🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <CDvroA.Ku1@odin.corp.sgi.com>, by robbp@healey_haven.esd.sgi.com (Robb Pryor):
> In article <27vqpv$pod@agate.berkeley.edu>, newman@garnet.berkeley.edu (Nathan Newman) writes:
> |> Actually, over the last twenty years, manufacturing employment and
> |> government employment have both decreased substantially.
> |> 
> |> To take California as an example, back in 1972, 20% of the population was
> |> employed at some level of government employment.  By 1991, only 16% of
> |> workers in the state were employed by government.
> |> 
> |> Despite all the rhetoric about "growing government", government has been
> |> shrinking as far as employment goes.
> 
> This is a good example of statistics not telling the whole story.
> What was the population of the state of California in 1972 and 1991?  If
> the population grew less than 4% in that 19 year period. Then the above
> statement might be valid.  If, however, the population has grown more than
> 4%, then in terms of absolute numbers, the number of people employed has
> grown even if the percentage is less.
> -- 

This is a good example of twisted reasoning AND bad algebra.

First of all, statistics about the population are nearly always scaled
to the total, because percent is the simplest and usually most meaningful
characterization of ranking or relative size. It doesn't make sense to
talk about number of employed people, number of children, number of cars, etc.
without comparing to total population.

Secondly, population would have to grow by 25%, not 4%. Number of govt.
workers:
    N(1972) = Pop(1972) * 0.20
    N(1991) = Pop(1991) * 0.16
If the absolute size of govt. remains the same, then N(1972) = N(1991).
Using simple algebra you get the relation between the two population
figures: 1991/1972 = 1.25

Glenn Nelson, Megatest, San Jose
gnelson@megatest.com
Phone: 408-441-3014