Chapter 7 Project

Michigan Top Fifty Hourly Wages for Jobs in Michigan

For our chapter 7, our survey question was what were the top 50 hourly wages of jobs in
Michigan. We expected that these values would make a fairly normal distribution, because
some would be much larger than the average, while some would be much smaller, however the
majority of the data points would be clustered around the mean. The following list is of the top
50 hourly wage rates in Michigan:
29.67
34.74
56.00
20.24
33.37
49.71
22.78
38.46
21.59
39.71
27.46
29.10
28.58
44.73
40.77
28.07
28.58
44.73
40.77
28.07
34.86
47.76
43.67
24.56
21.46
18.05
37.96
23.43
21.60
45.92
21.27
37.91
18.39
36.73
26.87
27.09

42.67
41.10
31.16
43.88
32.99
21.85
39.48
30.19
21.03
38.28
45.42
86.17
28.21

31.47
29.08
37.74
41.96
43.71
This is a histogram of our data, it looks like it maybe vaguely normally distributed if
normally distributed at all, however this is not the case. This picture makes it look like our data is
not normally distributed however after a lot of tests we found that it is.
After collecting these data values, we typed them into L1 on our calculator, pressed 1variable statistics, thus calculating the mean, standard deviation, and the five number summary.
The mean of our data set was $34.46. The standard deviation of the top 50 hourly rates for jobs
in Michigan was $11.56. The minimum hourly rate was $18.05, while the maximum hourly rate
was $86.17. Q1 was $27.09, while Q3 was $41.10. The median was $33.18. According to
Pearsons index, our set of data was a .332, we found this number by subtracting the median
from the mean, multiplying that by three and then divided by the standard deviation (3(34.4633.18)/11.56) of the data set showing that it is slightly skewed, but it is still a normal distribution,
since .332 is between -1 and 1. After calculating Pearsons Index we found if there were any

outliers in our set of data. First, we found the IQR (14.01), then we multiplied that by 1.5 to test
for outliers, giving us 21.02. After this, we added 22.02 to 41.10 and subtracted 22.02 from
27.09. Giving us the values of 62.12 and 6.07. These values tell us that if there are any number
larger than 62.12 or smaller than 6.07, that they are outliers. We found that we have only one
outlier, which is $86.17.
According to the Empirical rule, 68% of the data in a normal distribution should fall within
one standard deviation of the mean, 95% of the data within two standard deviations and 99.7%
of the data within three standard deviations. By adding and subtracting $11.56 from $34.46 we
found that 68% of our data would fall between $22.90 and $46.02. Then we added and
subtracted $23.12 (11.56*2) from $34.46 and found that 95% of our data would fall between
$11.34 and $57.58. We did this one last time, by adding and subtracting $34.68 (11.56*3) from
$34.46 and found that 99.7% of our data values were between -$.22 and $69.14.
The probability someone makes less than $9.75 is 1.62%. We found this number by
subtracting the mean ($34.46) from X ($9.75), then dividing by the standard deviation ($11.56),
which gave us a z score of -2.14. After that we went to the z score table to find the
corresponding probability for this z-score. When we did this we found that there was a .0162 or
1.62% chance that someone would make less than I (Jack) make. Once we found this
percentage we subtracted it from 100% to find the probability that someone would make more
than $9.75 an hour in Michigan (100-1.62). This ended up being a 98.38% chance that an
individual will make more than I do. We followed this same process for how much Danielle
makes per hour. I (Danielle) make $9.00/hr. The probability someone makes less than $9.00 is
1.39%. We found this number by subtracting the mean ($34.46) from X ($9.00), then dividing
by the standard deviation ($11.56), which gave us a z-score of -2.20. After that we went to the zscore table to find the corresponding probability for this z-score. When we did this we found that
there was a .0139 or 1.39% chance that someone would make less than I (Danielle) make.
Once we found this percentage we subtracted it from 100% to find the probability that someone
would make more than $9.00 an hour in Michigan (100-1.39). This ended up being a 98.61%
chance that an individual will make more than I do. After all of this we found the percentage that
someone would make between $9.75/hr. And $9.00/hr. We did this by subtracting the probability
of making $9.75/hr from the probability that someone is going to make $9.00/hr (.0162-.0139).
By doing this, we found that there is only a .0023 or .23% chance that someone would make
between $9.00/hr and $9.75/hr.
Next, we used the Central Limit Theorem: Z=( x )/( / n ), to find the probability
that in a sample of 30 people how many of them would have a response greater than what we
make per hour. Jack makes $9.75/hr. ((9.75-34.46) / (11.56/ 30 )), so when we plug that into
our Central Limit Theorem equation, we calculate a z-score of -11.71, making the chances of
someone making less than him, essentially zero. However, since we are looking for how how
many would make more than him, our answer is actually 100% of the 30 people will make more
than Jack does. We do the same exact process for someone who would make $9.00/hr: ((9.0034.46) / (11.56/ 30 )). This time however we got a z-score of -12.06 which makes the
chances of someone making more than 9.00/hr even more likely than someone who makes
$9.75/hr. Since $9.00 is so many standard deviations away from the mean making the chances
of someone making less than that is essentially zero. However, since we are looking for how
how many would make more than 9.00/hr., our answer is actually 100% of the 30 people, the

same as what it was for someone who makes $9.75/hr. Since these values are so minimal, it is
also extremely unlikely that any of the 30 people would end up with a hourly wage that was
between ours, making this also essentially impossible to happen.
The last thing we did was find the raw data values in which below 3% of our data should
fall, and the data value in which above 3% of our data should fall. We found these numbers by
first finding .0300 and .9700 (or numbers as close to these as we could) on our z-score table.
These values ended up being -1.88 and 1.88. After finding these z scores we used our X= Z
+ . (-1.88(11.56)+34.46) and (1.88(11.56)+34.46) giving us: $12.73 and $56.19
respectively. 12.73 is the raw data value in which almost exactly 3% of our data falls below, and
56.19 is the raw data value in which almost exactly 3% of our data falls above.