Talk:Median household income in Australia and New Zealand

message: Opinions of growth such as "good" "satisfactory" or "disappointing" are subjective and reduce the quality of Wikipedia by obviously portraying opinions as fact.  They are also original research and probably a simple attempt to persuade others to adopt the standards of an anonymous uncredited author.  Unless someone wants to CITE respected sources and make clear that these are opinions, I'd like to remove these comments and leave in only refereanceable facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.122.254 (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article has been structured with the audience in mind: 
*Most people visiting the page will be casual readers who just want a simple overview, whereas most of writers will be really into technical details. A casual reader may lose interest if they have to read through volumes of technical information just to get to the basic facts. Please put the basic facts at the beginning of the article and the really technical sections at the end. If appropiate, place a single sentence summary of your information in the highlights section.
*Many of the readers will be from Australia and New Zealand (24 million population). However the english version of wikipedia also many readers from the United States (300 million population), so comparisons with the United States may be of interest to them. 
*Please avoid criticising or insulting other countries. If data from another country looks bad then take the time to give a balanced view of their situation. 
Badenoch 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes for contributors 

message: Your graph and text comparing US and Aussie household income is misleading because apparently the methodology has changed to the extent that household income in Australia is more exhaustive now compared to 2000. So incomes before 2003 are underestimated. Also, it includes noncash payments, which are not included in the US estimate.
Also, your choice of PPPs is not quite correct. It makes sense to use PPPs for Private Consumption, since this is household income, and is based on what people can buy with their own money. PPP for Actual Indv. Consumption is based on that plus what govenment spends for personal services, which has nothing to do with what households spend. In any case, OECD agrees with me, and so does this organization (LIS). Please see chapter 3:
http://www.lisproject.org/links/canberra/finalreport.pdf
Best,
lneal001
Deletion is not warranted. Firstly your point about the change in methodology was previously noted and already declared in the graph. Secondly, median household income is a gross income which includes tax spending. This allows comparisons between regions with different tax systems, regardless of whether people receive services (e.g. Health) directly or indirectly through government spending. This means that PPP for actual individual consumption is more accurate, though not perfect. 
Motivation. lneal001 your motivation appears to avoid comparisons with the United States. However Wikipedias English readership is dominated by Americans, and international comparisons (such as PPP) use the United States as standard for comparison. I understand that Americans are anxious about their lack of income growth and I can sympathize. I remember when my own country  (NZ) got badly off track during the 70's and 80's. Comparisons with other countries helped motivate us to reform and set things right. Clearly American voters are not yet motivated. American men haven't had a real pay increase in 36 years [] and still they avoid reform. If the graph made you angry, this was not my intention, but please use your anger to push for reform.
--Badenoch (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake in Graph and PPP

message: How could the median income be so high when http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6523.0Main%20Features22009-10?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6523.0&issue=2009-10&num=&view= says the middle quintile earns $721 per week ≈ $37,500 per year?
Crasshopper (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  $67,000? 

message: Substituted at 23:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment