Not so black and white

This years employment brief has been released and will likely be a focus as I’m able to find time over the coming days to review it.

The Royal Gazette has already jumped on the earnings gap between black and white workers by opening their coverage with “The average salary of white workers is 40 percent higher than blacks, according to a recent employment survey.”  This reflects poor reporting because the implications of the differences in racial demographics of Bermudians vs. Non-Bermudians are not made clear.  Thus Bermudians could potentially be falsely led to believe that the racial earnings gap is a lot larger than it is when the sheer percentage of white non-Bermudians who are brought to the island massively tip the scale.  The Royal Gazette can do better than this.

It is also a failure on the part of the employment brief (just as we highlighted with past Cure Reporting) to not identify racial earnings based upon Bermudians vs. Non-Bermudians.  The reason being that the majority of Bermudians are black while the majority of non-Bermudians are white and yet the level and type of jobs held by Bermudians vs. non-Bermudians, especially by race, are quite different.  This is also the reason why Bermudians median income lies at $51,976 while non-Bermudian median income lies at $65,316.  Let us also note that this is median and not average which means the person in the middle of the group not the average salary taking the total and dividing by all members.  In the case of average salary the numbers would likely be even more skewed.

To get a better idea lets look at some hard numbers by taking a look at data available from the Annual Review of the Workforce Survey Report 2006 (used for comparison, it’s the latest one I have on hand and no others are online yet) and take a look at Gross Annual Income by Race and Bermudian Status, 2006.

image

Note that the sheer number of Black Bermudians skew the chart and outpace anything else in the lower 3 categories of pay ranges from less than $23,999 to $60,000 – $95,000.

Let’s again look at this in % comparison

image

Note how white non-Bermudians dominate the upper pay ranges while Black Bermudians dominate the lower pay ranges.

To make things clearer let us first compare Bermudians and then compare non-Bermudians alone.

image

So here we have Gross Annual Income By Race for Bermudians only.  This is where we need to focus our attention on discrepancies of where the percentage distribution does not match general demographics.  We cannot expect Bermudians to measure up equally against the best and brightest of the rest of the world and thus the fairest comparison is to compare Bermudians to Bermudians.

Now let’s look at non-Bermudians

image

Note how much white non-Bermudians skew the upper portions of the pay scale.  How can we honestly simply compare black and white when not taking Bermudian/non-Bermudian into consideration?

For those wondering why the earnings gap exists between the races we covered that back in November 2007.  As we concluded the earnings gap between the races statistically (there is still the potential for racism to be a factor as to why people holding the same qualifications make different amounts of money, though those kind of stats are not available to my knowledge) comes down to profession which subsequently comes down to education

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by . Bookmark the permalink.

7
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
7 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
DenisPitts BayTryangleChristianNioe Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Wookie
Guest

Nicely put old son! I couldn’t agree more with the RG’s misleading Headline.
W

Nioe
Guest
Nioe

Headline’s like that play into the hands of those who wish to use race to divide to country. There is something wrong with the distribution of wealth yes and that should be looked into of course but, to misuse the statistics at hand and therefore unintentionally (I hope) exaggerate the situation does nothing to help racial tensions.
I’m glad you’ve taken the time to really take a look at the statistics. I was wondering myself whether Non Bermudians had been included and if that skewed the statistics and now I have my answer.

Christian
Guest
Christian

The top level numbers tell us nothing except that we have an immigration policy which protects positions for Bermudians. The outcome of this is expats fill positions that Bermudians are unqualified or unwilling to perform. The unable means higher compensation to the expat. The unwilling means they go to low paid foreign workers from poorer countries. The high earning expats dramatically skew the average because we’re throwing in CEO’s of billion publicly traded corporations who make many millions a year. So these stats tell us nothing other than confirming the structure of our immigration laws. Comparisons by job position would… Read more »

Tryangle
Guest

These are good charts that tell a deeper story than the simplistic whites make 40% more headline.
Also, I know there are valid reasons why median income is used instead of mean because of bloated salaries at the top, but isn’t it still a bit misleading? Especially since the Gazette switches quickly back and forth between the two sets of values.

Denis
Guest

Actually I clarified median vs. average (mean) to allude to the Gazette’s usage. “While Bermudians rake in an average of $51,976 and Permanent Residents $56,769, non-Bermudians earn a median annual income of $65,316.” Unfortunately I don’t think the author of the article understands the difference between median and mean because in the actual employment brief mean is primarily used and I’m not sure average is ever provided. As Christian suggests the stats alone are not very useful unless they’re broken down by job position. Ideally we would see the stats broken down by job position, race, Bermudian status and education… Read more »

Pitts Bay
Guest
Pitts Bay

I am not a statitician, but why do they use bands like:
$24,000 – $59,000
$60,000 – $95,000
$96,000 – $155,999
Greater than $156,000
instead of
$25,000 – $49,999
$50,000 – $99,999
$100,000 – $149,999
Greater than $150,000
Do they try and adjust the visual results by doing this, or is there some real rationale
Just wondering.

Denis
Guest

Pitts Bay,
That’s actually my fault. I had to retype out everything by hand and in doing so wrote the numbers wrong on the charts. The right half of the numbers should end in 999.