Hotscot

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-in-world.html

lansbury

I find it hard to accept those figures, from the report, as being correct.

Sally Redux

I can only think it's a mid point on a graph which includes people with no income, and part-timers.

Hotscot

Wonder if they miss a '1' before the 58,600?

Sally Redux

The New York Times article has the figures on a graph.

cedros699

It's 58,600 after-tax ...

Sally Redux

Still seems a bit low for the top 5%.

scrubbedexpat091

In Canada the media is reporting the 18,000 as per capita median income, and not average income.

Average weekly income in Canada is approx 753 per week in PEI, and 1,108 in Alberta which is highest, everywhere else is in between.

I suppose I am below average since I bring home about 750 in 2 weeks after deductions. The government classifies me as low income on that wage for most services.

Anian

How are they defining middle class? In the US, it is used to mean everyone who isn't very poor or very rich. In the UK it is much narrower, based on how you live and the job type. I can get that the median earners are middle class, but how wide do they stretch that out to? 25-75%?

Sally Redux

I don't know. It seems to mean 'working class' in common parlance.

durham_lad

Difficult to believe since the US Census Bureau has the 2011 Median income at $51,324.

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-02.pdf


I think they are missing a 1 in that figure for the top 5% income.

$159,619 according to this

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX DATA, 2010

http://www.financialsamurai.com/how-...-make-percent/

lansbury

Not sure that is so. I live in what would be I think in the UK a working class town, and it is referred to as a blue collar town over here.

Sally Redux

Ah. It's rather confusing.

sir_eccles

That median income number of around 51k usually refers to total household income. So two people earning 25k each which after tax they get to keep somewhere near the original figure quoted I would guess.

theOAP

First point, I'm neutral in this discussion. I couldn't give a toss one way or the other.

The statement may be correct. The discussion is about median income (50% above, 50% below) and any figures on incomes of only the top 5% or only bottom 20% are irrelevant.

In the US, the incomes at the top are growing exponentially, while at the bottom, the incomes are growing comparatively much slower. It makes sense when you look at the last 10 years.

In Europe or Canada, the incomes of the top 50% are increasing, but the bottom 50% incomes are also increasing. Although the bottom 50% growth is less than the top 50%, it is growing comparatively faster than in the US.

The figures quoted for the increase in recent years of median income for the UK and Canada are near 20% growth, while in the US it is 0.3% growth. I think this is what is being referred to, and not the actual amount of the incomes themselves.