Household incomes
December 2nd, 2012 at 4:00 pm by David FarrarThe latest household income survey has some good and interesting news in it.
- Average annual household income from all regular sources increased from $79,256 to $81,067 – a 2.3% increase
- Average annual household income from wages and salaries increased from $77,843 to $82,029 – a 5.4% increase
- Total housing costs as a proportion of total regular household income decreased from 16.4 percent to 16.0 percent.
- The median annual regular household income went up 5.8% from $62,853 to $66,469
- The median annual regular household income from salaries went up 7.9% from $46,410 to $50,057
- The median annual personal income from salaries, for someone in employment, went up 5.9% from $37,673 to $39,889
- The average annual personal income from salaries, for someone in employment, went up 4.0% from $44,376 to $46,169
- The average household with a mortgage is paying $20 a week less than a year ago
- In Auckland the average annual housing cost has dropped from $17,619 to $16,654 while the average income has increased from $90,762 to $93,532 so the proportion spent on housing costs has dropped from 19.4% to 17.8%.
- Only around 20% of those in the two lowest income deciles say they are dissatisfied with their material standard of living, and 60% are satisfied.
- 10% of NZers have income of over $80,000. If you have a bachelors degree it is 24%, masters 26%, and doctorate 34%
It is always interesting to see how the stats measure up against the perception.
December 2nd, 2012 at 4:38 pm
But let’s not allow the facts to fly in the face of the Labour-led myths.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Hamnida and Ross69. Thoughts?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Without the medians, nothing here to comment on.
[DPF: Wow huge fail. Try reading the post before you do a kneejerk comment. Heaps of medians quoted there]
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:02 pm
@Psycho Milt
That would simply show what has already been reported during the week, that inequality increased sharply yet again, so medians falls into the ‘inconvenient fact’ file.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Bullets 4-6 are labelled “median”
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Luc, No it does not show increased inequality. What it shows is that lefty agitators (like yourself) should not be listened to. It reveals your complete lack of credibility and makes you, redundant.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:14 pm
There are medians quoted.
And the average salary didnt rise as much as the median did, so what does that say about inequality?
Luc you wouldnt accept any stats that showed inequality had fallen, and Milt you wouldnt accept any stats that showed people were better off under a National government. Get over yourselves.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:14 pm
So those households where people have a job and have afforded a house are better off (mortgage costs down 5%).
Yet there are more households where there is no job and they cannot afford a house (rising rents, rent costs up 5%).
Classic situation under a National government – those who have do better (tax cuts at the top rate), those who have less become worse off and there are more of them.
It’s possible many workers on lower incomes have not had wage increases at all and because they do not own their own home and face rent increases they are worse off.
The government is facing greater cost to government in benefits and accomodation supplement – so under budget pressure they cut student allowances for graduate students (the hand up to those in low income families who could not afford to study otherwise). Now many of them are looking at studying abroad (where there are both jobs and the higher wages help them to afford study).
Where is the trickle down from the well to do’s gain – lack of job creation and the opportunity to study being reduced?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Average annual household income from all regular sources: $81,067
Average annual household income from wages and salaries: $82,029
I know it’s possible, but the idea that the average family makes a loss from a regular source of income just seems kind of F@#$ed up.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Graeme the figures are right.
$82,029 is for those households where there is someone working.
$81,067 is the figure for all households – ACC, benefits, super included.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:03 pm
I haven’t seen a written analysis yet, but I did hear a report on RNZ that the lowest 25% has suffered an 8% reduction for the year. (from memory)
That stands entirely to reason because they are the victims of the regressive tax changes and suffer the most from increasing unemployment.
If anyone can point me to an objective analysis instead of the confirmation-bias affirming postings from DPF, I would be grateful.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:04 pm
My objective analysis is that Luc is wrong.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:15 pm
I wonder why the fact that rent costs went up by 5% during the year is not mentioned – it shows a need for more house building?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Thanks, SPC.
Those have been very poorly described here, if that is the case.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:49 pm
But that could be just your confirmation bias at work.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 8:14 pm
oh no! if lucs right then its just not fair!! i cant believe the difference in income between a hard working dime and a lazy sack of shit is growing. how sad.
66% of people with phd’s make less than 80k? ouch.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Heh, masters looks like a waste of time too
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Luc and SPC: The statistics show that overall income is up, so most people are better off. They also show that the gap between average and median income is down, i.e. equality has improved. Normal people would be happy with this data.
But you guys instead choose to hope those on the lowest incomes are worse of. You don’t actually have any data showing it, you just perversely want it to be true so you can score partisan points. That is utterly despicable.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Than,
Saying what is not mentioned – that rent costs have increased by 5% – is a problem for you? Why leave out the fact that the 35% who rent are not better off?
And why ignore the fact that the increased number of those unemployed are not doing better either, given that benefits are way lower than work incomes?
Or that those doing post graduate study will be going from $240 a week student allowance to $170 a week living cost on the student loan next year (and many are saying they will not be able to study on the lower income)?
If there are less jobs and more on benefit level income, 35% of people (unable to afford owning homes) are facing higher rents, and students are forced to end study they can no longer afford to continue – then this needs to be appreciated when promoting some achievement that is clearly not shared by all.
There is either propoganda or an informed democracy.
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 7:45 am
Your stats make it appear house prices in Auckland are decreasing.
Nice way to prove you can spin numbers any which way.
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 9:32 am
Wow, first Luc & Pscyho fail basic literacy, then wreck appears to think that Housing Costs = House prices.
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 9:38 am
Yes, they are victims of the fact that others are now still paying a much higher percentage tax than them, but slightly less so than 5 years ago.
They are not victims of the choices made by themselves and by their parents.
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 11:02 am
@rick —
He he, forgive me that house prices have anything to do with the costs of buying a house.
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 5:23 pm
“The average annual personal income from salaries, for someone in employment, went up 4.0% from $44,376 to $46,169″
Maybe for those who have left a job, and started a new one, but for folks like me, we’re lucky to get 1 or 2 percent increase, and thats not guaranteed year on year !
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 5:43 pm
I realise this is yesterday’s thread dragged back from the dead, but still, LOL:
Yeah we can all see how hard you’ve been working today dime:
Vote: