Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Kevin Page's misleading statistics


This, my friends, is why the proper use of statistics is important:


I’ve surveyed my colleagues and a few other friends who work in the Public Service.  We’re pretty sure we’re not seeing about $70,000 from what Kevin Page says we should be.

But what is Page really saying?  He’s saying the average public servant makes that much.  Here’s his math:

$43.8 Billion / 375,500 = $116,644
Federal government’s human resources budget / number of federal employees = $114,100

(Page’s calculations also include the cost savings of early severance payouts, resulting in the $2544 difference)

Simple, right?  Wrong!

Such is the easily misleading opportunity presented when looking for an average rather than the mode.  The mode, in simple statistics, is the number which occurs most frequently.  In other words, what Page should be presenting is what most public servants cost taxpayers, which should be significantly less than $114,100 per year.

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, most public servants make $60,000 per year.  Even adding in pensions, medical and dental coverage, and other minor human resources expenditures, it’s incredibly unlikely that most employees are costing Canadians upwards of six figures per year.

Page's suggestion is a deliberate attempt to lump in an EX-05 (making $198,300) with an AS-01 (making $30,375).  The average between these two people is $114,338, but knowing this neither sufficiently accounts for the person making $200,000 nor the entry-level employee making 15% of that.

All employees do not cost the same – not even close.  What’s probably happening here is the top 20% of earners accounting for over $300,000 in expenditures each, with the vast majority certainly not benefiting or raking in over $114,000 per year.

Page, an educated individual, certainly knows this.  But his office’s pursuit for outrageous attention-grabbing headlines is apparently more important than providing accurate, relevant data.

8 comments:

  1. Also, with a top heavy civil service, any cuts would impact the number of entry level employees since those with the least seniority would be laid off first.
    The effect is also to distort the average upward.

    Page seems to imply that as the civil service shrinks it becomes more expensive to run.
    That is bad statistics.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is not bad stats it's just stating that mode>average. More grasping by Tory partisans for anything to discredit the Kevin Page.

    ReplyDelete
  3. my wife has worked for dnd for 38 years. she is a low level clerk and makes 40k a year. when she retires she will get a modest pension, i would not try and live on it. she will also have the oas clawed back which other wrokers in canada do not experience. if cuts are needed i would say those making over 150k should be among the first of the useless paper pushers in ottawa to go.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Keep in mind this is not there not limited to Ottawa there are 350,000 workers Canada wide out of that 160,000 are in Ottawa.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And what of Page himself; he no doubt works for a salary which comes out of public expenditure. He should be upfront concerning his salary.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If Mr. Page was releasing a report based on that statistical analysis then absolutely he would be misleading. However, he was talking about the average salary for public sector workers.

    Do a search on ANY employment category, and it will always be presented as an average - from a plumber, to a police officer, firefighter to a public servant.

    Grasping at straws here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's pretty obvious that you don't know anything about workers and working. I have a clue for you; the cost of an employee isn't just the money you pay the employee. There are other costs involved as well.

    Like seriously, dude, the money you pay a worker is not the only thing you spend on a worker, no matter what the line of work is, unless maybe you've got them working for you under the table. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not grasping at straws here.
    Reporting the average cost per employee is not the same as reporting the average salary.
    Or even the salary that most government employees make.
    It's a headline designed to stick in people's minds that the average civil servant makes $114K.

    It's the same as when GM and Chrysler employees were being characterized as earning sixty to seventy dollars an hour in wages and benefits.
    The common perception was that they were taking home that money.

    It's not partisan to point out statistical misrepresentation whether it's the costs of government employees or autoworkers.

    ReplyDelete