Salary increases keeping up with RPI since 2007. As it happens.

d.ross_2

geneer wrote: »

RPI 2008 0.9%
RPI 2009 2.4%
RPI 2010 4.8%
TOTAL = 8.1%

Median Salary Increase 2008 4.5%
Median Salary Increase 2009 2.0%
Median Salary Increase 2010 2.0%
TOTAL = 8.5%


That noise you heard was another discredited bull argument being torn apart.

Now do a comparrison to public sector wage rises.

Graham_Devon

geneer wrote: »

No. I haven't. CPI/RPI dec 2008 covers the year from the end of 2007 to the start of 2011.

CPI 2008 3.1
CPI 2009 2.9
CPI 2010 3.7
TOTAL 9.7%.

(okay, typo, I said 9.1, now corrected)

I'm sure a minor semantic point can be turned into a major pedantic squabble if need be.

It's not semantics. It changes the figures completely, I'd assume. It's adding an entire year to the date range.

But, oh well.

d.ross_2

geneer wrote: »

I'm asking you.
How to you validate that figure.

Median salaries have increased. End of.
What other measure do you think is more appropriate?
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

Oh hang on a second. You mean they are government statistics?

Sory I forgot, governments never manipulate statistics do they :rotfl:

geneer

Batchy wrote: »

2007 104.7 2.3
2008 108.5 3.6
2009 110.8 2.2
2010 114.5 3.3

11.4 yep... ;-) CPI... where on earth are you getting your figures from?

But my figure is 9.7% batchy.
Not 11.4.

Peak price wasn't until the end of 2007.
So RPI/CPI and salary increments for 2007 are not relevant.

This has already been clearly explained.

geneer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not semantics. It changes the figures completely, I'd assume. It's adding an entire year to the date range.

But, oh well.

Yet the figures remain unchanged.
And the dates set out in my original post remain relevant.

When I said 2007 to 2011, I really meant the end of 2007 to the start of 2011. Fair enough. This has been clarified.
We can now be satisfied that the CPI measurement correlates exactly with the dates defined in the original post.
As you might expect they should.

So, do we move on now, or is it an I'veseenthelite style sprawling debate about the position of a semi colon in post 43.

Graham_Devon

geneer wrote: »

Yet the figures remain unchanged.
And the dates set out in my original post remain relevant.

When I said 2007 to 2011, I really meant the end of 2007 to the start of 2011. This has been clarified.

So, do we move on now, or is it an I'veseenthelite style sprawling debate about the position of a semi colon in post 43.

We could have moved on ages ago if you'd just used the same date range.

Seems batchy has now answered the question anyhow. And it changes the figure completely, to over 11%.

No need to drag other posters in. I thought it was just a simple question in all honesty. I have no axe to grind, just saw you using 3 years for RPI and 4 years for CPI.

Batchy

geneer wrote: »

But my figure is 9.7% batchy.
Not 11.4.

Peak price wasn't until the end of 2007.
So RPI/CPI and salary increments for 2007 are not relevant.

This has already been clearly explained.

I think you need to use a calculator... lol

d.ross_2

geneer, do you have an answer for post 22?

geneer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We could have moved on ages ago if you'd just used the same date range.

Seems batchy has now answered the question anyhow. And it changes the figure completely, to over 11%.

No need to drag other posters in. I thought it was just a simple question in all honesty. I have no axe to grind, just saw you using 3 years for RPI and 4 years for CPI.

I did use the same date range.
I did take 3 years for RPI.
And I did take 3 years for CPI.
This was clarified in post 10 and 14.

RenovationMan

lol, it's been a tough day for geneer. Bulls, Bears and non-affiliats are all kicking his butt today. :rotfl: