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
says the person with an above average number of feet (2).
People with 2 arms have more arms than the average person.
Hitler was dsintinctly average, allegedly.
average is useless to consider due to outliers, what is the median ?
exactly. There was an article last week that actually used the median. Earning just over $120k puts you in the top 10% of earners.
wow! that's interesting, any link to that article ?
I'll try and find it . Here you go https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Income-che…
The average/Median gaps are pretty massive
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?
What do you mean by "agree", the fact is either right or wrong, it's not an opinion? The average is a number (around $95k, from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-workin…), so $92k is factually below the average.
Don’t you know?
Science and facts have slowly become another religion - where you either believe don’t believe.
There has been a gradual FUD campaign. Quite sad really. And it continues to this day.
Random dude with his rudimentary literacy skills, who doesn’t even know that search operators are a thing, somehow has just as much voice as the collective thousands of years training, research and critical analysis from the people that live, breathe and sweat the subject matter.
You don't even need to go as far as that these days, the number of articles being pumped out which are riddled with spelling errors, reposting Twitter and Reddit posts, and/or just plain plagiarising other sources is astounding.
Ok first before we get carried away.
Approximately 34% of Australia at any time isn't working in some capacity, be it retired, too young, parent, etc.
So if you're pulling a wage you're already ahead of a fair few people
This is an average full time wage
The median wage is somewhere around $50-$55k.This is pumped up by people earning absurd amounts i.e. Gina rhinehart, Andrew Forrest, Clive Palmer, Murdoch etc.
This is why I'm ok with average the extreme earners balances out the ones that 'don't count'
Another way to look at it, someone straight out of Uni, should already be earning way more than the median, this does not make well off by any means
How do the extreme earners balance out part time workers etc. that aren't counted in the average? It's the exact opposite of what you're saying.
Murdoch doesn't pay taxes in Australia. He just controls the puppet strings.
According to the ABS, 13.558 million people are employed as at June 22 in Australia. There really is a surprising amount (to me) of the population that isn't employed, especially given the super low unemployment rates. Given a population of approximately 26 million, that's close to half the population that don't work
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unem…
Perhaps my expectations of the demographics are way off
That was my reaction as well
It becomes a little less surprising when you accommodate for ~10.5 million people being less than 19 or over 65.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/populati…
Honestly, it’s that number that surprises me; I did not expect there to be such a large portion fitting into those demographics
Thank you for identifying that
They are. 0-20 generally dont work. 60-80 generally dont work. Thats half your population right there with a basic flat age distribution and life expectancy of 80.
And the 60-80+ population is quickly going to increase as the baby boomers move further into retirement, this combined with the rapidly declining birth rate will place a large load on the current working population unfortunately.
And the government will only turn on the migration taps to prop it up, much to the demise of future family growth by Australians.
This is pumped up by people earning absurd amounts i.e. Gina rhinehart, Andrew Forrest, Clive Palmer, Murdoch etc.
You forgot our very own rektrading
This isn't really correct, the 34% you describe are not considered as unemployed, and would not be used in employment figures / average full time wage calculations.
Unemployed persons (people who are not working, yet seeking employment), are not in this average either as they are not earning income.
People who are working and earning income are the ones included. The median is taken from this popilation and is higher than what you've quoted.
Never said they were considered unemployed
Just not working
The real story here is that average full time earnings have gone up because lower paid work is increasingly casualised. It's harder to find lower paid FT jobs because the work is being doled out in irregular shifts or contracted out to agencies who do that.
Bingo, the hidden reason why the unemployment numbers are falling so much - the gig economy.
Yes I feel very poor
I get 3 dollars free from buying gift cards from Amazon and it makes my day
I don't get why people are posting TV for 1k as bargains
I don't get why people are posting TV for 1k as bargains
If the tv is normally $2k, $1k is a bargain, if someone wants it.
Yes and mokr can easily justify purchase after saving $3 on gift cards 33.3 times
lols we're a funny bunch.
