Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
How does anybody live on this?
Collapse
X
-
Looks like terrible use of statistics to me. Taking figures and drawing shonky conclusions. Apart from a couple of throwaway comments, they haven't looked at life stages/decisions to explain the figures.
While it is true that most 15-19 year-olds are in low-paying jobs, many more are in no work at all or part-time work. So the average pay packet is a pretty meaningless figure. Likewise many of the other statistics quoted. If they really want to talk about how much you can expect to earn at a particular age, they need to only look at full-time workers.My blog. From personal experience.
http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/
-
Originally posted by Bobsyouruncle View PostIt still has some relevance, averages at least give you a snapshot of things. I am surprised the numbers are so low.My blog. From personal experience.
http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/
Comment
-
Do they? It's not clear. Also not clear if they include everyone not working. Also, I skimmed the article, but didn't see any clarity whether this is before or after tax.
Breakdown by education level would be good. And industry. But of course then you'd need a lot more little pictures of people, and no one would read it because it'd be a meaningful statistical report instead of clickbait.AAT Accounting Services - Property Specialist - [email protected]
Fixed price fees and quick knowledgeable service for property investors & traders!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anthonyacat View PostDo they? It's not clear.My blog. From personal experience.
http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/
Comment
-
Ah, I took the 'fewer hours' to mean 'full time but fewer hours' like a lot of parents and older folks do. But you're quite right it could include part time. And the under 20s are almost certainly part time.AAT Accounting Services - Property Specialist - [email protected]
Fixed price fees and quick knowledgeable service for property investors & traders!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bobsyouruncle View PostHowever if you look at the govt stats for full time workers they line up very closely with these numbers, so maybe part timers not included....My blog. From personal experience.
http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/
Comment
-
40 hours of the minimum wage is $630 a week. There are lots and lots and lots of people earning that wage...and you're right, they can't live on it. They crib by with second jobs, multiple families in one house, etc. They range from the hardest workers you've ever met - eg the typical cleaners, working late into the night or early hours of the morning, hardly ever seeing their partner who works the day shift packing in a clothes warehouse, both of them juggling child responsibilities as best they can - to the laziest, three generations of welfare recipients in the same home.
I can tell you that businesses in Auckland that need to recruit staff from outside the area, and aren't near to a railway station or a bus hub that goes way out of the city, are finding it next to impossible....same with teachers, nurses, police and other government department staff. No one on an average wage can afford to move to Auckland, not if they dream of a home and family. They end up with surely unsustainable nonsense like people driving in from Wellsford, or buying in Huntley, driving to Papakura and catching the train.
The idea over the last thirty years that wages in this country need to be supressed - kept artificially low and falling in real terms by raising interest rates whenever there is a hint of wage inflation - while immigration places huge pressure on house and land prices - is in my view a catastrophic disgrace that has badly damaged our society.Last edited by Ivan McIntosh; 11-04-2017, 03:50 PM.
Comment
-
I agree with all of that Ivan.
I'm a right winger, but the policies put in place in 1984 (by a Labour govt no less) have started a long slow decline in our society.
Some of us are richer, but many are poorer. And on the whole I'd say the country is in a worse position.Squadly dinky do!
Comment
-
I'm surprised you are all surprised by these numbers. You don't really believe most people working full time are earning more than this, do you?
I would be highly doubtful that the median income for those in full time employment would be any more than $1500 per week pre-tax
Comment
-
Originally posted by Davo36 View PostI agree with all of that Ivan.
I'm a right winger, but the policies put in place in 1984 (by a Labour govt no less) have started a long slow decline in our society.
Some of us are richer, but many are poorer. And on the whole I'd say the country is in a worse position.
Families suffer because both parents (if there are 2) have to work longer and have less time for their kids.
Always Labours fault no matter how long National have in power.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wayne View PostI'd agree that as a country we are worse off.
Families suffer because both parents (if there are 2) have to work longer and have less time for their kids.
Always Labours fault no matter how long National have in power.
A childless, basically marriage-less, career driven woman herself. These sorts of women can never understand why any woman would want to stay at home and be a mother. Feminists actually devalue this vital role.
And it's basically right wing mantra. Work, work, work, money, money, money. You know, individualism, me me me kind of stuff. But Labour took this on full-tilt.
Read this the other day: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/sam...m-let-me-down/
Similar article: https://sarahockwell-smith.com/2016/...hy-it-matters/
It would be much better if one parent (and it can be the dad) stayed at home.
And another big thing, we don't talk about much on here is that having both people in the couple working has added more income to the household, but all this does is drive up property prices and rents... So couples take on bigger mortgages etc.Squadly dinky do!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Davo36 View PostIt would be much better if one parent (and it can be the dad) stayed at home.
And another big thing, we don't talk about much on here is that having both people in the couple working has added more income to the household, but all this does is drive up property prices and rents... So couples take on bigger mortgages etc.
Generally the more people earn the more they spent.
In my experiance the people with the higher incomes are the poorest - they have so much debt they have few options but grind the wheel harder.
I have been fortunate that we took the option of reducing to one wage to raise the kids.
Never looked at what 'might have been' and ran with what we had.
Comment
Comment