what is the best paid job

ENGINEERING managers in their late 30s are the nation's best-paid workers.

The managers are earning average annual salaries of $136,700, more than general managers and financial dealers.

Others earning big money include anaesthetists, surgeons, MPs and dentists, a survey shows.

By contrast, florists are doing it tough on an average $493 a week, as are pharmacy sales assistants ($518), fast food cooks ($520) and livestock farmers ($523).

The survey, What Jobs Pay, is based on ABS data collated by labour analyst Rodney Stinson.

The figures show average pre-tax earnings, including overtime and allowances.

Mr Stinson said the top job of engineering manager was a new classification linked to construction and mining.

"This has come out of the blue," he said.

"A decade ago, the only mining employees in the top 10 were young geologists and geophysicists, who were putting in very long hours in the field."

Related Coverage

• Gold under pressure as $US gainsThe Australian, 28 Oct 2009
• Sheep destroyed in truck fireAdelaide Now, 23 Oct 2009
• Gold slides on profit-takingThe Australian, 16 Oct 2009
• Florists get profits snippedCourier Mail, 4 Sep 2009
• Reader's Comments: Florists get profits snipped - The Courier-MailCourier Mail,

Mr Stinson said the incomes of medical and legal professionals tended to be underestimated due to tax minimisation options open to the self-employed.

"Also, with regard to the best-paid occupations, their averages are considered to be lower than might be expected because of the income cut-off (of $2000-plus a week) for the highest-earning Census and survey respondents," he said.

Mr Stinson said the growth of the security industry showed that people with very basic qualifications could command high wages.

For example, security "consultants" get an average $1813 a week, more than electrical engineers and school principals.

Mr Stinson said the ABS data under-estimated the pay for jobs such as hairdressing ($555) and flower-selling ($493).

"People in these jobs are obviously not telling the truth. The figures are unbelievable," he said.

Mr Stinson said cash payments not declared by employees were a big factor.

Highest earners: engineering manager ($2562), general manager ($2276), research and development manager ($2172), financial dealer ($1976), anaesthetist ($1957), mining engineer ($1955), surgeon ($1953), legislator ($1950), psychiatrist ($1909), internal medicine specialist ($1897).

Lowest earners: florist ($493), pharmacy sales assistant ($518), fast food cook ($520), livestock farmer ($523), cafe worker ($523), cook ($539), waiter ($541), mixed crop and livestock farmer ($543), checkout operator, office cashier ($546), sewing machinist ($554).

from news.com.au

How money value changes : then and now

Money: Spending then and now

Silver screen:

The number of Australians going to the cinema has fallen over the decade. Maybe price has something to do with it.

In 2000, the most you'd pay for a cinema ticket was $13.50. Today, it's up to $20 in some capital cities. Then add in the popcorn, drinks, choctops...
Who's lovin' it?:

The Economist's BigMac index shows we paid $2.59 for a Big Mac in 2000, compared to $3.45 today. Still tasty though.

Work hard for the money:

We're working harder than ever, but is it worth it? Seems like it - a full-time worker pockets an average of $1197.50 a week today, compared to $772 in 2000.

Black gold:

Fluctuating petrol prices that seem like a rip-off were the scourge of frustrated commuters during the Noughties. And no wonder - the average price of petrol rose from under 90c per litre to around $1.50, and at one point we handed over more than $1.70. And just between us, 38c of that is tax.
Music:

Back in 2000, most of us wouldn't hesitate to fork over $30 for a CD. Now, we're more likely to pay around $10 for a CD or $1.62 for just our favourite song on iTunes.
Tax and spend:

When the Noughties dawned, a worker earning $50,001 was in the 47 per cent tax bracket. That's been bumped back repeatedly over the decade so the same wage today hits a 30 per cent tax rate. Today's top rate of 45 per cent doesn't kick in until you hit $180,000.
Staying healthy:

The proportion of people with general private health insurance rose from 39 per cent at the start of the Noughties to more than 51 per cent today. That usually won't cover a trip to the GP though - where we pay an average of $62 and get $33.55 back from Medicare.

Building wealth:

The nation's average house price in March 2000 was $221,300. The Real Estate Institute's latest available data this year put the national average house price at $446,400.
Share the wealth:

The value of the shares on the All Ordinaries index 10 years ago was around half of what it is today, according to Standard & Poor's data. S&P says the value of the index at the end of 1999 was around $546 billion. Today it is around $1.27 trillion.

Who wants to be a millionaire?:

Plenty of us, it seems. Excluding the family home, the number of Australian millionaires hovered just under 100,000 a decade ago, then swelled to a peak of 168,000 in 2007 as we became one of the top 10 richest countries. The GFC put a stop to that, with a plunging share market taking the number of millionaires to 129,200 last year. But don't feel too bad - the average Aussie millionaire has about $4 million socked away.

Money : spending then and now

Money: Spending then and now

Coffee habit:

Starbucks touched down in Australia in 2000, charging just under $3 for a flat white. Now, some cafes want upwards of $4 for a caffeine fix - which would mean you shell out more than $1400 a year for a daily dose.

$5500 fine if shopkeepers sell ciggarettes to a minor

Teenagers could be fined if they smoke | News.com.au Top stories | News.com.au

SHOPKEEPERS want to turn children into criminals by making it illegal for minors to light up.
Under a plan proposed by the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores, which represents corner stores and petrol stations, children under 18 would be fined or given a court notice for smoking.

