24th October 2008, 01:09 PM
I can only apologise and thank you for your efforts on my behalf.
I would like to say in my defence that I struggled with the numbers and found the report hard reading. I apologise about my obtuse uninformative irrelevant off-topic post
Often for me whats leftover after legitimate expenses is often under £10000. These expense include travel, subsistence, accommodation, equipment, insurances, and interest. From the report which had information from 80 self-employed individuals
The table shows that the medium was 14000 and the bottom 25% was less than 7000. I am in between. For some unknown reason they decided to discount so called salaries below £10000 to get averages for the sector and make comparisons with employed archaeologists.
It is the
I donât think that salary is the right term to use for self-employed archaeologists as income is highly variable. Cash flow is King. This is always one step away
http://www.myiva-adviser.com/blog/ivas-c...an-iva.php
I am glad that there were 80 respondents, obviously some were consultants but I think that the Institute for archaeologists might like to next time differentiate between net and gross figures, pre and post tax and might also like to consider that some are paying VAT.
Another band that seems to have been missed out is people who work as self-employed in their spare time unless there has been some misunderstanding in the survey.
And I am not sure how this means its all my fault
Sorry being possibly obtuse and uninformative again probably reflects my irreverence to formal quality systems. I presume a formal quality system might be a curator?
I would like to say in my defence that I struggled with the numbers and found the report hard reading. I apologise about my obtuse uninformative irrelevant off-topic post
Quote:quote:
Have the people who wrote this not heard of turnover. The ifa does not understand individuals who earn money from archaeology do they?
Often for me whats leftover after legitimate expenses is often under £10000. These expense include travel, subsistence, accommodation, equipment, insurances, and interest. From the report which had information from 80 self-employed individuals
Quote:quote:Earnings by self-employed archaeologists varied widely, as can be seen from the figures in Table 70. The maximum salary quoted by respondents for full-time self-employed archaeologists was £60,000 per annum, and the minimum was £5,000. It is difficult to explain the very low figures given for full-time self-employed workers, and these affect the mean and median figures for this group. If salaries below £10,000 were omitted from the calculations, the mean would be £22,657, and the median £16,334. On the basis of the figures provided by respondents, self-employed archaeologists are less well paid than full-time archaeologists in employment (although it must be noted that this is working from a very small sample size).
The table shows that the medium was 14000 and the bottom 25% was less than 7000. I am in between. For some unknown reason they decided to discount so called salaries below £10000 to get averages for the sector and make comparisons with employed archaeologists.
It is the
Quote:quote: It is difficult to explain the very low figures given for full-time self-employed workers, and these affect the mean and median figures for this group.statement that prompted my obtuse uninformative irrelevant post.
I donât think that salary is the right term to use for self-employed archaeologists as income is highly variable. Cash flow is King. This is always one step away
http://www.myiva-adviser.com/blog/ivas-c...an-iva.php
I am glad that there were 80 respondents, obviously some were consultants but I think that the Institute for archaeologists might like to next time differentiate between net and gross figures, pre and post tax and might also like to consider that some are paying VAT.
Another band that seems to have been missed out is people who work as self-employed in their spare time unless there has been some misunderstanding in the survey.
And I am not sure how this means its all my fault
Quote:quote: Trends
A lower proportion of organisations were using quality standards in 2007-08 than five years ago. It is not clear whether this reflects a real trend or whether more self-employed respondents, to whom formal quality systems may seem irrelevant, may have been included in the present survey.
Sorry being possibly obtuse and uninformative again probably reflects my irreverence to formal quality systems. I presume a formal quality system might be a curator?