More 0 hours workers than ever..

[unbeliever]

¿

I like not these facts! I shall devise my own facts!

I shall then hunt high or for hypothetical room for interpretation in the real facts and use this an an excuse to reject them in favour of my good facts.

I shall now proceed to refer to your facts as "biased", "deeply flawed", or "open to interpretation" whenever they are mentioned so as to incrementally invalidate them without cause.

That done I demand equal status be granted to my "good facts" and your "real facts" as I can now assert that you have not provided absolute proof.

By false equivalence I assert that views which do not have absolute proof are equally likely to be correct.

Hah!

¿

[PeteMorris]

¿

I like not these facts! I shall devise my own facts!

I shall then hunt high or for hypothetical room for interpretation in the real facts and use this an an excuse to reject them in favour of my good facts.

I shall now proceed to refer to your facts as "biased", "deeply flawed", or "open to interpretation" whenever they are mentioned so as to incrementally invalidate them without cause.

That done I demand equal status be granted to my "good facts" and your "real facts" as I can now assert that you have not provided absolute proof.

By false equivalence I assert that views which do not have absolute proof are equally likely to be correct.

Hah!

¿

 

That's just utter gobbledegook...I merely expressed my scepticism....Are you never sceptical about 'anything'?...Your acceptance that there isn't a problem based on a single small dataset..From the same source with monotonous regularity..Just because it's data...Just seems a bit odd.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2017 at 09:46 ----------

 

Plus of course, even if the survey was accurate, it's not that relevant.

 

The people who can't exist on ZHCs (those with mortgages, family commitments etc) wouldn't have figured in the survey as they wouldn't be on ZHCs.

 

That leaves people without mortgages and family commitments, who, due to their lack of mortgage and family commitments, will tend to be happier people due to lack of crushing stress.

 

There 'are' people who are honestly trying to make a living on a ZHC's...

[unbeliever]

That's just utter gobbledegook...I merely expressed my scepticism....Are you never sceptical about 'anything'?...Your acceptance that there isn't a problem based on a single small dataset..From the same source with monotonous regularity..Just because it's data...Just seems a bit odd.

 

Data is facts. You seek to reject them.

You propose wilful bias, but provide no evidence.

You suggest statistical insignificance, when the 95% confidence margin of error is few percent at most.

 

Data is just the measurement and recording of fact. Yes I believe in data. Why don't you?

Would you reject these data if they agreed with you?

 

You're not expressing healthy scepticism. You're hunting for justification to reject the facts and proceed with your established views. It's a perfectly natural human response, but it makes you wrong.

[Cyclone]

¿

I like not these facts! I shall devise my own facts!

I shall then hunt high or for hypothetical room for interpretation in the real facts and use this an an excuse to reject them in favour of my good facts.

I shall now proceed to refer to your facts as "biased", "deeply flawed", or "open to interpretation" whenever they are mentioned so as to incrementally invalidate them without cause.

That done I demand equal status be granted to my "good facts" and your "real facts" as I can now assert that you have not provided absolute proof.

By false equivalence I assert that views which do not have absolute proof are equally likely to be correct.

Hah!

¿

 

If you didn't like these particular facts you'd probably be asking for a peer reviewed, published paper. A potentially biased survey, from a group with a clear bias is definitely not the gold standard of evidence. Although I acknowledge the fact that no counter surveys have been published by the TUC or other bodies with bias in the opposite direction.

[PeteMorris]

Data is facts. You seek to reject them.

You propose wilful bias, but provide no evidence.

You suggest statistical insignificance, when the 95% confidence margin of error is few percent at most.

 

Data is just the measurement and recording of fact. Yes I believe in data. Why don't you?

Would you reject these data if they agreed with you?

 

You're not expressing healthy scepticism. You're hunting for justification to reject the facts and proceed with your established views. It's a perfectly natural human response, but it makes you wrong.

 

Pardon me if I'm wrong...If you assert that your 'data' is fact...I just wonder how 'fact' can be derived from a subjective notion as happiness?

 

On a scale of one to ten, I feel I'm on perhaps a 7?...yesterday I think it might have been 6...

 

It's subjective.

[Cyclone]

Data is facts. You seek to reject them.

You propose wilful bias, but provide no evidence.

You suggest statistical insignificance, when the 95% confidence margin of error is few percent at most.

 

Data is just the measurement and recording of fact. Yes I believe in data. Why don't you?

Would you reject these data if they agreed with you?

 

You're not expressing healthy scepticism. You're hunting for justification to reject the facts and proceed with your established views. It's a perfectly natural human response, but it makes you wrong.

 

Data "are"... Data is a plural.

That aside, you know full well that surveys can be misleading, although I'm not saying that this one necessarily is. Without looking closely at the methodology it's impossible to say whether the results of these surveys are without bias.

The survey and analysis certainly hasn't come from a body with a neutral perspective though has it. So believing it as fact without some scepticisms is probably naeve.

[unbeliever]

If you didn't like these particular facts you'd probably be asking for a peer reviewed, published paper. A potentially biased survey, from a group with a clear bias is definitely not the gold standard of evidence. Although I acknowledge the fact that no counter surveys have been published by the TUC or other bodies with bias in the opposite direction.

 

In the absence of such a study, this is the best data available.

And it absolutely wipes the floor with random anecdotes.

Even considering the potential systematic uncertainties it is obvious that ZHCs are not a universal recipe for exploitation and to ban them would be profoundly wrong.

 

And I know data are plural. I slip sometimes, but you can see in my other posts I'm aware of the proper convention.

[Cyclone]

Pardon me if I'm wrong...If you assert that your 'data' is fact...I just wonder how 'fact' can be derived from a subjective notion as happiness?

 

On a scale of one to ten, I feel I'm on perhaps a 7?...yesterday I think it might have been 6...

 

It's subjective.

 

It can be measured though across population, on a self reporting basis. Being subjective doesn't invalidate that you feel quite happy today and slightly less yesterday.

[unbeliever]

Pardon me if I'm wrong...If you assert that your 'data' is fact...I just wonder how 'fact' can be derived from a subjective notion as happiness?

 

On a scale of one to ten, I feel I'm on perhaps a 7?...yesterday I think it might have been 6...

 

It's subjective.

 

So. Humans on both contract types and of both opinions all answered on the same basis. The subjectivity cancels out.

[Cyclone]

In the absence of such a study, this is the best data available.

And it absolutely wipes the floor with random anecdotes.

Even considering the potential systematic uncertainties it is obvious that ZHCs are not a universal recipe for exploitation and to ban them would be profoundly wrong.

 

Nobody is arguing for a ban are they? Isn't the argument for stronger protection of workers rights and/or legislation to encourage fixed or minimum hours when it would be appropriate?