Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ian Williams
Lowest, Highest and the inter-quartile range would be a good measurement. In the above example it would be 30, 90 and 30-30.
But I suspect that the McMegaCarriers would have a harder time recruiting if they offered realistic audited earnings figures. Especially when you divide by the 70-100 hrs per week that you really spend on lines 3 & 4.
|
Agreed 100%. At least someone else here understands. :wink:
The numbers that the big carriers advertise with are usually skewed to either:
1. Show them in the best light, or
2. Dupe the unsuspecting public.
That's all fine and well (they have a right to pretend they are the best carrier on earth), but when they try to push those numbers as being an average that at least 50% of their fleet obtains, then it crosses into borderline false advertising.
Unfortunately, most recruiters are simply spewing the dribble that the companies provide them, without actually looking into the data to confirm its validity. I also suspect that the recruiters are guilty of a little "number manipulation" of their own.
After all, if "McMegaCarrier" is saying that their drivers "averaged" $70,000 a year, then their prospective employees should
AT LEAST have a 50% chance of meeting that number. Sadly, I think that is unlikely, and only serves to alienate more drivers who are looking for "greener grass", and finding only deception.
The sad by-product of this phenomenon is that drivers use that same "trucker's math" to describe their own operations. They use partial data, add ranges where there are none, and use those false averages to boost up their own data. If I drove an average of 2500 miles a week, and present the data as a range, saying "I average 2500-2800 miles a week", it doesn't change the real numbers, which almost invariably end up on the lower end of the range.
