Baroness Thatcher has died.

Castiel · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:24

BuffetSlayer said:
Yes certainly

The direct link to the page is LINK

You can use the menu at the top to go back as many tiers as you like as well as perform a fresh search.

I will point out that there seems to be an editing mistake on the page as there are some questions relating to the HSWA 1874 inserted in the middle!

Also, maths is not my strong point, so I am still trying to understand whether the table puts miners wages at 125% above that of manufacturing (IE over double the gross pay) or whether the 125% figure suggests they were 25% above manufacturing wages.

Thanks, I think it will depend on what they consider is the average wage of manufacturing..there is some debate amongst sources just what the average national wage was, it ranges from £80-£130....so it could be either.

BuffetSlayer · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:26

newbiejim said:
LOL, ooooooooooooo so you're not sure eh, BUT you stridently ventured this in your post?, you two are now becoming a laughing stock, you have spent god knows how many hours desperately trying to build a case to prove an unprovable claim lol.

It's like when Time Team find a small piece of pottery and they extrapolate a full roman temple from it lol

Why the attack? I was being honest about my own failings as a mathematician.

I am sure someone will be along to give more of a viable answer on whether the figures are to be seen as 125% more or 25% more.

Either way it shows miners did earn more, and if the former then substantially more.

Thanks

Castiel · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:27

newbiejim said:
My point is your brother in arms is comparing miners wages to average wages, my guess is Dimple is a good honest working class man (I mean that genuinely btw) and therefore his wage may well be pertinent. You follow?

not really, as his wage, if representative of a good honest working mans average wage in stoke in the early 1980s is substantially lower (less that half) than the average wage quoted for a miner by buffetslayer and dampdog, so it would support Dimple's argument rather than impede it.

SexyGreyFox · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:27

Castiel said:
Dimple was not a miner though, so your point is?

After newbiejim's posts I honestly don't know if I was a Miner or not. He's battered my brain. Give up Castiel unless you can find 100 ex Miners from Stoke who you can transport up to his house and they can tell him face to face but he'll probably call them out because they now have 'no proof'.

Biohazard · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:28

BuffetSlayer said:
Either way it shows miners did earn more, and if the former then substantially more.

and?

newbiejim · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:30

BuffetSlayer said:
Why the attack? I was being honest about my own failings as a mathematician.

I am sure someone will be along to give more of a viable answer on whether the figures are to be seen as 125% more or 25% more.

Either way it shows miners did earn more, and if the former then substantially more.

Thanks

You and Castiel have attempted to bully me for pages of this thread, forgive me if I take a little pleasure from this

newbiejim · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:31

Castiel said:
not really, as his wage, if representative of a good honest working mans average wage in stoke in the early 1980s is substantially lower (less that half) than the average wage quoted for a miner by buffetslayer and dampdog, so it would support Dimple's argument rather than impede it.

But not the wild claims, BY A COUNTRY MILE.

Keep digging, next up?

BuffetSlayer · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:31

Biohazard said:
and?

Well, for one, part of the discussion has been on whether peoples perceptions of miners being 'greedy' had any validity. So it is pertinent to that.

Secondly part of the discussion had been on whether it was realistic for a miner to be taking home substantially more than other industries, but most had trouble finding any figures.

I managed to find some so added them to the discussion.

Robbo · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:32

newbiejim said:
You and Castiel have attempted to bully me for pages of this thread, forgive me if I take a little pleasure from this

I think that's your own siege mentality, unfortunately. It's like you're reading totally different posts to everyone else.

Castiel · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:33

BuffetSlayer said:
Why the attack? I was being honest about my own failings as a mathematician.

I am sure someone will be along to give more of a viable answer on whether the figures are to be seen as 125% more or 25% more.

Either way it shows miners did earn more, and if the former then substantially more.

Thanks

the question asked initially asks by which percentage they exceeded the average, would imply that the figures are indeed the percentage they above the average, so substantial. I agree it is a little ambiguous in reply however.

Mr. Hannam asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage by which average miners' wages exceeded average male wages in manufacturing industry in each year between 1979–80 and 1982–83; and what was the corresponding figure in each year between 1974–75 and 1978–79.

