||Curiously, tho': the Howard Govt (and probably the Labs since) always made its submissions to the annual Minimum Wage case based on the Median Wage rather than the headline Average (Full-Time) Wage...

Similarly, the determination of Child Support payments has revolved around Median and not the Average wage...
||

yet you are the same person that trumpets the supremacy of median over mean... but apparently your convictions are flexible depending on circumstances...

For starters, I know for a fact, that the 'Median Income' of Aussie Adults has been slipping further and further below the headline 'Average (Full-Time) Wage' - it is currently remarkably close to the Minimum Wage - but we rarely hear of that figure from our pollies because it highlights the rapidly-growing inequality in our society and economy...

Yup, about 50% of all Aussie adults have annual incomes of the Minimum Full-Time Wage or less - FACT!

So, do you not find it strange, that we don't routinely hear the headline Median Income and Median Wage as well as the Minimum Wage and Average Wage!?

Even allowing for inflation and welfare transfers, I am certain that our entire system has become far more regressive over the past quarter century - and that's without the various new and effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare payments introduced over the last decade in particular...

There have been a number of commentators (with different perspectives from all sides of politics) who have highlighted these regressive trends, in the past few years - including in recent weeks. I shall try to dig some of their articles up...

actually that is utter garbage. income is still distributed as a bell graph

Moreover, this has been at the expense of both the living standards of the majority of Australians and the ongoing conservation of our environment and the maintenance and upgrading of First World essential services and infrastructure.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:00pm:


Again, you stoop low, in seeking to misrepresent me - I really wish you'd stop doing that, ta!

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:43pm:


Sounds pretty dubious to me Longy. Perhpas you should stick to the facts rather than making up theories.

Quote:


No they don't.

The distribution of wealth in Australia
A 'fair go'?

By Frank Stilwell & David Primrose

The latest figures confirm the trends to inequality, explain Frank Stilwell and David Primrose.

The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) was commissioned by Catalyst Australia to conduct a study of the distribution of wealth in Australia. The NATSEM data supplements previous sources and gives us an up-to-date picture of who is wealthy in Australia and who is not.

What is particularly interesting about the new data is the disaggregated analysis of wealth distribution, classified according to a number of overlapping social categories: age, income, gender, occupation, industry and household composition.

This supplements a previous NATSEM analysis that showed that the richest fifth of Australian households each have, on average, forty times more wealth than the poorest fifth of the population.

Analysis of the new NATSEM data confirms that wealth in Australia remains concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few. The minority sitting at the higher end of the income scale have reaped the benefits of the economic growth in recent decades by disproportionately increasing their personal wealth. This has been at the expense of the majority at the other end of the income scale, whose share of personal wealth has declined relative to those high-income earners. Large wealth disparities also exist between different occupational and industry groupings.

The NATSEM data also highlights the persistence of disparities in the wealth of Australian men and women. Average levels of wealth for men and women remain highly unequal across the categories of age, income, occupation and industry. Even when women and men appear to be relatively equal according to some measurements, there are other gendered dimensions of economic inequality. For example, while the wealth levels of those working in high-status occupations are not dissimilar on average, there are many fewer women within those occupations. Such discrepancies often translate into relative poverty for women during retirement, as well as increased reliance on government support and pensions.

These persistent economic inequalities run counter to the ethos of 'a fair go' often assumed as a fundamental characteristic of Australian society. Comprehending the complex dimensions of this problem is therefore an essential first step in remedying the situation and promoting more effective egalitarian social policies.

Wealth & the life cycle

Wealth is typically accumulated over the life cycle. However, people's capacity to get wealthier over time varies according to their socio-economic position, good fortune (such as receiving inherited wealth), thrift, and a host of other factors. Personal wealth is also commonly run down in old age. These patterns are confirmed by the NATSEM data.

Average household wealth increases with the age of the principal household reference person until 55-64 years of age, after which it declines. This decline is particularly rapid in the case of men, falling from an average wealth of $205 500 at 60-64 years to $138 800 after the age of 65 is reached. A slightly less marked decline occurs in the case of women, falling from around $125 300 for 55-59-year-olds to $89 000 for women over 65. Overall, men aged 25-64 and women in the 25-59 range possess the greatest average wealth, while those under 25 years and retirees own the least wealth.

Not surprisingly, flows of income correlate strongly with stocks of wealth. Households with high incomes can more readily accumulate valuable assets, and those assets then commonly generate more incomes. Meanwhile, households with low incomes are less able to accumulate wealth and tend to be locked into a more disadvantaged position, sometimes into a vicious cycle of poverty.

The NATSEM figures show the relationships between wealth and income for both men and women. Men aged 25-64 years who earn $50 000 or less annually have an average wealth in the range $67 800 to $92 000. Fifty-eight per cent of all men are in this category. By contrast, men who earn $100 000 or more annually have average wealth in the range of $236 800 to $534 400. Only 6.1% of surveyed men aged 25-64 years earn this amount.

The strong link between income and wealth applies also to women. Those annually earning $50 000 or below have an average wealth ranging from $45 500 to $61 700, which is less than men's wealth at the same income level. This applies to 85% of women. Women with an annual personal income of $100 000 or above have average wealth in the range of $242 100 to $492 500. While women in these higher income categories possess only slightly less average wealth than men at the same income level, a very small proportion of women fit into this income category (1.3% of all women).

Overall, these figures suggest that wealth is concentrated among a small proportion of the population with high incomes. There evidently exists an intimate relationship between who owns what and who gets what. This confirms earlier studies of the distribution of wealth in Australia.

[...]