Average salary (£30,000) in the UK?

[DreamChaser23]

www.telegraph.co.uk/money/special-reports/average-uk-salary-profession-check-earn-less-colleagues/

To think that average is misleading and that a lot of people are earning much less than this?

Our family income is more than 10k less than this and we are comfortable. £30k would be a huge salary, for us.
We all choose different lifestyles though, and some choices need this and more.

I just googled it and all the sites I looked at come up saying there are 3 types of average - mean, mode and median

I did statistics at university, in a different country and long ago, and I'd never come across the idea of a median being "a type of average" until Mumsnet alerted me to the fact that this is what British schoolchildren are taught.

I contend that no-one who knows the difference between a median and a mean (of any kind) would ever use the word "average" to describe a number they knew to be a median.

99% of the time time, "average" means "arithmetic mean", and 99% of the rest of the time it will mean "geometric mean". (Those statistics freshly sucked out of my thumb, in case that's not obvious.)

To be fair, I think in my first ever statistics lecture, a phrase something like "measures of the centre" was used to encompass all the measures that many of you like to claim are covered by "average", and that is relatively a bit of a mouthful.

The reason for using the median as a key statistic in wages data
is that the mean is skewed higher because the data set is skewed.

The minimum wage is zero.
Millions of people earn between zero and £20,000
But one person earning £20,000,000 pushes the average upwards

@randomlondoner - I did say I was willing to be corrected as I wasn’t a statistician!

For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s just British schoolchildren who are taught this - though as someone who teaches them, I can confirm they are taught this. When I goggled it at least 3 university pages came up, including one in America, and I was taught it myself at uni in a stats module in England. It’s also what Statistics for Dummies said, assuming they’re a fairly reliable source(?!)

I agree when people hear ‘average’ they assume ‘mean’. Though actually I think a lot of the time, colloquially, more often people use it as a synonym for ‘normal’ - ‘he was just your average guy’ - rather than assuming any maths is involved at all!

I went to school in the US and was taught there are three ways to measure average: mean, median and mode.

Median clearly most sensible measure in this situation given the huge outliers.

The OP makes me laugh. The nature of average is that many people will be below average.

It's not misleading if it's understood that there are people below the average and people above it. I wouldn't say it's too misleading; I'd be more inclined to say that it's useless.

I would be much more interested to see the spread of the data.

Plus see how it varies with age, gender, location, job etc.

Median isn't also very helpful. Nor is the mean TBH.

Distribution is the really interesting bit.

It's also very interesting about what people consider 'normal' - all relative to the people you know and how you compare yourselves to them.

School in 70s UK, and I certainly was taught them under the heading of 3 types of average. As is KS2 child now.

The other point of note is who do you know. Saying I don’t know anyone who earns that much is the same as saying I don’t know anyone who earns that little. It’s not that anecdotes are even wrong it’s all about self selecting groups in life. For instance DH is friends with people he knows from work as was I when I was working. By default the people , he and I socialised with were all on professional salaries. My sister worked in a residential home on NMW and a great group of friends had she but none of them were well off. In our circles 30k would be low but in my sisters it would be high. Just the same as where we live, my sister lives in a modest end terrace, we live in one of the most expensive roads in our town, one of the neighbours has an indoor swimming pool. Again a self selecting group the neighbours I know are doctors, academics and we had a very successful artist at one point whose works sold well for quite a few thousand each. We have our little groups and they do cross over but you just have to read the posts over the years where people, are in a different financial grouping to see the problems with not being able to join in to afford trips. We don’t mean to do it but it happens.

Out of my friends (aged 24-29) I earn the least and I'm on £28k. Even the ones just doing admin for a year to save money for their postgrads are on £32k ish. Most are on £35-50k

@Maddiemookins where in the SE? My friends in admin are all on £32-40k in London

Minimum wage in Seattle is more than that. The cost of living here in the west coast is crazy. And I don’t even live near Seattle.

I wouldn't say it's too misleading; I'd be more inclined to say that it's useless. If you're trying to encapsulate an entire distribution in one number, what would you suggest was more useful? Salary distributions usually have more people somewhere in the middle, and a tail towards the bottom and towards the top. Median and mean are both measures of where the middle is, and it's better to assess whether salaries are getting higher or lower by looking at the middle rather than, eg, the highest salary or the lowest salary.

If you're trying to encapsulate an entire distribution in one number, what would you suggest was more useful

I don't think a distribution should be put into one single number.

A single number is meaningless.

Wasn't it Michael Gove who wanted all schools to be above average?

Random fact - it is possible for the majority of people to be above average (mean, not mode).

The figure quoted sounds about correct
It has actually increased, because a few years ago, it was quoted at 26k, 28k

I believe not many people pay high rate tax & even fewer the high, high tax

The numbers sound correct to me

Random fact - it is possible for the majority of people to be above average (mean, not mode).

I remember my dad explaining that to me as a small child. That most of us have more than the average number of legs, since the average is presumably 1.9999 or similar?

That most of us have more than the average number of legs, since the average is presumably 1.9999 or similar?

Exactly!

Any other math teachers have that mean, median mode song stuck in their heads now?

Choma
A couple of us have posted the link to the ONS release which has the full data set
BUT
its the massive caveat that it does not include the super rich as many of them live on 'capital' rather than 'earnings' and even more of them offshore their wealth
so in fact the UK is even more unequal than the data imply
(as the ONS openly acknowledge)