Is four out of ten the majority?

[Hub_n_mona]

Can't seem to find the online website address or link but today's (Saturday, 25 April 2009) Straits Times carried a story with a headline (from my memory)

 

Four Out Of Ten Laid Off Are Foreigners; Foreigners bearing the brunt for the downturn

 

Not trying to bash foreigners here or start a FT v locals thingy here.

 

My issue is with the headline..there should be a better way to spin it.

 

If four out of ten are foreigners, it means that six out of ten laid off are locals. Who then is bearing the brunt (main force/impact) for the downturn?

Edited April 25, 2009 by Hub_n_mona

[Blue-winter]

BO Bian lah.....we all local sway ma....

 

Tio 4D or Tio toto also never so accurate lah....

 

Lan Par par lan lah....

[Nutsack]

I think this should explain why 4/10 is considered majority:

 

Imagine that there's a total of 100 workers in the whole Singapore economy. 80 of these 100 workers are local. The remainder - 20 workers - are foreigners.

 

So, out of these 100 workers, 10 of them are retrenched because of the recession; a 10% retrenchment rate in the Singaporen economy.

 

Then consider, of these 10 retrenched workers, 4 are foreigners, therefore 6 are local.

 

So from these figures we can say, 4 out of the 20 foreigners were retrenched - a 20% retrenchment rate for foreigners in Singapore.

 

And we can also say 6 out of the 80 locals were retrenched - a 7.5% retrenchment rate for locals.

 

So when you compared 20% retrenchment rate amongst foreigners vs 7.5% retrenchment rate for locals, then the "Four out of ten majority - foreigners taking the brunt" headline does make sense.

 

BUT that said, the journalist perhaps would like to ask him or herself whether such roundabout calculations is "instinctive" to readers, and also decide whether a widely-read publication should keep its readers' in mind when they write their stories, or should readers adhere to writers' journalistic style instead. Or perhaps there's a more sinister agenda - though such conspiracy theories are hard to justify.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Nutsack

[Hondacrv]

http://news.asiaone.com/News/the%2BStraits...425-137384.html

 

4 in 10 laid off last year were foreigners

 

 

Sat, Apr 25, 2009

The Straits Times

 

 

 

By Zakir Hussain

 

FOUR out of 10 workers laid off last year were foreigners, according to the latest figures from the Manpower Ministry (MOM).

 

The proportion is a 10-year high, and analysts say it shows that, contrary to popular belief, Singaporeans have not unfairly borne the brunt of layoffs in the current recession.

 

'A lot of foreigners are employed in lower-skilled service industries, which slowed down in the later part of last year, so they have been affected,' said Nanyang Technological University economist Choy Keen Meng.

 

 

 

[Sosaria]

Can't seem to find the online website address or link but today's (Saturday, 25 April 2009) Straits Times carried a story with a headline (from my memory)

 

Four Out Of Ten Laid Off Are Foreigners; Foreigners bearing the brunt for the downturn

 

Not trying to bash foreigners here or start a FT v locals thingy here.

 

My issue is with the headline..there should be a better way to spin it.

 

If four out of ten are foreigners, it means that six out of ten laid off are locals. Who then is bearing the brunt (main force/impact) for the downturn?

 

IMHO, the article is saying that 4 out of 10 is quite close to the ratio of foreign to local workers in Singapore. So if the ratio of foreigners being retrenched is similar to the ratio of foreigners in the total workforce - it means that the retrenchment trend is "blind" and makes no distinction and discrimination between foreigners or locals. Everyone is equally at risk.

 

But the way they wrote, esp the header, is very confusing... I'm surprised the editor can let it through. The data does not imply that foreigners are bearing the brunt; it just only shows that both foreigners and locals face equal chances of being retrenched.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Sosaria

[Tangowhisky]

Sory my math not very good.....4 in 10 is FT.........then the remaining 6 in 10 is Singaporean lah.......hmmmm??????

[Hub_n_mona]

if comparing by retrenchment rate, then it might be logical..

that was not mentioned..

even then, using the headline "Four out of Ten laid off are foreigners; foreigners bearing the brunt of the downturn" is quite misleading..

the reverse is also true..

 

"Six out of ten laid off are Singaporeans. Foreigners bearing brunt of downturn"

 

?!?!?!

[Hub_n_mona]

Thanks for that. The Straits Times article is much longer and also carries

"Foreigners bearing the brunt of the downturn"

 

I took brunt to mean the majority of the burden..

[Hub_n_mona]

exactly..

who's bearing the brunt?

the six out of ten (locals)?

[Sha_va]

The foreigners going back still can live in leisure in their hometown coz of currency rate, standard of living etc. Then locals?

[Alpha78]

4 in 10 retrenched are foreigners = foreigners bearing the brunt. Just like how they say 66.6% is a good mandate.

 

 

[Ender]

Think loading ratio and dppm..