More rationing

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thats NOT average income. Indeed. That figure is in the higher rate income tax band ignoring the allowance.

You seriously trying to argue that a salary of £36,000 (which is NOT in the higher tax band), is in the higher tax band because you would like to ignore everyone's Lower Earning Limit allowance.

Come on Graham, surely you can see this is clutching at desperate straws

It is what it is, stick to the facts and don;t try to twist things hoping that some might read your posts, misinterpret and think you have a valid point.

GhIFA

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The problem being, that this average one person income now comes out as being £36,504

Thats NOT average income. Indeed. That figure is in the higher rate income tax band ignoring the allowance.

So it's not in the higher rate tax band then is it? And we're back to one of your situations where anything can fit the "point" you're trying to make if you just make up the "facts".

ukcarper

I do believe Graham has a point and the difference between mean and median wage has increased over the years and median is a more useful figure. I also agree that prices in relation to earnings are high and if we had access to median wage figures they would show that they would be at there highest. But I fail to see why people keep trying to imply that they are 2 or 3x the average.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

But the big increase in part time work is pulling the mean down

No it's not. The figure Halifax use is full time mean. You have only added to my point.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It is what it is, stick to the facts and don;t try to twist things hoping that some might read your posts, misinterpret and think you have a valid point.

Theres nothing being twisted here, and your aggressive response to my point shows it's hit a nerve.

All I'm doing is stating fact.

The mean average IS moving away from the median average at an accelerating rate.

The mean average therefore DOES mean less and less to the majority.

The mean average wage is therefore less and less relevant to what most people actually earn.

When the dataset was first crated, the mean and median wages were far more correlated. As I stated, even in the 90's, the mean wage was only 10% above the median wage.

The mean wage is now 28% above the median wage. Therefore, the mean wage is rapidly growing away from the wage most people earn.

That will, in turn, make house prices look more affordable than they are to the majority. Your graph and data don't care about this increasing discrepancy. It is irrelavant to the data. But it's very relevant in real life.

What's being said is that, as the discrepancy between the two averages grow, the dataset becomes relevant to fewer and fewer people.

This is not twisting, it's using fact to make a point about the problem of using such a dataset and stating it's always been the same data. I'm not denying the dataset has always been the same. What I am suggesting is that the data itself has changed over the years.

We all know the average wage is not 36k for the majority. That's why we have median and mean wages. The majority earn an average of 26k.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No it's not. The figure Halifax use is full time mean. You have only added to my point.

So why do people who want to show prices are high use overall which has been pulled down by part time work. Difference between male full time mean has increased by less that 10% over the last 15 years.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We all know the average wage is not 36k for the majority. That's why we have median and mean wages. The majority earn an average of 26k.

That is probably the most nonsensical statement you've posted in ages Graham.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

So why do people who want to show prices are high use overall which has been pulled down by part time work. Difference between male full time mean has increased by less that 10% over the last 15 years.

I'm not sure I understand your point?

Are you suggesting we should use a different wage index?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That is probably the most nonsensical statement you've posted in ages Graham.

Why is it?

I don't see much argument against my point by anyone.

All I see is attack.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't see much argument against my point by anyone.

Well it would be nice if you could show a graph of house price vs median wages. Showing a divergence between mean/ median wages for two time points doesn't show a full picture either.

I understand the point you're making but it does look as if you are starting with the conclusion and (not) finding the data to fit.

Don't any of the HPI's use median wages?