Of what use are these figures.
Todays news reports the sum is $12050 ,a bit more in fact.
How do people in rural towns who get half that get included.
Pensioners are not included are they.
Are cost increases based on this very unbalanced figure?

$12,050 a week? I've even tried moving a decimal point around and it still doesn't make sense. $1,200.5 a week? $120.50?...wut?

Belly, that is a mean figure. It's arrived at by adding every bit of personal income together and dividing by the number of taxpayers. A better measure would be the median, which was about $52000 last year, or mode, which I have no information on.

The median is the figure which has about 50% of the total population earning more and about 50% earning less. The mode is the figure that the largest number of people earn.

To quote Wikipaedia: "The median is primarily used for skewed distributions, which it summarizes differently than the arithmetic mean. Consider the multiset { 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 14 }. The median is 2 in this case, as is the mode, and it might be seen as a better indication of central tendency than the arithmetic mean of 4.

Calculation of medians is a popular technique in summary statistics and summarizing statistical data, since it is simple to understand and easy to calculate, while also giving a measure that is more robust in the presence of outlier values than is the mean."

The Govt likes the mean figure because it makes things look "better" than the majority may feel is the case from their own experience. It means that when they give themselves a rise and stop everyone else from getting one, the mean figure still goes up.

St G I understand you do not like me, take that on board, got my point in wrong place ok too.
But you break out with pride at times telling us how rude you are on your blog, mate mind if I say get a life?
I understand the averaging out, what true use is it?
1.205 a week or 490 how can it be used?
Now in some country villages the annual income would be below the lessor as pensions and benefits are mosts income.

Hi Belly,
Well as one of those country village people i can tell you that i do not earn $1205 per week from my small business. This is not a complaint and i am sure many will wonder why i bother with all that work for a small wage. Well i simply just don't need a big wage. I work less and manage my finances. i do get family tax benefit which helps but grow veg and kill my own meat. My point is that if you live in the country and manage things well money is no problem.
I see the people you speak of every fortnight roaming up and down the main street. Mostly they are buying booze, smokes and chips. It is the old turkey week feather week problem. Mostly they are low socio and either don't care or don't want to know about managing the money they have. Why? well that is a subject for another post but i will say one appreciates the dollar they earn through hard work more than the one they are given.
What i would really like to know is how the hell could anyone survive on $1205 a week in sydney or melbourne. You would loose half in rent or mortgage repayments. Dosen't leave much for a life.

Good story Belly. Genuinely didn't get what you were on about. I don't like you? I don't know you. Considering some muppets that hang out here you're actually one of the decent ones. I can't be bothered sugar coating stuff for people here.

Next time I'll just ask what the number is?

Hugs and Kisses.

Agree Nairbe but it is a different subject.
Antiseptic has put it in figures we can all under stand, probably given the reasons for it.
But believe me some workers get more even blue collar, but most get far less.
I am aware figures exist that give the average in comes in areas states and this but unimpressed with its benefit to us.

Are, yes quite right, different subject, sorry.
The selective use of figures and the exclusion of certain demographics in the compilation of data is well intrenched in the system. The unemployment figure is carefully dealt to by making sure anyone with a sore back is on disability and the hords that are on centrelink subsidised study are not included.
The numbers will always be fixed to reflect the best possible outcome, just another reason not to trust government but get one's self educated.

Belly:

I believe that Australia's average weekly wage is double what it is in the US, and probably much better then it is in other parts of the world. We're not perfect by any means, but many people will agree that we're far better off than most elsewhere. To many who come to this country and want to work - opportunities abound.
Jobs are available (sometimes several) and home ownership is still a
real reality - if you're prepared to live further out.

I read in The Age on Saturday, of Sudanese families who moved into Melbourne's western suburbs (Truganina - west of Laverton) in 2008,they bought 500-square-metre block for $135,000. They look back on it now as a bargain. The prices are up to $220,000 and the blocks are 400, 350-square-metres. Apparently the neighbourhood is a very good one and growing. Where else would this be possible for them? In Sudan? - probably just a dream.

