Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sorry but that's just incorrect. Perhaps in New Zealand but most certainly not in much of the rest of the world. Sales of recorded works in the US, Asia and Europe throughout the 20th century have been massive since the 1920s,
Sorry Simon but if it was "Massive" in the 20s then in the 60s it became exponentially "Super Massive" Surely you see that?
I mean, how can you say I'm incorrect? Can you point me at some actual numbers? -
frankly, if the current "push" business model that identifies and makes stars out of wankers like vanilla ice or britney spears dies, then the world would actually be a better place.
Too true. I still believe recorded music is better considered as an ad for live music. How many times have you heard someone say "they're not as good live" I used to hear it a lot back int the seventies and eighties and thought "yeah, because they have no talent and need the A&R man to make them sound good" then we got Milli Vanilli.
Yes Simon you're righteh????
The recording industry goes back to the 1890sBut the advent of the recording industry becoming a big money spinner did not happen until the sixties, previous to this, owning a record player was still a luxury and we just listened to the radio.
With more people owning the means to play recordings the industry took off and started playing the greedy corrupt games that they continue to play today. And now, they want to rip as much cash out of the "mug punters" before they have to give up the rotting corpse of the golden goose.
The fact is that the music recording/publishing industry has only been in existence for around fifty years, it is hardly an"established and respected" industry in the way we would refer to weavers and their attitude to the loom or the flying shuttle and they deserve nothing like the sympathy afforded to the Luddites -
NZ needs to invest in R&D green technologies, for a new economy.My money is on this.Energy technology will be the next great thing for the world.
Now, that is the most sensible thing I have heard, 'cept National wants us to stop helping out with anything like Research and Development, rid us of those "expensive" energy conservation measures and put a few bucks in our pockets to go out and spend to "stimulate the Economy" (presumably by buying imported goods, Tui moment)
We could start with something like this.Solar panels supplied at a small cost to each home through Govt loan scheme. Network interface enabled by private enterprise to connect homes to network Excess power generated by homes bought by generating companies and stored by pumping water back to lakes thus eliminating expensive batteries and control equipment.
-
So. As I see it. Fiscal policy is what the Minister of finance enacts with approval of cabinet. Monetary Policy is what the Governor of the Reserve bank enacts under legislation (Reserve bank Act)
and the Economy is controlled by an invisible hand. Yes, that all makes sense now ;-) -
Minister Responsible for the Economy, which we don't have.
Isn't that what we have the governor of the reserve bank for? Who is, kinda like a nod and a wink away from the Finance Minister, which is why the interest rates went up to slow the housing market. Is it not?
-
Sorry, Grant not Gran ;-)
-
As soon as I saw that "Razor Gang" headline I thought "How dumb do National think we are?" I reckon they must be going for the "Yoof" vote who would not remember what "Teh Razor Gang" was. Either way Gran is correct, the term sux big time and just illustrated Shon Key's lack of understanding. We don't actually want to slash bureaucrats literally.
-
Sorry Steve, thats not the median
Well bugger me.
I've been doing it that way for years with massive data sets, admittedly with relatively small standard deviations. I seem to remember being taught do do it that way in physics and it had something to do with divide and conquer. I haven't been pulled up on it before now. What a bright lot yo'all are. -
New Zealand Income Survey: June 2008 quarter – Media Release
Income growth moderate
In the June 2008 quarter, the median (half receive more, and half receive less than this amount) weekly income for all people from all sources was $537, Statistics New Zealand said today. This information comes from the annual New Zealand Income Survey, which is run during the June quarter (April to June). The survey provides a snapshot of income statistics on people and households.
The median weekly income of $537 represented an increase of 3.5 percent from the June 2007 quarter median of $519, and is the lowest annual percentage increase since the June 2003 quarter. Contributors to this growth were increases in female median weekly income from all sources (up 5.3 percent) and in median weekly income from wages and salaries (up 2.7 percent).
In the June 2008 quarter, median weekly wage and salary income was $729, up 2.7 percent from the June 2007 quarter. For males, the increase was 5.1 percent (to $863) and for females the increase was 4.3 percent (to $600). For those in full-time employment, median weekly wage and salary income increased for both males (up 4.4 percent) and females (up 2.3 percent).
Median hourly earnings for people receiving income from wages and salaries rose $0.75, up 4.2 percent to $18.75 from the June 2007 quarter. For males the rise was $0.90, up 4.7 percent to $20.00 per hour. For females the rise was $0.72, up 4.3 percent to $17.50 per hour. Since the June 2007 quarter, total hours worked decreased slightly, down 1.1 percent, while total income received from wages and salaries increased 3.6 percent.
Over the year, the proportion of people receiving investment income decreased from 38.0 percent to 34.2 percent. This proportion is similar to that of the June 2006 quarter, when it was 32.4 percent. While the proportion of people receiving investment income decreased, median weekly investment income for those receiving income from investments increased $5 (37.0 percent) from the June 2007 quarter.
Geoff Bascand
Government Statistician9 October 2008
ENDThere ya go.
-
Person 1 salary = $10,000
Person 2 salary = $10,000
Person 3 salary = $100,000
Average salary = $120,000 / 3 = $40,000
2 out of 3 people are below the average = two thirds of the population.In that scenario the median is $45,000
Highest = 100,000
Lowest = 10,000
100,000 - 10,000 = 90,000
90,000 /2 = 45,000