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
Lol you read news.com.au
This is the reason why I am an OzBargain member. We automatically earn above the average full time income of $92K.
Saw link to "news dot com" article.
Moved onto next forum post
Lol I make about a 5th of that amount (just doing my part to bring down the average)
Full time on 18k?
You are working under conditions that are not legal. Unless of course you completely ignored the "full time" part of the post. But I'm sure you wouldn't have done that.
Probably already said, but average is pushed upwards by those earning ridiculous amounts (e.g. Gina Rinehart, all posters on Whirlpool etc), median is a far better measure and would be considerably lower.
how may Gina Reinhardts exist?
One too many
Can confirm. I am an average employee and earn about that.
But I earn that when im below or above average too.Maybe it's easier to voice frustration on the internet about this or possibly as an individual your social circles earn less than average. However, some of my friendship circles are definitely earning more than the average so to me personally I am not surprised.
I do find the comments here interesting that people take the piss, don't believe it or take offence that the average is 92K.
I must not be the only person here who thinks that the average is ok and take that number as motivation to earn more in their careers?
take that number as motivation to earn more in their careers?
na
I earn a fair bit more than that but do not believe that most full time people are on $92k or more. It is skewed by those on hundreds of thousands and even more in some cases. Well documented that the median income is quite a bit less and a better measure of what most people are on.
MED is better for representing a medium from an infinite pool of comparative objects. I.e real estates, buy and sell as many time as you wish.
AVG is better for representing the balanced value from a finite pool, i.e the $ a country has/had printed and who has been collecting them.
The conspiracy theory is that it doesn’t matter how much we earn because Murdoch himself just average out the **** of everyone that’s how we started seeing news and stories about using MED for earnings calculations and benchmarking.
And to answer OP, 92 packaged is quite good and easy to live with, without buying a house, that’s all matters.
I'd like to actually see it broken down by age group. Although I'm currently under, my current job salary trajectory is increasing slightly, here's the breakdown.
Y1: 70
Y2: 85
Y3: 100
Y5: 120
Y6: 150they're not slight increases mate. what industry is that?
those figures include super FYI
while you will get to 150 eventually, just think you need a little reality check that you're not getting there on year 6. the trajectory is not automatically year by year
Lol at thinking you just automatically get promotions 😂
Man, using this data, it seems that I am a failure.
16yrs back when I came to Oz, I earned just over 140k in the first (complete) FY 2006-07.
Now, after 16 yrs, it is still not double of that. Sigh.
Seems if you are mates of the Liberal party, you gazump more qualified candidates and get slotted into high-paying roles at the taxpayer's expense…..
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/something-has-to-be-done…
Oh, let's not even talk about pork-fat Barilaro's dodgy af situation
Sounds about right
92k is the mean
83k is the medianHalf the population needs to be below average for their to be an average.
i'm only above average in number of eyes, ears, legs and arms.