I don't get why people are posting TV for 1k as bargains
If a Ferrari that is half a million is on sale for 100k it's a bargain.
Just because you cannot afford it doesn't mean it's not a bargain.
…bit like saying something is 50% off may be classed as a bargain, except it may still be 100% more than what you want to spend!
except it may still be 100% more than what you want to spend!
Ok then don't spend it. Doesn't mean it's not a bargain.
The op of this thread was saying they don't get why people are posting 1k tvs as bargains because they can't afford it.
All I'm saying is that their inability to afford it doesn't mean it's not a bargain.
Not sure why the down votes
except it may still be 100% more than what you want to spend!
Usually what people "want to spend" isn't a figure rooted in reality…
If a fvcking LV handbag that's stickered as $50k price, gets a fire-sale for "only" $20k…
…that's not a bargain, that is an Idiot Tax!
I don't see the point in spending thousands on a TV these days, but there is a market in that price range and if its cheaper than normal then its still a deal. Not a deal I'm interested in but a deal nonetheless.
seems like it's time I stopped spending all day on ozbargain
See you tomorrow Savas
Geez. You weren't joking.
Last Seen
2 hours 17 min agoAre you ok dude? We need a welfare check on Savas.
Last Seen
11 hours 13 min agoDon’t worry.. I decided it’s better to make less money and spend more time on OzBargain.
Great news.
Glad you came to your senses.
You missed out on a cheap laptop but there's always another one around the corner.
Some stats with links, cause people are speculating:
Mean full time adult wages, both ordinary time and with overtime/bonuses etc:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-workin…Comes out at $1769 and $1835. Add in the under 21s and the mean drops to $1344, but I think we can ignore youngsters when thinking about “average wages”.
Median income for all Australians earning income (basically excludes young children) is much lower at $51k. But this includes pensioners, part time workers, stay at home parents that might just earn a bit of welfare or interest, basically, lots of people that fall outside who I think of when I consider average pay.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-workin…Luckily, there is a breakdown of median weekly employee earnings. This is closest to what I think of, when somebody says “average pay”.
It starts at $1200 a week. But that includes part time workers too.
There is a table splitting full-time and part-time. It shows women earn $1380 and men earn $1541. So about $70-$80k depending on your bits.https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-workin…
So the mean is higher than the median, but the median is not dramatically lower (in some places, like the USA, the gap is very wide).
Thanks for that. Are those figures gross or net? No mention in the article unless I’m missing something
Always gross.
very helpful info. Thank you.
The economy is running as if the "average" income is $90k+ but in reality is it's around $50k. That's why the wealth gap continues to grow by the day.
I think this is very true, but the average experience has a big variability. My elderly parents with paid off mortgage, low expenses, no kids, nothing much needed in the way of goods can easily thrive on low income.
My friend with a young baby, inner Sydney housing costs, demanding jobs and very little spare time struggles on much higher income. And another in a regional area with lower housing costs, options other than paid daycare/after school care, more time because of no traffic etc. does well on a bit above average.It’s hard to know what the general experience is, and often all the politicians are interested in is increasing GDP, when there are a bunch of factors they could improve to grow “wealth” if measured in individual life experience.
Does this figure include super?
Being at a place where everyone in my immediate work circle is on $120-250k and then seeing this is very sobering
there's absolutely no way the average income is 90k,. that's absolute nonsense.
I read sowhere it's more like 60k as richer people skew the curve.. I would be surprised if its 90k unless my peer group is poor like me.
Its clickbait rubbish.
If you take away the billion and millionaire's, the median average is around $50k
You're getting downvoted for being 100% correct. The truth is the median is around $42k - $50k (Depending on state)
Except you are linking to median income which "includes the adult population from 15 years to over 85 years, including those who are unemployed or retired." and so is a completely different figure to the 'income of full time employees' which is what the original article is about. So being downvoted is appropriate because people are using the wrong statistic to argue against another statistic.