In this country, I feel we're very lucky and should count our blessings. Just think of our annual leave, superannuation benefits,
all the public holidays, and the health system (for pensioners especially), many of us don't realise just how lucky we are. But others apparently do - why else is our population growing at such a rapid rate? In 1993-94, after the Kennett government sacked 30,000 government employees, Victoria's population growth sank to as low as 12, 680. Yet 15 years later the population of a single municipality -
Wyndham centred on Werribee - grew by 10,758.

Melbourne's growth in 2008-2009, at first estimated at 93,478, now looks to have been closer to 100,000. And the latest estimate for Victoria's growth is 121,229.

The point I'm trying to make is - our future's is what we make it. Melbourne's incredible rebirth from the ashes of the 1990-91 recession was the product of many creative people, each adding their bit, in their own way, to remake the old town as a wonderfully vibrant, alive city.

The opportunities are in this country for us to succeed.
It's up to us to do so.

Lexi, you're gilding the lilly a bit claiming our wages are double that of the US.

However, even if it was, that is of little importance. What does matter is what you can buy, with what you get.

With lower personal income tax our US mates get more pay in their pay packet. Then you have to look at how far that goes.

Housing at 3 years or less income. Cars at 5 months income, & the fuel for them at less than half the cost of ours. TVs at less than a weeks, & most appliances at similarly low cost, they get much more bang for their buck.

Our dollar may be running at near parity in the market, but when it comes to purchasing power, where it counts, ours looks more like a paso.

The fact that that Melbourne block of land appreciated so much in just a couple of years is reason for worry, not celebration. Just what do these inflated land prices do for the next group of young people aspiring to home ownership? It is not something that will give them great joy, as they look to start in the rat race.

Hasbeen:

I stand corrected. What I should have said that for the lowest paid workers the minimum hourly rate in Australia is more than double of that in the US and the working conditions overall in Australia are better.

Despite the average income in Australia, hard working people are still able to buy and pay off their homes unlike in the US where a large proportion of people pay rent and have a day-to-day existence on their income.

The majority of the people can't afford to buy a lot of what you claim
only the middle to upper classes earn enough to fit into that category.
As in Australia, so too in the US credit is easy (more so in the US)
sooner or later though the debt catches up with people.

Statistics are usally based on averages and does not always reflect the true picture of the extremes.

I am going to now be a PROPHET. and predict the future :)

KENWORTH workers normal rate $28/hour. Saturday Rate $54/hour

PREDICTION. "Kenworth will re-locate it's manufacturing in CHINA within 10 yrs".

Let's hope those mortgages are paid off people. Of course by that time most other manufacturing jobs will have been exported, and the ex Kenworth people will just develop depression and low self esteem.

Oh.. don't worry about the UNION bosses which caused this...'they' will be living it up quite well thanks.

AL,
There is some point to what you say but it is very little and shows the narrow way you view things. I take it you are or were an executive. Me first me last and me in between.

Yes kenworth probably will move to china and produce an inferior product while paying its employees below poverty wages and the ever greedy australian will buy the product because it is cheap. Cheap being the key word, we have very little loyalty left in this country. Not to our workers nor the product they produce, we prefer to worry about ourselves not the nation, thanks "ME" generation. The sooner the boomers retire and die the sooner the world can get on with fixing the result of their greed and selfishness.

AGIR

It is my turn to be a prophet. You earn more than the Kenworth workers, but there is a really good reason why they should accept lower wages but you shouldn't.

