>>what's the median?
>See "May 2004 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and
>Wage Estimates, NAICS 336000 - Transportation Equipment
>Manufacturing, Production Occupations": <http://www.bls.gov/oes/
>current/naics3_336000.htm#b51-0000>. The estimate of the median
>hourly wage for production occupations in this industrial sector in
>2004 was $16.17 and that of the mean annual wage was $36,420. Why so
>much difference between this estimate from 2004 and the figure that
>Doug cites from this year (which can't be accounted for by COLA, etc.)?
The average wage isn't reliable, normally. A small number of high wage earners brings up the average so that it doesn't really reflect what people usually mean by "average". That is, they are usually thinking "typical". So, when it comes to looking at income, they often look at the median (where half earn below that number, half earn above it). It is a more reliable indicator of what the typical worker is making.
Which is why I asked: I don't normally see the average quoted in such contexts. Not that Doug was doing this, but when people want to lie with statistics, they use the mean or average. in a sample where a small number of high earners (or whatever) can skew the indicator.
The Bitch | Lab
Bitchier. Raunchier. ****ette with 'tude -- for the feminist left http://blog.pulpculture.org http://www.pulpculture.org