Reading an news article today it says full time employees earning less than $92k per year is considered below average income earner in Australia. Do you agree?
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/a…
Average Full Time Employees Earning $92k/ Year
Unacceptable on 19/08/2022 - 19:19
Comments
Seems Unacceptabbbbbbbbbble…?
As an Asian Man, you are a faaailure!
You're 10yo nephew is already a millionaire.
Aiyahhhhh i do always think I should seppuku and try again next reincarnation
and that’s an Emmmmotional Dammage
emotional damage
It's "your". Here's a free grammar lesson for you.
My son owns a factory
box or cracker?
Hey that's racist!
If i wanted to quit my work from home job that i wake up at 8:20am to do and finish at 4:30pm to get back into the commute to work grind.. sure i can be on over 92k a year :) but i already have everything i want and setup to retire at 50 so happy to be earning less.. Its not all about how much you make its how much you spend and what you do with the spare money
Time to get a better job.
Just pull those bootstraps up
Pfffft
Most ozbargainers earn double that so pretty irrelevant post.
Pretty obvious with the 21yo Hibiki, that Beluga Vodka and Macallan No. 6 posts.
I personally bought 10 of each on my relatively modest income.
Depends on industry and current market conditions. Graduate Engineers are on $60-70k+ nowadays so makes sense.
The average person is an engineer
Mean people are engineers?
Lots of people call me average and I'm and engineer too
@Kangal: Yet above you said
"As an Asian Man, you are a faaailure!
You're 10yo nephew is already a millionaire."
I surveyed my household and 50% of people over 18 are
Are……..?
I started on $55k, when i started uni the average was up around $70-$75k.
Given our wages have gone backwards in the past 10 years it's little wonder our future generations are screwed.be happy man i was offerd a 45k p.a salary package in 2017
Thats like almost minimum wage
Be happy man, I was offered a $35k p.a salary package in 2006 (IT graduate, waste of time/money/life).
@Dose Pipe Sutututu: I am happy, now im just living on the dole, free money + money from my weed hustle and over 80k p.a doing less then 10 hrs work a week
Only some graduates actually get employed as graduate engineer probably.
The rest don't work as engineers. Seems like most of my classmates have left the industry. I hope to leave soon.
Median average would be better than Arithmetic average for this.
Is the median average just the average?
No it isn't.
If there is a sample pool of 10 people, and say 3 on 40k, 3 on 60k, 3 on 80k, 1 on 300k..
The average would be (3x40k)+(3x60k)+(3x80k)+(1x300k) / 10 = $84k average which is "less accurate measure" as majority of sample are not earning that, just takes 1 out of the odd to unbalance the "average".
The median deducts 1 off each side, e.g. 4 off the least wealthy and 4 off the most wealthy and that pulls a median of 60k which is a more balance "average"
The median deducts 1 off each side, e.g. 4 off the least wealthy and 4 off the most wealthy and that pulls a median of 60k which is a more balance "average"
Not quite the median is simply the middle score.
@GoldenDragon888: This.
A "means of averages" would actually be a worse metric. You might have four salary brackets, and then averaging them out together skews the results badly.Example:
3x (39k, 40k, 41k), then 3x (59k, 60k, 61k), then 3x (79k, 80k, 81k), then 1x (300k). Average that out and you get (40k+60k+80k+300k)/4 = 120k average of average.It's better than taking the average of min/max (169k). But a straight average (84k) would be better. And even better than that would be taking the average, but excluding the lowest 10% and the highest 10% values. So using 80% of the figures to reduce skewing (62k).
Or you know, just use the MEDIAN (60k).
You started off well with your answer, then took a sharp turn down Wrong Avenue and straight into a ditch.
no such thing as median average. unless you are averaging a set of medians. The median is simply the middle value as opposed to the average value. What you are talking about is a maybe a truncated mean which removes the outliers and then averages the remaining values.
@gromit: Mean, median, and mode are all considered different types of "average". Without context you'd assume mean, but saying "median average" just means "median".
arithmetic average or mean average is what most people refer to when talking about average.
The downside of arithmetic average is that outliers impact the mean. where as in median (middle) they dontso you really need the mode!
Usually higher average means quite a few of stinky rich people, which is usually bad.
Higher median means, good amount of middle class ppl. Which is usually a good thing.Sorry people are downvoting you for asking a maths question.
I'm not sure I ever learnt this at school/university somehow.
@dust: You should have learned it in junior high maths, but people don't have perfect recall and if you didn't need it until now then you probably just discarded that bit of knowledge.
Not sure why you get negged for asking a valid question.
the people that know the difference between the median and the average are more than likely earning above the average income.
The average income is a misleading figure for most people, because it is dragged upwards by a relatively small number of people earning high or super-high salaries.
The median is much more meaningful for most people, as it more accurately reflects the "typical" Australian income, right in the centre of the Australian income range. Previous surveys have shown many times that the median income is far lower than the average income. For example, when the average household income was about $75k, the median household income was only about $50-$55k.
