$150,000 per annum according to the article below. Not sure if it is referring to combined household income or salary per person.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/middle-class-au…
Salary to Be Considered Middle Class
mrvaluepack on 24/10/2023 - 12:07
Comments
The real world - or OzB?
Whirlpool minimum is now 200k.
reddit AusFinance average is 300k a year. If you think im joking go see it yourself. One lady said her husband on 500k+ doing basically 3 hours a week wfm for a "big company". bunch of delulu people
Diversity officer roles are 5 hour a week gigs for $125K minimum easy. You can do three of those positions with three different companies at the same time without any hassle at all, you just need to pull the mental health or oppression cards to get green-lit to do nothing from home instead of at the office.
@infinite: Putting aside your history of conspiracy theories and misinformation
If those were really the figures, and it's that simple to work three jobs a week for a guaranteed $375K a year … why aren't you doing it?
"Aw mate I'm not going to do that ridiculous pronoun nonsense, I'd rather my hi-viz School Of Hard Knocks And Common Sense honest job, like the regular blokes"
@CrowReally: LOL, a cooker like you who was screeching at how all the "wacists" in here would be put in their place with the Yes vote, is calling someone here a conspiracy theorist…… LOL
@infinite: I guess this is where I would be distracted and either
- Point out that I'd linked to an actual message you'd made alleging most bushfires are intentionally lit by conspiring environmentalists (otherwise known as a "conspiracy theory") or
- Ask you to stump up some proof about this whole "screeching about wacists" thing you cooked up
But maybe we should, inconveniently for you, stay on topic.
Let's get back to that one simple question I asked and you mysteriously didn't have an answer for: why aren't you taking $375K easy money a year?
Could it be that you're making stuff up?
@CrowReally: LOL, your backpedaling harder than a clown after having that big mirror shoved in your face.
Must have been funny realizing you were starring in this meme: https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:600/1*CBHPGGoURSZOmKb6…
bunch of delulu people
With a high overlap with the regarded gamblers of r/asx_bets, if the Subreddit overlap stats are any indication.
me as a kid: my dream is to help those less fortunate than I when I grow up
me now, on significantly less than 150k PA pre-tax : HELP ME!
me now, on significantly less than 150k PA pre-tax : HELP ME!
Someone really oughta investigate Dunder Mifflin's financials. Less than 150k/y barely leaves you with any money to fund hilarious pranks like paying your actor friend to come into work and pretend to be you to confuse your dorky coworker.
I don't know, Dwight's outfit only cost $11
I live comfortably by my own standards and that's all that matters.
Just make sure your standards stay the same over time.
yeah good point. food on table + roof over head even these days seems like middle class goals… wtf is going on.
Roof over head seems like a struggle for most at the moment… I mean rent $700-800 pw or more unless you're living in a shoebox. That's your whole salary if your're on 60k. Forget bills, food, and utilities. You gotta be on 6 figs for that. Then if you actually want to own a house. Forget it unless you're 150k+ bare minimum. Then within 20kms of the CBD. Oh well scrap that unless you're on $250k+.
shoebox
yeah, even what was considered 'slum' areas before in Brisbane are easily north of $700 these days for a 3 bedder.
Personal standards are not safe from inflation.
Mine are pretty low.
Totally true. Our family is 100k combined with two young kids (7 and 3) but live comfortably as we have paid our mortgage off. Any money coming in is just essentials first, with left over for other and savings. Although we don’t go out to eat much and mainly cook at home. Always buying reduced or sale items at groceries. Always looking for discounts at cheap plans. Can live quite comfortable if you can adjust
That’s just beautiful comment. Not often do we see something like this. Cheers.
Our standard of living has improved but cost of living has increased.
You think your parents were getting uber delivered to their door.
Or going on holidays
The baseline of what is considered normal has changed
Yeah but at least my parents could afford a house…
Our standard of living has improved
No it hasn't.
You think your parents were getting uber delivered to their door.
No one actually needs this. We have just become of lazy bunch of #$%¥
its about sharing the wealth, with uber, and uber drivers
But the drivers aren't getting any of the wealth…
Yes it's either that or our work/life/side hustle has become so hectic, we don't even have time to cook.
Are we lazy or just tired and time poor?
Not sure if it is referring to combined household income or salary per person
Probably an important fact missing from the pointless article on news.com.au and the pointless thread posted on OzBraggin.com.au
Did anyone eat out every Friday night like this story suggests???
