Wait, something's off here. Total compensation climbs 3.5%, but every single component shows higher gains? Wages up more than that. Benefits up more than that. So how exactly does the overall number land lower than all its parts? The math isn't mathing. Either someone's playing with the weighting formula, or we're looking at a statistical anomaly that deserves a closer look. Anyone else catching this?
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
9 Likes
Reward
9
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
BearMarketBarber
· 12-11 12:21
Ngl, these numbers are indeed suspicious. The total count is actually the lowest? There must be something fishy with the weighting formula.
View OriginalReply0
CommunityWorker
· 12-10 18:18
This data has been manipulated; the weights must have been tampered with.
View OriginalReply0
NullWhisperer
· 12-10 18:18
nah wait the weighting scheme's gotta be cooked here. can't just have all parts go up and the whole thing shrink lmao
Reply0
RektRecorder
· 12-10 18:17
ngl, this data is suspicious. Some have higher increases, but overall it’s lower? Who's manipulating things?
Wait, something's off here. Total compensation climbs 3.5%, but every single component shows higher gains? Wages up more than that. Benefits up more than that. So how exactly does the overall number land lower than all its parts? The math isn't mathing. Either someone's playing with the weighting formula, or we're looking at a statistical anomaly that deserves a closer look. Anyone else catching this?