The independent tribunal that sets politician pay has determined to give federal MPs a 4 per cent pay rise, saying previous pay increases have been conservative.
The median personal income is less than $50K when you take into account unemployed and retired and other income streams, so it’s closer to 10X of the median Australian.
I suspect you are talking about the median Jobs in Australia rather than Personal Income in Australia.
Honestly I’d rather see politician remuneration indexed to minimum wage. I suspect tying the wealth of the decision makers to the minimum wage might actually make a difference to the average Australian.
Where does that point stop though? If people are in it to make money they’ll take every opportunity to make more and this has been proven time and time and again.
Maybe if a base pay of $200K isn’t enough for them they’d just leave politics altogether and make room for people who want to help their local community?
Fair point, I was talking about the PM’s pay. The idea that a federal politician’s value (pay is literally the way to compare your perceived value to society) is even over 4 times more than half of your countrymen is an interesting thought to reckon with.
Based on the determination, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s salary will increase from $564,356 to $586,930, and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s salary will increase from $401,561 to $417,623.
MPs will have a base pay of $225,742, up from $217,060 — though they can receive additional pay depending on whether they hold a ministry or shadow ministry, chair a committee, or act as speakers or party whips.
But it’s not like for like. Misusing statistics like you are doing doesn’t help the conversation it just makes you look ignorant.
When you include someone who works 10 hours a week against a minister who is responsible for a department that manages thousands of people it just makes you look small minded and, quite frankly, not knowledgeable enough to join the conversation.
Whoa bud, there’s a heap of nuance here and accusing someone of misusing stats rather than presenting under a different context doesn’t help anyone.
If we only count full time workers we are ignoring under employed, volunteers, people whose circumstances prevent them from working full time. All these people can provide a benefit to society, whether it’s raising family, caring for elderly, volunteering at their local sports club or men’s shed, etc… Your position seems to be saying their value to society is zero. I would put it to you that you that your way of representing the stats doesn’t reflect the nation as a whole.
Another question to ask when counting the rate of income increase is also where the poverty line comes into it. If you say poverty line is $30K (I haven’t looked this up) then $50K income is only $20 on making your life better, and $230K is still $200k, so we are back to 10x on income to improve your life.
They earn almost 4x the median Australian. That’s obscene.
The median personal income is less than $50K when you take into account unemployed and retired and other income streams, so it’s closer to 10X of the median Australian.
I suspect you are talking about the median Jobs in Australia rather than Personal Income in Australia.
Honestly I’d rather see politician remuneration indexed to minimum wage. I suspect tying the wealth of the decision makers to the minimum wage might actually make a difference to the average Australian.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions
won’t they just be more reliant on lobbying gifts to compensate?
Where does that point stop though? If people are in it to make money they’ll take every opportunity to make more and this has been proven time and time and again.
Maybe if a base pay of $200K isn’t enough for them they’d just leave politics altogether and make room for people who want to help their local community?
From what I can tell, MPs earn about $200,000. 200/50=4?
Fair point, I was talking about the PM’s pay. The idea that a federal politician’s value (pay is literally the way to compare your perceived value to society) is even over 4 times more than half of your countrymen is an interesting thought to reckon with.
So what’s not obscene then? 1x?
Median income includes part time, casual, and unsure work
And they are a part of our country and should be counted.
Things sure do look rosier if we ignore the shit aspects.
But it’s not like for like. Misusing statistics like you are doing doesn’t help the conversation it just makes you look ignorant.
When you include someone who works 10 hours a week against a minister who is responsible for a department that manages thousands of people it just makes you look small minded and, quite frankly, not knowledgeable enough to join the conversation.
When you realise that some people work 10 hours a week because it’s all they can, it makes you look out of touch.
Underemployment is a huge issue.
Whoa bud, there’s a heap of nuance here and accusing someone of misusing stats rather than presenting under a different context doesn’t help anyone.
If we only count full time workers we are ignoring under employed, volunteers, people whose circumstances prevent them from working full time. All these people can provide a benefit to society, whether it’s raising family, caring for elderly, volunteering at their local sports club or men’s shed, etc… Your position seems to be saying their value to society is zero. I would put it to you that you that your way of representing the stats doesn’t reflect the nation as a whole.
Another question to ask when counting the rate of income increase is also where the poverty line comes into it. If you say poverty line is $30K (I haven’t looked this up) then $50K income is only $20 on making your life better, and $230K is still $200k, so we are back to 10x on income to improve your life.