Friday night was the only non "soy sauce and rice" day… We got a fried egg! haha
Sometime I prefer to do it on a Saturday night after a night out and a few shots.
I rarely eat out Friday night.
Monday wings, Tuesday steak, Wednesday mid-week deals and the occasional Sunday roast, or late-night shopping Thursday night, but rarely on a Friday.
There is no middle class. It was a thing invented to split the people up to get half fighting the other half.
In reality there's only 1) people who get their living working for somebody else 2) the self employed, and 3) people who get there money by having others do work for them.
The middle class absolutely exists, and your arbitrary category splits are irrelevant (a CFO on a six or seven figure income "works for somebody else" just like a teenager at Baker's Delight does, but that's where the similarities between them start and end).
Yes you can say that it exists. But it's an illusion, just like rainbow. The difference between lower class and middle class (as perceived by most people) vs the difference between middle class and ruling elite class is like comparing the distance between earth to moon vs earth to sun.
If over a century of economic and social-political writing and thinking has been made on the study of the middle-class/bourgeois, I think it's not an illusion at all. You can argue it's an arbitrary social construct (and I would agree that with the mega-wealth of the 1%ers and how that distorts the economy the middle-class's effects might not be as prevalent as it was, say, 30-40 years ago) but when we discuss these ideas it's all social constructs anyway (religion, capitalism, all that jazz).
As for the relative sizes and distinctions of the groups, again, not seeing the relevance of that to the dicussion - there's more bacteria in the world than birds and there's more birds than there are wild cats, and yet all three living species have their own robust and dedicated scientific community studying them.
It would be ridiculous to say there's no point to studying wild cats because there's more bacteria and bacteria affect us in a far greater way.
So too, insisting that the middle class never did or doesn't exist.
If over a century of economic and social-political writing and thinking has been made on the study of the middle-class/bourgeois,
While the idea of a "middle class" has been considered for centuries there hasn't really been any consistent definition on what it is. The idea of bourgeois started off as artisans/townsfolk between peasants and aristocrats and then morphed into the dominant ruling capitalist class who control the means of production during the industrial revolution. Other conceptions of "middle class" consider them as the middle managers, who perpetuate/enforce the will of the ruling elite while being separate from that elite. Essentially class traitors. Another definition, the dominant one in most mainstream media and the dominant definition in this thread, consider it as "people who aren't poor" but also "aren't rich". An entirely arbitrary and fluid definition with no real meaning.
This definition is perhaps the most problematic as it stratifies the working class, this is clearly visible in the bickering within this thread where people on 80k, 100k, 150k and 200k all claim to be "middle" class (gosh I'm not one of the poors!) but also not rich. So there are people on 150k arguing in favour of the stage 3 tax cuts that will mostly benefit people whose incomes/wealth is on an entirely different order of magnitude.
It's a distraction.
@Subada: I agree with your points, but..
If people agree that wealth/social mobility is a tiered system of classes and there's a top tier and a bottom tier (being the mega-rich and the working class), we still need a name for the very different needs and aims of that tier in the middle, which absolutely exists. Has anyone got a good name for what we can call the class in the middle? Anyone? Maybe starting with a M?
The classes exist; it's deciding how fat the slices are (e.g. working class ends at 70k, etc) is the real distraction from all of this.
If people want to argue there should now be more tiers in there (to address the diffuse needs of who it covers), or new framings of what that class wants, that's fine. You can have that discussion with like-minded people.
That's not the same as "the middle class didn't/doesn't exist any more", which is the one thing I am responding to. If it never existed, why has it been studied for a century? How do you know what I mean when I use the words "middle class"?
If the argument is "sure it existed once but now it's been replaced by something else" then alright, fine, what's the name of the thing that replaced it?
we still need a name for the very different needs and aims of that tier in the middle, which absolutely exists
When people say the middle class doesn't exist, this is the idea they're attacking. Personally I don't believe the fundamental needs and aims of those on middle incomes/wealth are are any different from those on lower incomes/wealth.
Both groups generally need some level of government support for healthcare costs, education/childcare and retirement. Both groups would benefit from reductions in working hours, more affordable housing, better rights for workers and higher wage growth.
