Wow. Just wow. Is there really a mistake this big here?
Yup TFA is misleading and arguably plain incorrect.
If you make $200K in L.A. and $300K in SV, you need to use seriously creative math to deduce that: "How Much Less Do Techies Get Paid Outside the Bay? -50%".
Literally TFA says you're paid "minus 50% less".
Negatives (in both sentences and numbers) are a bitch, especially when there are two negatives or more.
TFA should say "How much more would you get paid by moving to The Bay?" and not use negative percentage.
(raw median)
"How much more would a L.A. dev ($200K) make by moving to The Bay ($300K)? 50% more"
The fault goes deeper; they say X percent less counted in percentage points of the compared thing and not the baseline. If you then have multiple rows, the uselessness becomes evident.
Is it some cultural or linguistical thing where it always has to be X amount more or less and never "Y% of"?
Comments
Yup TFA is misleading and arguably plain incorrect.
If you make $200K in L.A. and $300K in SV, you need to use seriously creative math to deduce that: "How Much Less Do Techies Get Paid Outside the Bay? -50%".
Literally TFA says you're paid "minus 50% less".
Negatives (in both sentences and numbers) are a bitch, especially when there are two negatives or more.
TFA should say "How much more would you get paid by moving to The Bay?" and not use negative percentage.
(raw median)
"How much more would a L.A. dev ($200K) make by moving to The Bay ($300K)? 50% more"
That'd be clearer.
The fault goes deeper; they say X percent less counted in percentage points of the compared thing and not the baseline. If you then have multiple rows, the uselessness becomes evident.
Is it some cultural or linguistical thing where it always has to be X amount more or less and never "Y% of"?