this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
153 points (98.1% liked)

Australia

3582 readers
112 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They earn almost 4x the median Australian. That’s obscene.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] lemmington_steele 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

won't they just be more reliant on lobbying gifts to compensate?

[–] Sup3rlativ3 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From what I can tell, MPs earn about $200,000. 200/50=4?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

So what's not obscene then? 1x?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Median income includes part time, casual, and unsure work

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And they are a part of our country and should be counted.

Things sure do look rosier if we ignore the shit aspects.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.