Correction related to a previous comment.
https://t.me/SwitzerlandFacts/12
The difference between 2 years in Allianz is 33.4k € (2017-2019) = 1.4k € each month (which seems a bit more realistic ...) or 51.5k € (2019-2021) = 2.1k € (which seems less realistic, considering the COVID crisis ... but people still wasting less money for useless things ...) and not 150k € like previously wrote (because we confused gross and net graphics).
Probably the biggest difference is that Credit Suisse is the only who is considering this:
2158329/5.463 means 395k as ø or 2158329/(5.463-1.261) 513k by excluding those with less than 1000 CHF
Meanwhile difference of 2 years is 100k $ vs. 51.5k €, which is still HUGE! between Credit Suisse and Allianz just as examples. Switzerland is reporting that people save around 753 CHF each month if they live alone and 2.2 - 2.3k if they live in 2 (with or without kids), means 1.1k CHF in 2017. This is pretty identical to 2011 where the values were 740 / 1800 (means if you live in a family you can save 200-250 CHF more in 6 years ...).
Of the 1.1 million households with children under 25 years (29% of households) one-sixth consist of lone parents, most often (83%) single mothers.
Let we say a person is saving 1000 CHF (between 1 and 2 people families), this means 12-13k each year.
So in conclusion: you cannot trust any type of stats you see, even the swiss stats are not 100% true, but for sure Credit Suisse is telling bullshit. Smart people don't keep money at Credit Suisse at all and they don't keep money just on one bank.
https://t.me/SwitzerlandFacts/12
The difference between 2 years in Allianz is 33.4k € (2017-2019) = 1.4k € each month (which seems a bit more realistic ...) or 51.5k € (2019-2021) = 2.1k € (which seems less realistic, considering the COVID crisis ... but people still wasting less money for useless things ...) and not 150k € like previously wrote (because we confused gross and net graphics).
Probably the biggest difference is that Credit Suisse is the only who is considering this:
2158329/5.463 means 395k as ø or 2158329/(5.463-1.261) 513k by excluding those with less than 1000 CHF
Meanwhile difference of 2 years is 100k $ vs. 51.5k €, which is still HUGE! between Credit Suisse and Allianz just as examples. Switzerland is reporting that people save around 753 CHF each month if they live alone and 2.2 - 2.3k if they live in 2 (with or without kids), means 1.1k CHF in 2017. This is pretty identical to 2011 where the values were 740 / 1800 (means if you live in a family you can save 200-250 CHF more in 6 years ...).
Of the 1.1 million households with children under 25 years (29% of households) one-sixth consist of lone parents, most often (83%) single mothers.
Let we say a person is saving 1000 CHF (between 1 and 2 people families), this means 12-13k each year.
So in conclusion: you cannot trust any type of stats you see, even the swiss stats are not 100% true, but for sure Credit Suisse is telling bullshit. Smart people don't keep money at Credit Suisse at all and they don't keep money just on one bank.
Most people simply trust ø data, without even thinking about what are the pros and contras of such values. Let we check now mean, mode, median and per capita. What do such datas really mean? See more in the comment - In summary such data are saying nothing helpful, are good just for comparison
Remember that ø data is saying anything about the real situation of each family. Especially because ø get huge influenced by people with high salaries.
1+3+4+6+6+7+8 = 35
Mean = 35/7 = 5
Median means (1 3 4) 6 (6 7 8) = in the middle, so not (1+3+4+6 = 14) 6 (7+8 = 15)
In case there is just 1x6 then we get (1 3) (4 6) (7 8) —> (4+6)/2 = 5 as median and /(1+3+4+6+7+8)/6 = 4.8 as mean
Average = the most shitty useless information on this planet! ø data is saying ANYTHING, like per capita or total! This happens even related to finance / CO2 pollution and all other aspects in your life.
Previously https://t.me/s/PollutionFacts/517 we talked about mean, mode and median, now let we go to the next step, talking about mean (= ø), total and per capita.
As you can see in this picture, total CO2 pollution from China is greater than USA, but a lot of traffic is available from China to USA. In the yellow graphic we can see how GDP in China increased a lot compared to years ago. 2000 there were 1.2 bio people, now 1.4 = 4.5x than USA (+0.058 bio in 23 years, GDP +29k 1.7x compared to +11k 12x in China)
Now let we check the per capita. China has a low per capita, considering the crazy population they have. Can we say that per capita pollution is a great way to measure pollution? Nope.
First per capita is the same shit like ø money you own used by Credit Suisse
https://t.me/s/FinanceFactsTelegram/302
https://t.me/s/FinanceFactsTelegram/314
https://t.me/s/FinanceFactsTelegram/324
because it's enough 3 people earn 30000000 mio, and the ø is already 💩. In such case the median is better https://t.me/s/FinanceFactsTelegram/332 but not perfect!
Remember that ø data is saying anything about the real situation of each family. Especially because ø get huge influenced by people with high salaries.
1+3+4+6+6+7+8 = 35
Mean = 35/7 = 5
Median means (1 3 4) 6 (6 7 8) = in the middle, so not (1+3+4+6 = 14) 6 (7+8 = 15)
In case there is just 1x6 then we get (1 3) (4 6) (7 8) —> (4+6)/2 = 5 as median and /(1+3+4+6+7+8)/6 = 4.8 as mean
Average = the most shitty useless information on this planet! ø data is saying ANYTHING, like per capita or total! This happens even related to finance / CO2 pollution and all other aspects in your life.
Previously https://t.me/s/PollutionFacts/517 we talked about mean, mode and median, now let we go to the next step, talking about mean (= ø), total and per capita.
As you can see in this picture, total CO2 pollution from China is greater than USA, but a lot of traffic is available from China to USA. In the yellow graphic we can see how GDP in China increased a lot compared to years ago. 2000 there were 1.2 bio people, now 1.4 = 4.5x than USA (+0.058 bio in 23 years, GDP +29k 1.7x compared to +11k 12x in China)
Now let we check the per capita. China has a low per capita, considering the crazy population they have. Can we say that per capita pollution is a great way to measure pollution? Nope.
First per capita is the same shit like ø money you own used by Credit Suisse
https://t.me/s/FinanceFactsTelegram/302
https://t.me/s/FinanceFactsTelegram/314
https://t.me/s/FinanceFactsTelegram/324
because it's enough 3 people earn 30000000 mio, and the ø is already 💩. In such case the median is better https://t.me/s/FinanceFactsTelegram/332 but not perfect!
ø is shit in all other topics too, because at the end is saying anything, it's just cool and nothing more.
Back to the pollution per capita. Ok, China has 1.4 mio people, BUT around 5% with less than 4 years, 12% with less than 14, 5% < 19, 19% < 35, 8.5% more than 70 years, 27% more than 50 years https://perma.cc/FT2J-95AG
So a baby or kid is for sure not polluting like a 50+ with tons of money ....
About money, about 1.7 mio people in China have more than 1.2 mio CHF https://perma.cc/ML38-X87E
Some studies are reporting "Air pollution in China is falling — but there is a long way to go". Forecast are saying a decrease too, so what US said "we do nothing, because China is doing nothing"
Back to the pollution per capita. Ok, China has 1.4 mio people, BUT around 5% with less than 4 years, 12% with less than 14, 5% < 19, 19% < 35, 8.5% more than 70 years, 27% more than 50 years https://perma.cc/FT2J-95AG
So a baby or kid is for sure not polluting like a 50+ with tons of money ....
About money, about 1.7 mio people in China have more than 1.2 mio CHF https://perma.cc/ML38-X87E
Some studies are reporting "Air pollution in China is falling — but there is a long way to go". Forecast are saying a decrease too, so what US said "we do nothing, because China is doing nothing"
perma.cc
China: population distribution by age group | Statista
As of 2021, the bulk of the Chinese population was aged between 25 and 59 years, amounting to more than half of the population.
Fact check: Is nuclear energy good for the climate? https://perma.cc/Y7Q2-J2FN
Nuclear and wind power estimated to have lowest levelized CO2 emissions https://perma.cc/B7FG-85GU
Kernenergie https://perma.cc/U3AV-C2WS
Im Mai 2017 haben die Stimmbürgerinnen und Stimmbürger das revidierte Energiegesetz anlässlich der Vorlage des ersten Massnahmenpakets zur Energiestrategie 2050 angenommen. Seit dem 1. Januar 2018 ist damit die Erteilung von neuen Rahmenbewilligungen für Kernkraftwerke verboten https://perma.cc/L4SQ-FG3M
Ausstieg https://perma.cc/23AG-N2HP
Atomausstiegsinitiative: FAQ https://perma.cc/U7Y8-KHZY
Weltweite Kernenergienutzung https://perma.cc/7F8D-VQ7E
Energiestrategie 2050 https://perma.cc/GT7P-C2L2
Zudem wird der Bau neuer Kernkraftwerke verboten
Kernenergiegesetz https://perma.cc/X36L-NJBE
Das Kernkraftwerk Mühleberg wurde im Dezember 2019 abgeschaltet und wird seither zurückgebaut. Die übrigen Kernkraftwerke sind weiterhin in Betrieb. Die Schweiz kennt keine gesetzlich fixierten Laufzeitbeschränkungen für Kernkraftwerke. Sie können betrieben werden, solange sie sicher sind.