Also the number of 'rich people' isnt that many so as to completely distort the figures. Obviously it makes it higher but there just arent that many people earning a million dollars a year
Average income is about as useful as measuring the average real estate price across Australia: useless.
If you want to live in the Sydney CBD then you'd better be on $200k+ otherwise you'll feel poor, meanwhile in the far outer suburbs $75k would be okay.
This is another News Limited clickbait article meant to instill anger and resentment in its readers. 'The average is now $92k, if you earn less than this you are POOR and you SUCK'
No but the median is 72k, not hugely way off and still a decent number.
Blame the Whirlpool forums. Everyone on there is on a minimum 300k. It drives up the average.
Aren’t statistics wonderful.
2.3million people are on minimum wage.
I’m on 5 mil a year so don’t agree really
I sure would like $92k a year, that's a lotta moolah
Where I work, everyone is a manager except me.
are they all managing you?
I thought I was doing okay until I saw this article..
news.com.au does a lot of shit posts. When they run out of stuff to publish they either bring stuff back from years ago or just interview some random on how they made their money
It's not a website I would take things seriously and besides the abs didn't exclude outliers
Must be why the house prices are so high
This is average figure, which skews the figure. It's better to take the median figure, which should be around 50k.
Median is better, it's around 50k - 55k, average means nothing.
And people genuinely looking for work are on 16k per year on jobseeker allowance. I was in that boat and my god you can't afford anything. I had roughly $75 per week to spend on bills, fuel, and food. Buying a $5 my Maccas app mcchicken meal + a cheeseburger was a treat for myself. I don't wish anyone to live that life….. it's horrible.
92kAU is only $63kUS, so that's pretty pathetic.
ikr i watch a video podcast for self improvement based in usa, that people always call in and talk about getting better paying jobs and its more like "hey guys i pulled my shit together and got a higher paying job after 1 year, the new position is 100k or 120k usd". i convert that to AUD and im like holly shit thats good money. here not many make of 100-120k not to mention their house prices that is much much cheaper than ours.. no matter how shitty a place to live USA is they still have better conditions than us in house prices in most cities.
The US has a working culture, 12 hour days, 6 day working weeks. Health care is crazy expensive and you are almost expected to work even on your holidays. Rent is places like new york can be between $3000-$6000 for something half decent
If you ever meet an expat, have a good chat with them, all the ones i have, have nothing much good to say about the place.
I know some people have been bankrupted because of emergency hospital visits (that's the term they use)
Looks like other publications are saying the same thing. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl…
That one is saying if you earn under the average then you are POOR (their caps).
As is pretty apparent (because the median is less than the mean for pretty much all wage statistics) that the quantum of ppl below average is higher than above average.
But is it really okay to call the majority of ppl in Australia poor? Doubtful.
Had the desired effect on me, I felt pretty shitty tbh
No need to, look at the actual stats. They are designed to outrage/upset.
@brendanm: Yeah but if I was on the greener side of the spectrum, I'd be like, pfft $92k/year .. what peasants.
@TEER3X: Actually science has shown that it's not actually how much you make but how much you make IN COMPARISON to others that affects how we feel. An example is 2 monkeys both being fed peanuts, and they're both fine. But upgrade one in front of the other by feeding it fruits, and the one still getting peanuts will throw them at you. What can we do with this information? Either recognise that it's all relative and take it easy, or look for ways to make more money than the average lol.
Have we not banned news.com.au articles here? Don't get me wrong I'm all for freedom of press etc but I hope everyone have realized they only churn out articles that worry rather than inform far more than any other publications?
Hey team, we need to cause some fear and panic this week, ideas?!
Toilet paper? Nah, thats been done to death
Covid? Nah, no one cares about that anymore
Could we make up an article that everyone is earning at least $90k, so then most of the people who are only actually on $50k will start rioting? Great idea, lets print it asap!
Looks like everyone is doing well for themselves.
The lucky country - where many survive on the bare minimum while the high income earners splurge on Teslas and thousand dollar GPUs.
