hi Amy J,
When you use the reporter's $5k figure, you get the inaccurate statement that it's as high as 10X's the national average. It's not as high as 10X's the national average, because it's an inaccurate figure to begin with.
thanks for your reply, but i'm not sure it's proving the point you want to prove. if i understand you, you're saying:
1. the "best engineers in India" do not make 5K; they make more (perhaps a lot more).
2. the "best engineers in India" make less than 10X the national average of $0.24 per hour (this assumes you take the BLS stat on India's average wage as true, and i don't see why we should not).
obviously, if 1 is true, then these engineers make well in excess of 10x the national average. conversely, you may have meant that the "best engineers in India" make LESS than 5K (after all, you only said 5K was inaccurate; not whether it was low or high; though i assume you meant the figure was too low in 1).
IF you actually meant the best engineers in India make (substantially) less than 5K (and hence do not make 10x the national average), well, maybe that's true (Lizzy probably doesn't think so) and maybe it's not, but if it IS true, then that seems to have even worse implications for US engineers, since their wage competitiveness is accordingly poorer.
could you clarify regarding your meaning of 5K being inaccurate? i.e., do you mean the best engineers in india make more, or less, than 5K? and why do you think so? and if you mean they make more, would you not agree with me that, mathematically speaking, they must therefore be making in excess of 10x the national average?
TIA... |
