Martin Locock Wrote:I think it would help readers to understand the survey better if it were called a survey of jobs advertised in British archaeology - although there must be some correlation between this and typical pay for those in post, the relationship isn't a simple one.
Actually it is. Here is some work I did a year ago on the subject of job posting relating to pay:
http://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/20...-be-right/
Average long term pay and average advertisement of pay lines up very nicely. Of course there is some fluctuation from year to year with job adverts but over all it is a nice solid fit.
Unless someone finds fault with my work (open to any suggestions of improvements or concern with numbers) the AVERAGES (can't stress enough that average is not what someone actually gets paid, but it tells you roughly what pay is, also I have distributions in there to show the range) line up and there is an incredibly strong correlation.
Of course these are the advertised rates and some people pay less or more but with sampling you get a rough estimate of pay.
In case anyone is wondering how this is possible, simple, most archaeology jobs are temp. excavator, supervisor, project officer. Who has held one of these jobs for more than five years with the same company? 5% 1% .0001% if you are moving jobs you getting paid the going rate.
Government jobs are even better. You get mandatory raises most times above inflation, (not counting the last few years of course) so even if you have had the same job for the last 20 yrs you are doing just fine. But even then, who does not move up the latter a little bit? e.g. apply for a new job and get that new pay?