>
> Leader of the opposition's not a very high salary.

Still well above average though.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006, James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
>
> > Depending what you mean by "makes a difference". If the sole purpose
> > of citing the statistic is to feel smug about riding a bike, no, it
> > probably doesn't make a difference.
>
> I doubt the smugness factor would be changed by saying that average
> cyclists's salary is higher than the average non-cyclists's salary, or
> other roughly equivalent (and strictly true) versions.

Exactly, or as I said "no, it probably doesn't make a difference".

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 08 Jan 2006 22:56:27 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>It's you that's claiming that cyclists have higher than average
>incomes. How, precisely, do they manage that without having a
>different distribution than the population as a whole?

Elementary, Watson. Same distribution, with a higher mean.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:42:05 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08 Jan 2006 22:56:27 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >It's you that's claiming that cyclists have higher than average
> >incomes. How, precisely, do they manage that without having a
> >different distribution than the population as a whole?
>
> Elementary, Watson. Same distribution, with a higher mean.

So you are planning on the highest-earning cyclist earning more than
the highest-earning member of the population?

Besides which, my posting that you objected to remains entirely
correct even if they do have similar distributions, or identical
distribution across some part of the lower range, or whatever. I did
not assume any fundamental difference between cyclist and general
population distribution, and I don't know why you say it did. I even
explicitly stated what I was assuming about distribution in the
posting (in the second half - I remain of the opinion that you
probably didn't read that far).

I'd still be interested in seeing some survey that found most
cyclists in the UK have higher than average salaries.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
> every other indicator of material
> wealth except ownership of satellite TVs.

Aren't they still necessary for TdF coverage?


-dan

 

[wafflycat]

"Daniel Barlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
>> every other indicator of material
>> wealth except ownership of satellite TVs.
>
> Aren't they still necessary for TdF coverage?
>
>
> -dan

No. TdF comes on Freeview & Top-Up TV.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Jim Price]

wafflycat wrote:
>
> "Daniel Barlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> every other indicator of material
>>> wealth except ownership of satellite TVs.
>>
>> Aren't they still necessary for TdF coverage?
>
> No. TdF comes on Freeview & Top-Up TV.

Ownership of satellite TV is not considered an indicator of wealth where
I am moving to, as you can't get Freeview or Top-Up TV there. I would
say in my case that its an indicator that you are living in a place
where you can step out of the front door and find yourself in the middle
of fantastic cycling country, and I still want to keep up with the TdF.

--
JimP
--
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong" - Spike Milligan

 

[wafflycat]

"Jim Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> wafflycat wrote:
>>
>> "Daniel Barlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> every other indicator of material
>>>> wealth except ownership of satellite TVs.
>>>
>>> Aren't they still necessary for TdF coverage?
>>
>> No. TdF comes on Freeview & Top-Up TV.
>
> Ownership of satellite TV is not considered an indicator of wealth where I
> am moving to, as you can't get Freeview or Top-Up TV there. I would say in
> my case that its an indicator that you are living in a place where you can
> step out of the front door and find yourself in the middle of fantastic
> cycling country, and I still want to keep up with the TdF.
>

Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong... but you seem to think that you need
a satellite for Freeview or Top-up TV, which you don't. I don't have
satellite, but do have Freeview & Top-up TV, as they come via a set-top box
plugged into normal arial. Top-Up TV is a an extra few channels for a small
subscription, activated via card in freeview box.

I have this and still live in the middle of fantastic cycling country and
keep up with the TdF

I am not, however, wealthy in monetary terms!

Cheers, helen s