FAO maths nerds

I passed maths in college by the skin of my gooch.

Edited by Bohsfan84 - 01 Dec 2015 at 5:34pm

DUBLIN DOC wrote: How appropriate the sig under his posts are

seanyshuffler wrote: Probably better off posting in the thick thread but anyway.   On average in 2013 €1=$1.3281   Would that mean €1=€0.67?

Yeah, it seems the annual figure I posted earlier is correct. Just over $100,000 average. That is probably right, given the number of unemployed and economically inactive people, also having regard to the fact California is a rich state.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CAWTOT/downloaddata?cid=27286Source for wages and salary here SuperDave

SuperDave84 wrote: Total wages in 1990 was thus 1,467,299,000,000. Total employment was 14,294,100. So divide 1,467,299 by 14.294,100. That's going to give a figure of $102,650. You sure the figures you have to begin with are right?

I'll check the links when I'm home.

A figure of 1467299 measured in the unit, millions of dollars. I want to get the average level of wage per head of labour force. Have the population figures but how many 0's must I ad to the figure in order to be able to divide them?

SuperDave84 wrote: Basically, spending in bars as a percentage of GDP has decreased dramatically over the last few years (while the price charged has only decreased a little) - not a big surprise. Should you not be using GNP rather than GDP though, given the fact GDP includes multinationals profits, which have not suffered in the same way in the last few years as the general economy? The picture may be a little different if you do it that way. It depends on what you want the figures to show, though. If you want to paint a bleak picture, GDP is the way to go. If you want to point out that the vintners are a shower of greedy, moaning pricks, GNP is the way to go.

Basically, spending in bars as a percentage of GDP has decreased dramatically over the last few years (while the price charged has only decreased a little) - not a big surprise.

Should you not be using GNP rather than GDP though, given the fact GDP includes multinationals profits, which have not suffered in the same way in the last few years as the general economy? The picture may be a little different if you do it that way. It depends on what you want the figures to show, though. If you want to paint a bleak picture, GDP is the way to go. If you want to point out that the vintners are a shower of greedy, moaning pricks, GNP is the way to go.


Edited by SuperDave84 - 25 Sep 2013 at 7:19pm