Kernkraftwerke in der Schweiz https://perma.cc/CV5V-F73U
Nach Abschluss der rund fünfwöchigen Jahresrevision darf das Kernkraftwerk Gösgen den Betrieb wieder aufnehmen. Das ENSI hat die Revision eng begleitet und erteilte am 25. Juni 2023 die Freigabe https://perma.cc/AB2K-6P55
In den nächsten Tagen wird die Leistung schrittweise bis zur Volllast erhöht https://perma.cc/9U35-DPZY
Messflüge der NAZ 2023: Keine ungewöhnlichen Radioaktivitätswerte festgestellt https://perma.cc/S8RF-WNN9
KKW Beznau 1: ENSI erteilt nach Brennelementwechsel Freigabe zum Wiederanfahren https://perma.cc/DP94-BTGX
KKW Beznau 2: ENSI erteilt Freigabe zum Wiederanfahren https://perma.cc/T2KG-TNB8
ENSI erteilt Freigabe nach Revision: KKW Leibstadt darf wieder anfahren https://perma.cc/3VE3-CD3L
Kernkraftwerk Leibstadt wieder am Netz https://perma.cc/JW8D-PCVA
Kernkraftwerk Mühleberg (ausser Betrieb) https://perma.cc/Z88N-Q5PP
Nuclear and wind power estimated to have lowest levelized CO2 emissions https://perma.cc/B7FG-85GU
Kernenergie https://perma.cc/U3AV-C2WS
Im Mai 2017 haben die Stimmbürgerinnen und Stimmbürger das revidierte Energiegesetz anlässlich der Vorlage des ersten Massnahmenpakets zur Energiestrategie 2050 angenommen. Seit dem 1. Januar 2018 ist damit die Erteilung von neuen Rahmenbewilligungen für Kernkraftwerke verboten https://perma.cc/L4SQ-FG3M
Ausstieg https://perma.cc/23AG-N2HP
Atomausstiegsinitiative: FAQ https://perma.cc/U7Y8-KHZY
Weltweite Kernenergienutzung https://perma.cc/7F8D-VQ7E
Energiestrategie 2050 https://perma.cc/GT7P-C2L2
Zudem wird der Bau neuer Kernkraftwerke verboten
Kernenergiegesetz https://perma.cc/X36L-NJBE
Das Kernkraftwerk Mühleberg wurde im Dezember 2019 abgeschaltet und wird seither zurückgebaut. Die übrigen Kernkraftwerke sind weiterhin in Betrieb. Die Schweiz kennt keine gesetzlich fixierten Laufzeitbeschränkungen für Kernkraftwerke. Sie können betrieben werden, solange sie sicher sind.
Kernkraftwerke in der Schweiz https://perma.cc/CV5V-F73U
Nach Abschluss der rund fünfwöchigen Jahresrevision darf das Kernkraftwerk Gösgen den Betrieb wieder aufnehmen. Das ENSI hat die Revision eng begleitet und erteilte am 25. Juni 2023 die Freigabe https://perma.cc/AB2K-6P55
In den nächsten Tagen wird die Leistung schrittweise bis zur Volllast erhöht https://perma.cc/9U35-DPZY
Messflüge der NAZ 2023: Keine ungewöhnlichen Radioaktivitätswerte festgestellt https://perma.cc/S8RF-WNN9
KKW Beznau 1: ENSI erteilt nach Brennelementwechsel Freigabe zum Wiederanfahren https://perma.cc/DP94-BTGX
KKW Beznau 2: ENSI erteilt Freigabe zum Wiederanfahren https://perma.cc/T2KG-TNB8
ENSI erteilt Freigabe nach Revision: KKW Leibstadt darf wieder anfahren https://perma.cc/3VE3-CD3L
Kernkraftwerk Leibstadt wieder am Netz https://perma.cc/JW8D-PCVA
Kernkraftwerk Mühleberg (ausser Betrieb) https://perma.cc/Z88N-Q5PP