|
In 2011 the median was something like $65k for someone employed full time. You can add inflation to that to approximate the current level.
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
Zenithe posted:mean =/= median. Sorry you don't know anyone who finished year 10 Mathematics. Sorry you couldn't read the post directly above yours
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Goffer posted:From 2013: Okay, but this includes part timers. Negligent was specifically talking about full time workers.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
open24hours posted:In 2011 the median was something like $65k for someone employed full time. You can add inflation to that to approximate the current level. Where can I find these figures?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Okay, but this includes part timers. Negligent was specifically talking about full time workers. That's the trick.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Where can I find these figures? ABS has everything on their website. http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/About+TableBuilder  Looks like it was a bit less than $65k.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Median and average are both perfectly fine measures of central tendency to support a statement that 80k is middle income Your an idiot if you think that mean and median will provide the same value in such a skewed sample as wage earnings Old but relevant http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/01/australian-income-inequality-worsens/ Median was 14% lower mean for fulltime workers
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Negligent, please stop being dishonest.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
open24hours posted:ABS has everything on their website. Thanks. Freudian Slip posted:Your an idiot if you think that mean and median will provide the same value in such a skewed sample as wage earnings I don't think calling people idiots over this poo poo is helpful. Politicians selectively manipulate statistics to serve their agenda. Keeping on top of it takes effort and starting a big fight every time someone repeats something they heard makes it harder
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
I'm not trying to get the answer that most pleases statistical purists, to the normal voter, middle = average. So the treasurer's statement is fine. You can have a big argument about it but it's ultimately pointless nitpicking.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Has this thread discussed the Shapes recipe change? Only tried pizza Shapes since they changed it but..they're not nearly as good. Or maybe my sense of taste is on the way out again. Or both! I was disappointed, either way.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:I don't think calling people idiots over this poo poo is helpful. Politicians selectively manipulate statistics to serve their agenda. Keeping on top of it takes effort and starting a big fight every time someone repeats something they heard makes it harder A person who can knows enough about statistics to confidently say Negligent posted:Median and average are both perfectly fine measures of central tendency to support a statement that 80k is middle income is either an idiot or is trolling
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
edit: replying to negligent Except that the statement is misleading. Amethyst posted:Politicians selectively manipulate statistics to serve their agenda.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Negligent posted:I'm not trying to get the answer that most pleases statistical purists, to the normal voter, middle = average. So the treasurer's statement is fine. You can have a big argument about it but it's ultimately pointless nitpicking. Come on. You're the one who made the original assertion based on statistical reasoning. You can't just write off further, perfectly reasonable statistical reasoning as purism.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
kirbysuperstar posted:Only tried pizza Shapes since they changed it but..they're not nearly as good. Or maybe my sense of taste is on the way out again. Or both! yeah I tried the bbq ones and they're real bad. I kind of wish they would go back to the 90s recipe that had tons of oil smeared all over every biscuit
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Negligent posted:I'm not trying to get the answer that most pleases statistical purists, to the normal voter, middle = average. So the treasurer's statement is fine. You can have a big argument about it but it's ultimately pointless nitpicking. Most people do think that the middle is the average, so either 65K for fulltime workers or less for the average worker. Only 25% of people earn above 80K, that is not average in anyone's book.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
A person of average intelligence gives no fucks about the difference between mean and median and would rather watch masterchef than stare at a graph purportedly showing how wrong something a politician said is
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Negligent posted:A person of average intelligence gives no fucks about the difference between mean and median and would rather watch masterchef than stare at a graph purportedly showing how wrong something a politician said is Ok. Why is that relevent?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Because average people judge the truth of a statement by their own lived experience regardless of evidence See: prior statement 'no one i know is on 80k, all my friends are dirt poor, eat the rich'
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Negligent posted:to the normal voter, middle = average "Normal voter"'s would take "the average Australian income is $x" to mean $x is what most Australians earn. This isn't true. Unfortunately most people don't think about it for more than a half a second.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Negligent posted:A person of average intelligence gives no fucks about the difference between mean and median and would rather watch masterchef than stare at a graph purportedly showing how wrong something a politician said is Then how is perpetuating a misconception a good thing? Isn't it far better to get people to realise they're being mislead?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
I think all you need to say is "Only 25% of people earn above $80,000". Its simple and true.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