While I still wonder what use these figures are I have no need to wonder about our Boazy.
True story, mid 1970,s cattle bought less than a bantam hen and chickens at our then local auction.
High income Pitt street farmers area.
On buying both the best cattle lots and a few chooks a matron told me I was evidence the wrong people had the money.
Her son was the carrier I used for transport and owned two cows and calf's I had bought.
He begged me not to leave but.
Never bought there again, next sale not much sold.
Now do you know that lady Boazy.
Bosses often, more often than you think, offer higher wages, we are short of skilled workers.
Once trained in such as government rail workshops and machine sheds we have to import skills.
Boss pay a true market price.
I am truly, honestly baffled by a Christian who throws so many stones at workers .
Keep the caps coming Boazy but you fail to impress me.

how lovely if the weekly wage was this much, perhaps we would not have so many families living on the streets, and there would not be so many families wondering how on earth they are going to afford to have christmas this year, I know I would be less stressed if I was taking home this great wage every week, but I, like alot of families are making ends meet on $600 a week, some on much less., Trin

The more you get the more you spend, so stay where you are.
The people on this sort of money are probably worse off, they live to their means. The more money the bigger the house, the more debt.
The pension is the biggest money i have ever been paid.
When these big wages come to a stop, it's a long way down to live on a pension. I don't know how they will survive.

Al, re your shooting home the blame to the Unions, they did not contribute to shipping the first world’s production base to cheaper climes. That is the spin propagated by the "money" to blame the supposed greed of the rank and file.

Post WWII the rank and file was needed to fuel the first worlds manufacturing segment, which fueled the prosperity of the nation and the unions had management over a barrel. Around the mid sixties technology really started to change the work environment of the past 30 years. Factory floors went from 500 workers to 100 and the supporting technology trebled productivity and profit. The diminished Unions then asked for pay rates that would represent their input per capita (there are less of us and we are producing substantially more) but the bosses would not pay up.

Bosses reaped the two fold benefit of record output per shift and being able to defray some of the cost of the technology via tax breaks unlike their payroll on which they have to further pay the government’s tax. By the early 70's the ones that run the machines were in dispute with the bosses ongoing, worldwide.
TBC

At this point the "money" proposed that under the mantle of the UN Development Organization and in league with the World Bank and the IMF the money should leave high cost environments and move to where they could take advantage of the defenseless. The only problem was national import tariffs and protectionist legislation (the fence we used to have around our most precious resource, self reliance).

One year later The Lima Declaration was penned and here in Australia it was passed into legislation by the Liberal government of the time, and with the full support of the Labor opposition the fence came down. I was fourteen when my father (a unionist) methodically went through what it would mean for our independence and Australia’s future. He said that we would be a net importer of goods and then food and at that point we are fooked, sadly all he said has come to pass.

No wages paid to the rank and file has ever seen them moving into Vaucluse and shopping at Double Bay, unlike some Labor power brokers that you alluded to. The Labor party went from a vehicle for social justice to an "ideological cause".

Ah Sonofgloin, just blame those evil politicians for giving
consumers a choice. How shocking!

Perhaps its time that we called a spade a spade and blamed parents,
for raising a mob of brats, giving them life on a plate, so they
now expect life on a plate.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/8379416/gen-y-slack-and-spoilt-says-boss/

Its something that I have noticed here in the country. Those
parents who were tough on their kids, they are all thriving in
life. Those who got it on a plate, they can't cope when a little
adversity comes along.

Judging by the article, I doubt if some are employable either.

Everybody is employable there's always someone that wants their shoes polished.

Yabby adversity breeds resourcefulness, no doubt. But lazy gen Y or not, they did not dismantle our manufacturing base. You fail to understand that this transition from self sufficiency to being a net importer is not a positive movement.

In fact you embrace it as a boon for consumer choice, here is just one example where our politicians made decisions contrary to our best interests in the name of consumer choice:

Jan 2005 - When Australia signed a free trade agreement with Thailand in January 2005, the then Howard Government claimed car manufacturers would reap the benefits in terms of exports. Instead the exact opposite has happened, with Thailand imposing hefty sales taxes on imported Australian cars. Meanwhile cars made in Thailand are selling like hotcakes here.