Such is life, but no Ned Kelly around to do the right thing to the fat cats ……
We get it, you don't want to work, and want everyone else to support you. It's the same in every post.
The median full time worker is around 72k. That's still pretty good considering the level of education and literacy/numeracy levels of the population.
That's all workers, not just full time.
Its not even 'all workers' - its 'all people' including students, unemployed and 85 year olds. Very much assuming my teenage daughter earning $80 per week from her KFC job is pulling down the median income quite a lot, let alone all her friends who arent working at all. If 'rich people' are distorting the average so as to make it irrelevant, then the median income figure is also pretty irrelevant given the 100,000s of school students that are included.
"This includes the adult population from 15 years to over 85 years, including those who are unemployed or retired"
I mean sure, if you want to include those who don't work, but personally I'd rather filter that out. So going off that, the median is clearly larger than what you posted.
As the richer get richer, the average will keep climbing.
Meanwhile the median pay is actually more reflective of the "Aussie Battler" which still lingers at around $42k - $50k (Depending on state).
People: this is the mean! Poor use of statistics to try and prove a point.
Meanwhile includes non workers in calculating the median to get numbers low to try and prove a point.
There's also nothing wrong with the mean being greater than the median. Pay doesn't and shouldn't scale linearly with occupation. Think of medicine and specialities with doctors earning 1mil+. First, we want the very best people becoming surgeons because, well people's lives are in their hands. Second, the responsibility and continuous learning puts it above and beyond a retail job despite both having the same importance.
Why should we expect someone with the brains to go through 15 years of schooling just to earn slightly above average?
I don't understand why people think it's fine to just remove groups of people who work part-time/are unemployed.
Like are these people no longer Australian because they don't work as much? Why are we excluding them when on average - yes, it indicates that people aren't earning as much as if we only counted full-time workers.
If government makes economic decisions based on a median/mean income of ONLY full-time workers then you're (profanity) over the Australian people that doesn't work full-time. It makes zero sense to exclude them from calculations.
Depends what you want to know. If I want to know how my salary compares with the average, then I wouldn't want 15 year old data in there where most of them aren't working and those that do, working part time on $10 an hour for pocket money.
Those over 85 and retired, not working? Why should they be included in an average salary statistic?
The government shouldn't be making economic decisions based on one number anyways, but to include people who literally don't work because they're 15 or retired is just as bad as putting in billionaires to skew the mean.
Like are these people no longer Australian because they don't work as much?
Bit of a straw man argument. When the title of this post clearly states average FULL TIME workers being 92k, how is it fair those who complain about the mean being used uses a median statistic that includes people who don't even work to compare?
I don't understand why people think it's fine to just remove groups of people who work part-time/are unemployed.
My teenage daughters 5 hr per week shift at KFC thanks you for your concern
If you are asking whether I, as a full time worker, am receiving more or less than other full time workers then part timers are relevant. If you are asking whether the median person in Australia has sufficient funding to afford an able the poverty line life, then it is relevant, albeit that its not particularly useful since the people most at risk are not full time employees (no point knowing the median have enough money if the bottom 15% are starving). Its just a statistic, it means nothing of itself. Its only relevant if you want to use it for something, in which case the median income of all Australians over 15 is pretty much not relevant to any practical question you can ask.
Its just a statistic, it means nothing of itself. Its only relevant if you want to use it for something, in which case the median income of all Australians over 15 is pretty much not relevant to any practical question you can ask.
Exactly, I understand people's concern about underemployment and I completely agree that it should be looked at but taking this average doesn't help.
At least the median full time working income tells us that IF you have full time employment, then this is what you expect.
Once we identify that, then we can start looking at the undermployed statistic, filtering out children and those who don't actually want to work and those who struggle to get FT employment.
You have that one the wrong way around.
"Mean" is arithmetic average, by adding up all the testicles then dividing by how many people.
"Median" is when you line everyone one up, find the single person in the middle, then see how many testicles they have.
"Mode" is seeing what's the most popular or common amount of testicles to have.