Neither groups are in a position to lobby for political favours, capture regulatory agencies or distort markets. Neither groups benefit from recessions and financial shocks in the way that those with extremely high levels of wealth can.
Given wage growth is being outpaced by basic costs of living, we don't need more tiers of class or further social stratification. What value does distinguishing between low and middle income/wealth levels really bring to any analysis of the status quo? Rather we need to look at who is benefitting from the direction our economy is going and who is losing and let me tell you, the losers are basically 99% of people in this thread.
@Subada: I agree entirely.
For the record, you are aware this entire subthread was started by my responding to someone who said "the middle class doesn't exist and instead its just whether you employ, are employed or are self employed"?
I shot down both ideas and people have this idea I'm somehow advocating for a full discussion on the merits and requirements of the middle class.
@CrowReally: Yes I am aware.
"middle class doesn't exist" is a catchphrase like "defund the police" or "cultural marxism" or "woke mind-virus". It's not literal, just shorthand for a broader set of ideas like the paragraphs I wrote above.
If middle income/wealth people basically need the same things from our economy and government as those on lower income/wealth, are they really a separate class? What is the point of stratifying them as separate groups? Other than to divide them politically? Or make people on 150k feel better about themselves for still needing to have a mortgage paying shitloads of interest to banks? Better to say there is no lower or middle.
The share of income from labour has been dwindling continuously compared to the share of income from capital/assets since the 1970s. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2019/mar/pdf/th…
Increasingly we are living in a country where the best way to live is to own things, not to do any work. Who owns things for a living vs who works for a living is the only class structure that actually means anything practically.
@Subada: I'm not sure I'd use a phrase like "woke mind virus" as an example of using words to clearly describe an abstract concept but that aside..
My $0.02 is the bigger signifiers now are the levels of asset ownership. People who will always rent versus people who own their own residence versus people who own investment properties, for instance. That could be a "low, mid, rich" all on its own.
@CrowReally: I agree 100%, I edited my post just before you replied but basically it says the same thing. The RBA shows that the share of national income going to labour has been dwindling since the 1970s relative to the share of income to capital in Australia.
https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2019/mar/pdf/th…
This is a pattern being repeated throughout the western world. We live in a world where your employment, basically your skills and expertise, are increasingly irrelevant to your ability to support yourself compared to what you own.
We could call this gap low-mid-rich but we already have words for this. Capitalist and working classes.
"The middle class absolutely exists"
Totally agree. Proof? Two words. Hyacinth Bucket.
news.com.au
Into the trash it goes.
Back Into the trash it goes.
FTFY
news.com.au's only redeeming feature is that it's free
I think anyone earning $180k but above $90k would be middle class.
Next year it will go up in line with tax table.
I'd probably shift that to earning $250k but above $120k as middle class.
above $90k would be middle class
Eh, I feel like calling $90k middle class is a stretch. Your plan for home ownership on $90k is still firmly "hope a wealthy relative leaves me a large part of their estate and/or that the 'any-second-now-I-swear' housing bubble pop will magically suck for everyone else except me".
There is more to life than property ownership you know
Not if you hope to retire before 75 and still afford your rent, medication, food AND utilities.
Unless we radically alter our rental system to completely remove all no-fault evictions (including sale) and have long term (5,10,20 year) leases (indexed with rental increases) and increase quality long term rental properties, property ownership is pretty critical.
@boirganz: Fair points, I am certainly in favour of all those changes to renting.
That said, I don’t intend to buy anything any time soon. Can always afford a very cheap apartment to fall back on.
$120,001 – $180,000 would be closer.
A $150K (gross) salary, without dependants, is only enough for someone to not have to think/worry too much about just the basics like rent, bills, groceries, etc.
+1 it's cushy, but won't guarantee you a house.
Mind you the next round of tax cuts will be nice.Put in a $150k salary into a take home pay calculator and adjust it for the next financial year the difference is only a few hundred dollars a month.
$4k in take home pay is still $4k.
And a few hundred dollars a month pays for some of those luxuries you are missing. Like 4-ply Quilton.
It can, even in Sydney.
It all depends on how much they've been saving since they started working.
You can't be 30 years old, on $150k, and cry woe is me I cannot buy a house because you didn't start since the beginning of your career.
Uhhh what? How out of touch is this?! No dependants and the bar is not worrying too much?
I’m in Sydney and certainly meeting those criteria on like $80k.
I hope you’re being sarcastic.
Only just getting by as a single with no dependants ?
Where the fark do you think the money is going ? Uber eats 10 times a week?
Only just getting by as a single with no dependants ?
I didn't say "just getting by".
I was saying that that's the level where you can go to the supermarket and pick what you want without worrying about prices, etc. No need to worry about whether to turn on the aircon or not on a hot day because of electricity bills. Not having to worry about the movements in petrol prices.
As in, you can actually live properly.
You said it's "only enough" to not worry about basics. But you should be able to live far better than that on $150K with no dependants - nice dinners, drinks out, holidays.
@heytherehoney: I said it's enough to NOT have to 'worry' about the basics. There's a big difference between just being able to "afford" the basics and just not having to "worry" or even think about the prices when you buy things.
For other luxuries like weekends away or bigger purchases and other stuff, still have to plan and budget ahead.
You said it's "only enough" to not worry about basics.
Yes, I read exactly what you said. You said it's "ONLY" enough to "not have to worry about the basics". As others have said, it's out of touch, because $150K is MORE THAN enough to AFFORD LUXURIES for a single with no dependants.
@heytherehoney: Sure, I was able to afford the basics on much less than $150K. But it was around that $150K level where I said to myself "I have enough to freely buy what I actually feel like eating without having to think about the price".
Do you think $150K is enough to live a luxurious life? Because I'm on almost double that right now (gross) and I can tell you that my life nowhere near luxurious.
btw Single life is not cheap. Especially as a guy!
@bobbified: Single life is not cheap. Especially as a guy!
Why would being a guy make it more expensive? That seems an extremely misogynistic comment on the surface.
As a man you don't need to worry about the cost of buying feminine hygiene products every month, nor naprogesic for a start. Plus all the other products (e.g. makeup) that society places an unwarranted expectation on. As a man there is no expectation to shave, and a polo shirt and chinos is considered high fashion. Also, Viagra is subsidised by the government.
I would say single life is not cheap for a female compared to a male. But I wouldn't know I guess, since haven't been single for quite some time.That seems an extremely misogynistic comment on the surface.
You can't deny that society has so much more financial expectations from a guy.
As a man you don't need to worry about the cost of buying feminine hygiene products every month, nor naprogesic for a start.
How much do you spend on 'feminine hygiene' products and napro each month? How does this compare to a guy paying for a date? While it's not everyone, I think that the majority of guys would agree that there is a general societal expectation that guys pay for dates.
I know lots of girls that go to the clubs each weekend (I'm too old for that now). So many of them tell me that they barely spend a cent at the bar. Where do you think those drinks came from? The bar certainly didn't just hand out free drinks all night long. Not just that, but girls often get to enter the club for free while the guys have to pay for entry.
@bobbified: Plus all the other products (e.g. makeup) that society places an unwarranted expectation on.
e.g. Makeup, hair, nails, eyebrows, waxing, clothing etc. And that is just for going to work.I wasn't making it a competition. I was reflecting on the male attitude that being a woman is easy in comparison to being a man. A guy can turn up to work in a polo shirt, and chinos, with a $10 haircut and that's fine. A woman turns up the same and people will comment. A woman is expected to look 10x more professional than a man. And that is the general societal expectation.
This is grossly out of touch.
Personally know someone who makes half that, single, no dependents, lives alone in a house they own with a mortgage of around 400k.
They're getting by just fine, cashwise it's almost break-even, but they're still saving by way of their principal payment. So they're net positive every month.
For double that, it's insane to suggest that it would only be 'enough' to not worry too much.
They're getting by just fine, cashwise it's almost break-even
Everything was not fine.
That is the definition of mortage stress right thereYeah, its really is though. Their standard of living hasn't changed, they have no other responsibility besides mortgage and bills for one person.
Sure you can call that scraping by, but this is HALF the income of whats being talked about in this post, and they're sttill getting/scraping by.
Suggesting a person with double the income, but in a similar situation is getting by is asinine.
I know lots of people at work who budget down to their last dollar every pay. They don't have the extra couple of dollars to for the collection envelope in the office or the extra $20 or so for a farewell lunch.