@Baghern: The thing is, this figure in the article is not the average Australian income. It’s the average income of full time workers. So, again, the median would be more meaningful to most workers.
@Baghern: Nope.
You can use ATO data, and derive the figure for Median Salary for FTE as well.I've generally found it to be 20%-30% lower than the average, which is a huge difference. It means the average is not reliable and poor indicator for figures. We have a small proportion of whales with huge sums that heavily skew these figures.
@Baghern: Suppose you're sitting in a restaurant, the average income in the restaurant is probably about 100k. Then Jeff Bezos walks in and all of a sudden the average income of people in that restaurant is well over a billion dollars. Does that seem like a good measure?
If you want to look at means then you generally want to take the mean within a number of standard deviations - so that you can filter out the extreme outliers.
@Mr Haj: No… He's buying McDonald's, he's gonna call it Maccas Prime. Free delivery if you have Amazon Prime subscription.
Or listened in early high school…..
I was going to say, my income was $0 when I learnt the difference.
I do. But i dont. I earn far less than the arithmetic average
Mean <> median
Best median average by far is to not care one little bit about statistics and statisticians and their fairy tales
;-p
92K is figure from ABS. ABS get their numbers from random questionnaires.
I'd place my trust on ATO figure, they have tax data unlike ABS. Their figure is a lot lower than ABS also which is often ignored by rubbish murdoch propaganda.
Don’t a lot of people also minimise their income for tax purposes which would make their income look lower than what it really is?
They would add deductions but the ATO would know what the gross income is
not if they work in cash business (most tradies)
ATO is probably good for employee income, but likely substantially understates non-employee income (self employed etc).
ATO is probably also distorted by stuff like salary packaging in public service/not for profits and fringe benefits in private industry. Since that can impact 15% or more of people’s “pay packet” it potentially adds a material variation.
Like the ABS figures, probably best viewed in series, so reliable for understanding income growth/variation, but maybe not exact figures.Also the ABS seem to be using the mean rather than median value.
Which is kinda dumb. And the reporters obviously don't know the difference.
And the reporters obviously don't know the difference.
It's news.com.au, I'm surprised they were able to spell "average".
It's more sinister than that.
They do understand but they're too lazy to dig deeper, and they know the reality is very "meh" which fails to get the clicks they're looking for. By releasing inaccurate news they can generate more shock and it helps their revenue.And skewing the facts can help political parties, by saying "look don't hate us, see we're doing a good job, look how happy you people are". Some of these news outlets are politically motivated or tied.
You think the audience does…
lets just say I know someone who works in the ABS…
You have no idea what you're talking about.
ABS get their payroll data directly from the ATO every Tuesday. ATO get their data from STP (single touch payroll).
ABS does not use questionnaires, ABS simply do not have time to conduct questionnaires every week. We're not living in the 1980s, this is Big Data age.
edit: I can see we have a lot of data analysts, statisticians and economists here on this thread…
ABS figure is $1835pw, for May 2022:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-workin…ATO Average taxable income ($) 63,882 for 2019 - 2020, which translates to $1228pw
https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-…Even considering the change between 2020 - 2022, the difference is significant.
FYI, your someone may or may not be right, but here the comment from ABS website:
Collection method
Details of the total number of employees and earnings paid for the survey reference week are obtained on a biannual basis (in May and November) from selected businesses. Data are collected via online electronic collection.
https://www.abs.gov.au/methodologies/average-weekly-earnings…
ATO figure is for anyone who submitted a tax return, including part-time and casual workers. ABS figure is for full-time employees, so it makes sense it's much higher.
But yes this particular ABS publication is based on survey data, not STP.
sorry I go confused, there are multiple sectors within the Labour Statistics Branch.
The Weekly Payroll Jobs and Wages release uses STP from ATO.
AWE use different data source.
That includes part timers, this thread is about FTE.
ATO number is after deductions, fake or otherwise.
So includes those tradies declaring income of $35k and driving $150k cars.
The way the Murdoch boogieman lives the heads of lefties is endlessly amusing
Can’t take it with you
It's easier to spend millions than thousands (apparently)
.
Does buy a nicer coffin though
Correlation with OP’s username ?
Another guy fell for Murdoch Fakenews clickbait.
Muh Le Murdoch
The mean is the worst way of figuring out an "average" wage.
Also, news.com.au does not have actual news, it is clickbait gargabe.
What? ‘Shock new look for MAFS bride’ isn’t news?
Mean = average
Or are you talking about median?Can you read?
This. Every headline is written to force a click and much of it is MAFS style garbage. They are still doing stories on Nadia bloody Bartel ffs and sadly this means that some people must still be reading them.
The average person has one testicle.
Great news. I've never felt more average. Cheers
The mean number of testicles is probably 1 as well. And I'd be mean if I had 1 testicle.
There's more females than males in Australia, so the mean would have no testicles.
That's what makes them eunech
No, the median would be none. The mean would be around 0.9.
Man by this definition I’m an Aussie batt’ler :’)