And a related article:

24 Jun 2005 ... 'The new investment will show the world what we at Toyota already know: that Thailand, one of Toyota's largest production bases,”

Bloody amazing we drop our protection in January and Toyota invests in further production in Thailand in June, in preperation to supplying Australia.. Traitorous politicians and their lackeys such as yourself have no credibility other than to other apologists.

I agree with your post yabby, and understand my Friends concerns with the death of manufacturing .
But ask your self this why is that big tin shed so full of buyers?
And the products so often not Australian.
Consumers want to buy on price not country.
I in particular am unimpressed with gen y.
Judge mental, uncaring and rude for a start.
Willing to sit around and not work and likely to be locked up smoking the dope they buy with our tax's for a few days.
Unlikely to ever muster the Wil to change anything that other generations had.

Sonofgloin, indeed all the 4wds that I have purchased for ages,
are made in Thailand. I drive Isuzus, which used to be badged
as Holdens. Now they sell them direct.

Australia has never produced 4wds and most of us don't want to
drive 6 or 8 cylinder petrol utes. So what on earth is wrong with
us buying them from Thailand?

The fact that they are now cheaper, reduces our input costs and
I remind you that around here in WA, most of what is produced is
exported. We need to be globally competitive, out inputs need to
be competitivley priced.

Clearly Gen Y have no intention of knuckling down to work on
a production line anyhow. They won't even take jobs on offer on
the meat chains.

"""
Of what use are these figures.
"""

They make the pollies feel better about giving themselves a pay rise while most are struggling to pay their power bills!

Antiseptic, your $52000 figure is not the median wage nor the median weekly wage.

It is not exact either but it is near enough. It is the average yearly household wage.

It is also a figure I dispute given the median individual wage is as best as I can tell below the current minimum wage.

Senexx, I think you're mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income_in_Australia_and_New_Zealand

That claims that the figure for households was $66,820 in 2007/2008. It quotes the ABS figures.

As household income includes benefits and allowances, and all contributing taxpayers, it seems reasonable to assume that the median individual income is significantly lower.

I was given the $52000 figure by someone who should know. If it's wrong, I'm sure they'd be pleased to find out.

Senexx, just a little more.\

From http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/32F9145C3C78ABD3CA257617001939E1/$File/65230_2007-08.pdf

Table 5

It gives median income for all persons in 2007-2008 as $692/week, or $35984 PA. Wage and salary earners had a median of $807/wk, or $41964 PA, so you're partially correct. I'll have to check with my friend to find out where he got his data. Perhaos he wasn't including those who derive an income solely from benefits.

Either way, it's a great deal lower than the headline mean figure beloved of Govt., which in this case are $925/week and $811/week respectively. I really have no good explanation for the huge discrepancy between those figures and the latest claim for the headline figure.

Antiseptic, yes I knew the ABS had the figures in the mid 60ks. I didn't deduct benefits or such to arrive at your figure.

Ah yes I have seen the ABS stat before and that's the mean middle income of a household.

I swear I've read somewhere the median individual income is $26000 but I cannot find the source, the closest I can find is Andrew Leigh's blog which seems to have 19 thousand and something near $20K c. 2006 and $29K c.2008

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2902.0Main%20Features30Jun%202007?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=2902.0&issue=Jun%202007&num=&view=

has the weekly figure, $466 that's $24000 annually c. 2007

Now with Factoring in inflation $26k sounds about right (assuming 2-3% target was adhered to)

Which of course means I have to go back and actually agree with you that $52000 is about the median household wage assuming two workers per household.

However I still note that $26k is lower than the current federal minimum wage. The current FMW is $569.9 x 52 = 29634.80. Unless of course I'm assuming too many work weeks.

So the median individual is on less than minimum wage.

And my apologies for misremembering.

I do indeed think the our alternatives are a better substitute than what the ABS provides. I think the median individual wage is even better since there is no precise definition of a household and it is all households averaged.