So ScumMo said something that is statistically wrong and also likely to be seen as wrong by the average Australian.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Negligent posted:A person of average intelligence gives no fucks about the difference between mean and median and would rather watch masterchef than stare at a graph purportedly showing how wrong something a politician said is 75% of people not making $80,000 see people making more than $80,000 getting a tax cut, see politicians saying $80,000 is average, think about voting elsewhere
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
The concept of middle class is meant to represent the typical person in a society not a perversion of statistics. Referring to a wage of the (approximately) top quartile as typical is the kind of bullshit politicking that's meant to be pulled apart and exposed by political reporting. So far I haven't really seen that happen.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Kat Delacour posted:The concept of middle class is meant to represent the typical person in a society not a perversion of statistics. Referring to a wage of the (approximately) top quartile as typical is the kind of bullshit politicking that's meant to be pulled apart and exposed by political reporting. So far I haven't really seen that happen. http://www.theage.com.au/business/federal-budget/federal-budget-2016-tax-cuts-80000-is-anything-but-average-20160501-goj9w7.html
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:http://www.theage.com.au/business/federal-budget/federal-budget-2016-tax-cuts-80000-is-anything-but-average-20160501-goj9w7.html quote:Asked at Sunday's press conference whether ordinary Australians earning well below $80,000 would be getting tax cuts, Morrison said the answer would be revealed on budget night. It'll have to be no. There are too many of them. Partially speculative from before budget night, but better than nothing I suppose. I haven't read The Age since it morphed into the Herald Sun with a weaker paywall. edit: and "Comments are now closed" so it's shut down for post-budget opining.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Lol T. Abs dropping bombs The sector should be grateful to Ian McFarlane Oh and btw one time I got handed an envelope of cash but I totes gave it back
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
I did a surface scratch search for '80,000 budget' on The Guardian and ABC news. If I just searched for '80,000' I wasn't getting budget related results. The first search result of an article after the budget for The Guardian was: Bracket creep changes in budget to save 500,000 from second-top marginal tax rate Largely focused on bracket creep and while it drops numbers it doesn't put them in perspective, for example it says "According to statistics from the Tax Office, over 2.5m taxpayers earn more than $80,000 a year." but doesn't explicitly translate that to the proportion of the population with reported incomes. This is an example of the failures of reporting I am talking about. The first search result of an article after budget night for ABC news was: Budget criticised as unfair and hollow This article is mostly focused on the idea of "Labor ministers are warning that the 2016 budget leaves average families worse off, and while Labor will not block the tax cut for people earning above $80,000, it is dismissing it as only enough for a coffee and a biscuit." or "JON FAINE: But Prime Minister the flaw in that thinking is that people on $60-70-80,000 a year - they don't have spare money to put into super. They're struggling just to get by." and generally saying the tax cuts are meagre, without actually arguing the assertion of middle income. So not even avoiding the explicit outline of who is benefiting, it's an interview perpetuating the Howard Battler. I'm not putting in a lot of effort on this search because I'm at work but let's pretend I'm rushing off to watch Masterchef or something. It should be clearly visible when someone searches for this poo poo: "Hey, guys, you are probably getting hosed. 75% (or some other more specific statistical analysis of the figures) of you are getting hosed. This is hosed."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
The new internship program seems like a great new avenue for companies to rort the government for free labor. "Youth Jobs PaTH" is an impressively dumb looking name too.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Oh and btw one time I got handed an envelope of cash but I totes gave it back Yeah because he wanted a cheque
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
quote:Up to 30,000 job seekers each year will gain a four to twelve week placement in an industry of their choosing. Interns will receive an incentive payment of $200 a fortnight paid in addition to their income support, and businesses will receive an upfront payment of $1,000 to host them. lmao jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
ABC radio today had a recording of turnbull getting shredded by a melbourne radio presenter, did anybody hear it or know the station it happened on?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Negligent posted:A person of average intelligence gives no fucks about the difference between mean and median and would rather watch masterchef than stare at a graph purportedly showing how wrong something a politician said is What about a person of median intelligence though?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
The Prime Minister refuses to confirm the costs of his plan to cut company tax over 10 years, despite the Parliamentary Budget Office estimating it at $16.5 billion. Why would you do that? Also: Mad Katter posted:What about a person of median intelligence though? Lmao
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
There's a reason the forward estimate are 4 years and it's because anything further is purestrain arse nuggets
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
This slave labour initiative has to actually make it through the senate right? Surely that isn't going to happen. Does anyone know when the first post budget poll is due?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
The ALP is yet to say that they oppose the slave labour which has me worried.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
They were interested in making the unemployed miserable when they were in government, why would being in opposition change anything?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
Tonight bill shorten is going to do his best Kevin Rudd impression and repeat the phrase "me too" over and over
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 04:48
|
|