The best measure of location of GDHIP is the median. This is because it lies in the middle of the other two measures in the year 2000 and year 2009 hence it has got high chance of being equal to the true value.
The mean of UK disposable household income per head (GDHIP) in the year 2009 was 14569.52. This was an increase from year 2000 where the income per head was 10528.89. The mode which is the most occurring GDHIP is 9447 in the year 2000 and 15010.00 in the year 2009. This is an indicator of an increased GDHIP. The year 2009 GDHIP median of 14148.00 is greater than the year 2000’s GDHIP of 10133.00 which is as well an indicator of an increase. These three measures of location show an increase in GDHIP in the UK from year 2000 to 2009. This is further evidenced by the sum of total income of the sampled group of 133 persons which is 1400342 in the year 2000 while in 2009 it calculates to 1937746.
Standard error of mean in the year 2009 (208.87) is greater than it was 9 years ago in the year 2000 (148.67). This is an indicator that the spread of income among individuals is greater in 2009 than in year 2000. This same pattern is depicted by standard deviation measure wih the year 2000 calculating to 1746.56 while the year 2009 calculates to 2408.85. The range of GDHIP in the year 2009 (14109) is greater than the range of the year 2000 (21467). The minimum and the maximum GDHIP in UK for the year 2000 are 7842 and 21951. These are less than their counterparts in the year 2009 which calculates to 10602 as minimum value and 32069 as the maximum value.
Generally the GDHIP in UK has become more varied in the year 2009 than in the year 2000 as indicated by these measures of spread.
The spread of GDHIP in UK is not uniform. Some of the regions’ score is lower than the mean scores in both tears 2000 and 2009. A good example is South Teesside, Sunderland, Liverpool among others. Sunderland GDHIP of 8 773 and 12 196 for the years’ 2000 and 2009 is less than the mean score of 10528.89 and 14569.52 for the same years’ respectively. However, some regions like East Cumbria scores’ higher GDHIP than the average score of all the regions in both years i.e the scores are 10 995 and 15 301 in years’ 200 and 2009 respectively which are greater than the mean scores of 10528.89 and 14569.52 respectively.
The three most common perrcentage change lie between 50% and 70 % these shows high rate of change of GDHI in these three percentages. The least common percentage change lie in the category between 10% and 20 %. This is a low value and indicates that GDHIP these regions have changed very little.
Generally the GDHIP is much lower for the year 2000 than in 2009. It can be noted the high frequency of regions have a high frequency in 9000-10999 category while GDHIP of 2009 is high in 13000-14999 category.
Most of the regions have a percentage change of 30%-40%.
In the year 2009 most of the regions had a GDHIP value category of 13000-14999.
In the year 2000 most of the regions had a GDHIP value category of 9000-10999.
The graph of number of regions against income in year 2000 is positively skewed. . Hence the earnings are not symmetrical to the number of regions.
The same case is replicated in the graph of income against values in the year 2009 which is also positively skewed. Hence the earnings are not symmetrical to the number of regions.