The results of the 2009 ASHE show that median weekly pay for full-time employees in the UK April 2009 was £489. (£25,428)

Median earnings of full-time male employees were £531 per week (£27,612) in April 2009; for women the median was £426 (£22,152).

Median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees were highest for 40 to 49-year-olds at £551 (£28,652).

Male employees reached their highest earnings in this age group at £606 (£31,512), whereas women reached their highest earnings for 30 to 39-year-olds at £498 (£25,896).

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

For a man who provides figures of use to people who can do what they like with them I thought it was a bit below the belt. Most people would not have looked at his sites.

Those weekly figures in your link appear easier to understand and answers my own query and explains ABC's first comment about younger people. (As a full-time adult, I'd be quite happy to disregard the lower figure and focus on the higher! Appreciate that some people are not full-time and would want to be.)

That is one of the problems, we sometimes hear figures being quoted, but don't really know what they relate to.

Is it the average of all workers, just full time workers, is it the mean average or the median average, etc.

Without knowing that, most figures are actually pretty pointless, except to the people who just love working them out for the sheer sake of it

Looking at all the figures above, the closest actual comparisons might be:

Median for full Time workers
UK

• 40 to 49-year-olds at £551 (£28,652)

AUS

• Age 35-44 All Full time workers $65,525
• Age 45-54 All Full time workers $66,603

The median is the mid value which divides a population distribution into two, with half of the observations falling below it and half above it.

That got me thinking..... Less than 1% of my site visits come via BE, although that is still about 25 per day.

Although that number did jump a bit in the last 12 hours Did someone mention my websites ?

I suppose if we have more controversy like that, it would do quite well for my visiting numbers, although in reality I would be better off spending my time on better avenues, if all I wanted was just more visitors to my websites.

But then, that would be more like working

Let's have a book to see who first mentions FX rates...

Average median 35-54 All Full time workers $66,064

Wage ratio: $66,064 : £28,652 = $2.306 : £1.00
FX rate $1.81 : £1.00

Median wage 2.306 / 1.81 - 1 = 27% higher in Australia.

Done.

At least the average house price is cheaper in the UK now

Average: £162,038 * 1.81 = $293,288.
Nationwide: House Prices

Average prices not published much in Australia; just median prices and then for each state with houses and flats separatly. Say $450,000 for houses and flats combined across all states?

UK ($293,288 / $450,000) - 1 = 35% cheaper.

However, the average UK "house" is ~75 m^2, average Aus "house" (living area) is ~150 m^2?

UK: 293,288 / 75 = $3,910 / m^2
Aus: 450,000 / 150 = $3,000 / m^2

Aus is (3,000 / 3,910) - 1 = 23.3% cheaper than UK.

Houses in UK and Australia are actually very similar prices....

Both these are about the same distance from a Capital City.

UK - Kent £165,000 or $298,000

AUS - Brisbane Bayside $289,000

OK, there is that size difference you mentioned

or going up market a bit....
UK - Kent £250,000 or $452,000

AUS - Brisbane Bayside $419,000

Spinning again I see.....very selective pictures

Kent is a bit more 'upmarket' than Bayside....probably nearer to a city as well

The ones in Kent will probably last a bit longer as well

You have got spinning on the brain.

I have lived in both those examples, and Brisbane Bayside is MUCH better than the part of Kent that those houses are in.

How can you call Brisbane a 'capital city'?....it is the 'capital' of a state which has less population than London...not even in the same league

bayside is not in Brisbane.....it is many miles away....as well you know

Argue that one with the Government not me, we have had this discussion before.......

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]&num=&view=&
Brisbane Bayside is partly in Redland Shire and partly in Brisbane City, but all of it is in the Brisbane Statistical Division.

BUT, only according to the Australian government, obviously not according to you, as it does not suit your purposes... and you roll your eyes at me

However, I am comparing Kent to Brisbane Bayside, not Kent to Brisbane, nor London to Brisbane.

You should also check out where the "Bayside" actually is ....

Hence around here, we call our Bayside by its commonly known name of Brisbane Bayside.

How long have you been here ?

Long enough to know that 'brisbane bayside' (sic) is a long way from Brisbane.....where I live.

If you are going to do comparisons why not compare Brisbane to Birmingham or Manchester which are a similar size....and compare the prices of houses in the better suburbs in Brisbane such as Hamilton, St. Lucia, Bardon, Bulimba, Toowong, etc. to some of the average suburbs in the English cities mentioned?