If he is worth his salt, he would include in his "analysis" that there are inherent errors in coming to a conclusion in respect of the current state of affairs when using data that is 5 to 15 years old. He tries to be "academic" in his approach, but then does a shoddy job by failing to fully factor in and explain errors, which is a fundamental principle in scientific theory.
As for bagging the World Bank data and statistics. The World Bank gets its data from the ABS, the very body where he sources data to support his conclusions.
I'm not going to go through and give you a full blown analysis of the problems in my method. I'm not here to write up a Lit Review, Method, Results, Discussion and finally an abstract. This isn't a research report. There are problems and limitations in every analysis. Mine is not perfect, but I do know one thing. Mine is based on the only current data available, not based on estimated data. I even said that. If you want to use scientific method, you eliminate variables as much as possible. You should know that. Basing statistics around an estimate is just asking for trouble. You should also know that.
:lol:
You think anyone's going to get offended on your behalf?
Your inflated opinion of yourself does you no favours...
What inflated opinion? I said that there were plenty of people on here who were better qualified than me. I said there were plenty of people I look up to. Just because I completely disagree with most of you gives you lot no right to question my integrity or qualifications. None whatsoever. I was asked for what qualifications I had and I gave them. All of them. Then you criticise me for putting them into practice. I point out that I am better qualified to talk about statistics than some people on here because I have been taught them. Yet you still argue that they are wrong despite me only talking about the very basic areas of statistics which you people should know if you had any idea what you were talking about.
you already have
you've offended everyone who never attended university
How? By saying that if someone has been taught something they are better qualified to talk about it? By getting upset when those that haven't gone to university still want to argue and don't want to listen when they clearly know f**k all about a topic, not even the basics? You know what the difference is between them and me? I am BOTH trade qualified AND degree qualified. Which makes others hypocrites. Or just plain stupid.