Either way it is clear that Miners were very well paid on average compared to their peers.

Castiel · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:34

newbiejim said:
You and Castiel have attempted to bully me for pages of this thread, forgive me if I take a little pleasure from this

We are bullying you? give over...no one is trying to bully you, for the most part we have been trying to have a civil conversation.

newbiejim said:
But not the wild claims, BY A COUNTRY MILE.

Keep digging, next up?

Indeed, but then I did not say they were representative of the figure I have already conceded on...many many posts ago....it still illustrates that Dimples claims were not so wild after all though.

Robbo said:
I think that's your own siege mentality, unfortunately. It's like you're reading totally different posts to everyone else.

Quite.

Dimple said:
After newbiejim's posts I honestly don't know if I was a Miner or not. He's battered my brain. Give up Castiel unless you can find 100 ex Miners from Stoke who you can transport up to his house and they can tell him face to face but he'll probably call them out because they now have 'no proof'.

Indeed, for what it is worth, the weight of evidence, such as it is, does support your opinion.

BuffetSlayer · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:34

newbiejim said:
You and Castiel have attempted to bully me for pages of this thread, forgive me if I take a little pleasure from this

OK, let me stop you there. You are entering into unfounded accusations now.

I can only speak for myself but I have in no way bullied you. If you feel I have then please report it to a moderator instead of making such claims to sully my character and reputation.

Thank you.

newbiejim · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:35

Robbo said:
I think that's your own siege mentality, unfortunately. It's like you're reading totally different posts to everyone else.

You mean like when you call people idiots?

Biohazard · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:35

BuffetSlayer said:
Well, for one, part of the discussion has been on whether peoples perceptions of miners being 'greedy' had any validity. So it is pertinent to that.

Secondly part of the discussion had been on whether it was realistic for a miner to be taking home substantially more than other industries, but most had trouble finding any figures.

I managed to find some so added them to the discussion.

Yes, but it's entirely subjective isn't it. It seems to work on the premise that working class people aren't allowed to be 'greedy / earn more than average' or be subsidised by the state; now we have a system where a minority are 'greedy /earn more than average' and have unequivocal state sponsorship and support?

We seem to be arguing one side, or the other, without trying to discuss the 'flip'.

Biohazard · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:36

Guys seriously knock this on the head, it's balls and serves no real purpose now.

Robbo · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:36

newbiejim said:
You mean like when you call people idiots?

If I'd called anyone an idiot I'd be suspended. I may have said some people said idiotic things, but that's different.

You have a blatant siege mentality, it's a shame you can't see it.

newbiejim · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:37

BuffetSlayer said:
OK, let me stop you there. You are entering into unfounded accusations now.

I can only speak for myself but I have in no way bullied you. If you feel I have then please report it to a moderator instead of making such claims to sully my character and reputation.

Thank you.

In my opinion you two have went to inordinate lengths in an attempt to prove me wrong, my perception is that you both are NOT acting reasonably, why oh why when the average wage is quoted as £165 can you two not simply forget it, remember we started at £800.

newbiejim · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:38

Biohazard said:
Yes, but it's entirely subjective isn't it. It seems to work on the premise that working class people aren't allowed to be 'greedy / earn more than average' or be subsidised by the state; now we have a system where a minority are 'greedy /earn more than average' and have unequivocal state sponsorship and support?

We seem to be arguing one side, or the other, without trying to discuss the 'flip'.

Thank you my friend.

BuffetSlayer · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:41

Biohazard said:
Yes, but it's entirely subjective isn't it. It seems to work on the premise that working class people aren't allowed to be 'greedy / earn more than average' or be subsidised by the state; now we have a system where a minority are 'greedy /earn more than average' and have unequivocal state sponsorship and support?

We seem to be arguing one side, or the other, without trying to discuss the 'flip'.

Yes, fair comments.

Would you like to start the discussion of the 'flip'?

newbiejim · 12 Apr 2013 at 19:41

Robbo said:
If I'd called anyone an idiot I'd be suspended. I may have said some people said idiotic things, but that's different.

You have a blatant siege mentality, it's a shame you can't see it.

I thought someone said you called them an idiot a few posts ago, if that is not true then I apologise.