For double that, it's insane to suggest that it would only be 'enough' to not worry too much.
btw - $150K gross is not "twice" $75K gross. monthly take home is $8,800 vs $4,900 respectively. This is part of the problem - I'm a bit past the highest marginal tax rate and when someone looks at the gross figures, it looks like i'm on two or three times what someone else might be. But everyone seems to forget that the much higher tax rates and medicare levy surcharge etc wipes a whole chunk off each month.
$150k gross is twice 75k gross. I am aware though that it is not twice in net income.
I agree with what you're saying re: people not necessarily looking at net income but my point stands. 150k gross is 80% more net income than 75k gross. A single person with no dependent should not only be "getting by" when they're pocketing $8,864/month.
Lets say they're paying a ridiculous $700/week for rent for a single person, which works out to be just over $3k/month. They still have $5300 left for everything else. If you're just getting by with $5300/month for just bills/groceries/etc for a person with no dependent.. you're certainly not budgeting down to the very last dollar, or you're doing it very very wrong.
@buckethat: It's not only "getting by". Someone can "afford" the basics on a much lower salary. But there's a constant need to budget etc. What I'm saying $150K is pretty much the level where I went.. "I don't need to budget for bills, groceries, etc anymore. I just go and buy what I like and what I actually feel like eating without having to think about a food budget etc"
Also, $700/week in Sydney is not unreasonable anymore. Even in Melbourne, a one bedder can easily go for $500-600/week.
@bobbified: Alright I think I was getting too caught up in the 'getting by' bit. Look fair enough if that's your experience. I personally know plenty who makes far less, with varying levels of responsibilities who are living life just fine, overseas holiday and all.
Fair point re: rental price in Sydney, that seems to be the norm for a one bedder now.
@buckethat: I know plenty of people who get by on less as well , but budgeting is a constant thing on their mind. Also, "taste" seems to go up with salary! haha
Salary is one of those things that's just "never enough". When I was on $20K, i wished I was on $50K… at $50K, I was wishing to be on $100K and so on. Right now, I'm at the point where, as an employee, I know that salaries don't get much higher anymore and when I look back, $150K is pretty much the sweet point for a single person. It's enough to not have to worry about budgeting (but still not enough for a more luxurious lifestyle).
Nope - I'm over this figure but I have nothing at the end of each month. Haven't gone on overseas holidays for years, no subscriptions, no ubereats or luxuries, no nothing.
Extremely poor cash flow due to interest rates + mortgage (!!!), repairs, bills and more bills, I live like I'm in college with a very tight budget and have to really penny pinch.
I definitely don't live a middle class lifestyle but I guess I chose to do this.
Curious if you're a single income household - do you have dependents, partner, etc?
No dependents or partner. Servicing a big mortgage + other investments with a single income.
$150k for a combined income in a family?
Well considering $112,578 is the upper limit of FTB Part B, $150,000pa family income is hardly middle class. $175k pa dual income and $200k single income minimum is probably a more realistic figure for middle class these days (with 1, maybe 2 dependents).
$150K is upper middle bogan
$95k is avg full time wage
The median probably has more meaning and is only $65-70k
I expect middle class to be both full time though really - vs student / retire doing casual work etc.
You're right in that the median is also skewed in the sense those not on full time hours will drag that number down. The closest we're going to get to a full time median would probably be taking the median hourly wage $37/hr and multiplying that out for full time (this will ignore any loading for casual wages though). This works out to be roughly $73.1k pa.
@Sal in SA: If there's a bit extra for OT and bonuses then the median is even lower, as those would push the figure up.
The only reason why it hit's as low as $65K is because it's counting all the kids under 18 and casual students working 5 hours a week Australia-wide, on top of all the retiree's still doing 1 day a week consulting gig's for some throw around cash. It's not a real indication of the average full time worker salary.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-workin…
The median in Australia for those working 37hr's a week is currently is a bit more than $78K
Unfortunately the cost of living in Australia is getting far too high the last few years.
More than likely the birth rate will drop as families will struggle to get started let alone get by after that.
You pretty much need family help to get started, if you are lucky, or pick up an inheritance sad to say.
Very hard for anyone starting behind in life for what ever reasonThis exact scenario happened in japan and their economy went nowhere for 10+ years while their birth rate collapsed and hours worked climbed.
We're headed the exact same way and we're importing people to cover it up.
Their economy was stuffed back in the late 80s and pretty much never come back since. Thanks to uncle Sam.
150k is rich. Don't listen to these elitists that are so out of touch with regular working people.