Association executive director Sheryle Moon said teenage smoking should be treated the same as underage drinking, adding: "Just as police officers enforce alcohol now, they would have the power to enforce underage smoking."

Frustrated that retailers carry the burden of underage smoking and face fines of $5500 if they sell to a minor, shopkeepers want parents and children to bear the responsibility.

But their proposal, which will be presented to State and Federal Governments this week, has been slammed by anti-smoking groups, who said it would criminalise children.

About 10 per cent of children aged between 12 and 17 smoke - that number doubles after 17.

While the rate of underage smoking is declining, about 80 per cent of smokers started while children.
Related Coverage

* Smoking gun aimed at teenagersNEWS.com.au, 10 Nov 2009
* State cracks down on smoking outdoorsNEWS.com.au, 15 Oct 2009
* Reader's Comments: Plan for smokers to cough up $20 a packNEWS.com.au,
* No smoking in cars with kidsHerald Sun, 26 Jun 2009
* Obama signs tough tobacco lawThe Australian, 23 Jun 2009


Under the NSW Tobacco Act, there is nothing to prevent a child from smoking - but an adult who purchases cigarettes for a minor can face a fine of $2200. Next year, under new legislation, shops will be forced to hide tobacco products from sight.

Ms Moon said traders face up to $20,000 in shop renovations to meet the laws, adding it was a "disproportionate level of responsibility".

The NSW Cancer Council yesterday dismissed the idea, claiming that education was more effective in reducing underage smoking.

Instead of the law criminalising teenagers who smoke, it recommended corner stores and petrol stations just stop selling cigarettes.

"The problem with making smoking illegal is that it turns people into criminals for a bad habit they developed through aggressive marketing by tobacco companies," the Cancer Council's tobacco unit manager Wendy Oakes said.

* Plastic bag obsession is carrier for environmental ignorance

What should I do with old plastic carrier bags? | Environment | The Observer

As you might imagine, a planet on the brink of ecological collapse (ie ours) has a number of pressing concerns. The plastic bag issue really is not one of them, and yet in terms of air time and emotion it punches well above its weight, particularly the landfill weight of plastic bags – they take up just 0.3% of landfill space. Other experts like to point out that their impact on wildlife has been over-egged, too. While you'll often hear that 100,000-plus marine mammals are killed every year by ingesting plastic bags, Greenpeace experts say wildlife deaths from plastic bags are few and far between.

But while we can establish that they are not the earth's primary nemesis, they are nonetheless extremely annoying. And, incidentally, there is a link to oceanic pollution: 6% of marine sediment has been found to be polyethylene, implicating them in microplastic pollution of the oceans.
plastic bag illustration The UK uses between 9bn and 17.5bn plastic bags every year. Illustration: Rob Biddulph

The single-use carrier bag also represents an unconscionable use of resources. According to an Australian study, the energy consumed and embodied in manufacturing a conventional supermarket carrier is significant, with 8.7 bags equivalent to driving a car 1km. Depending on which report you read, in the UK we use between 9bn and 17.5bn plastic bags every year (thanks to voluntary schemes and greater awareness and use of non-plastic bags, retailers say they have halved the number of plastic bags they've given out since 2006). The non-production of 800m bags is equivalent to removing 92m car kilometers. So the first thing to do is to make sure you don't accumulate any more.

But as we've acquired the wretched things at a rate of 160-350 a year for many years (again depending on the report you read), we should all have enough by now. Strangely, even zero tolerance of plastic bags does not equal zero waste. Some bright sparks have just transferred their affections to paper bags. A 1991 US study that still appears to stand found that paper bags produced more air pollution, water borne and solid waste and required more space in landfill than plastic bags.

The only benefit being that you might be able to recycle paper bags more easily. Plastic-bag recycling rates remain low and in most normal schemes carrier bags are likely to be a contaminant rather than a valued material stream. Partly this is because initiatives have focused on cloth and reusable bags rather than clawing back some of the energy input from recycling. Recycling is also dependent on market value and there's not much of that in lightweight bags when the world has billions of them.

I suggest you turn this on its head. Plastic bags are undeniably useful – they can carry 2,500 times their own weight – so reuse each one extensively. Hand them down to future generations, turning the fact that a plastic bag might take 1,000 years to degrade into a virtue. Give them as presents. The world's remaining plastic bags should become family heirlooms.★

Do you remember that unspeakably naff designer accessory, I'm Not A Plastic Bag? The "design", by Anya Hindmarch, involved thinking up the gauchest slogan ever contrived then printing it on a white shopping bag of the kind old ladies used in the 1960s. Tens of thousands were sold, at mind-boggling prices.

More to the point, does anyone still use one? There still seems to be a small market among collectors – there's one for sale on eBay at the moment for £179.99 – but when did you last see someone shopping with one? This excrescence was supposed to be the antidote to the throwaway society. Perhaps the bags haven't been thrown away, but no self-respecting celeb would be seen dead with one now. They are sooo last year. Anya Hindmarch doesn't sell them any more: now she markets a new range of granny bags (starting at £165), printed with glossy pictures of designer children, dogs and motorbikes.

As Oscar Wilde said: "Nothing is so dangerous as being too modern; one is apt to grow old-fashioned quite suddenly." These bags for life were discarded with all the other eco-bling as soon as something newer came along. But they served their purpose: they permitted the rich and famous to telegraph their green credentials while still running the Aga, the Range Rover, the yacht and the second and third homes in far-flung parts of the world. By buying the bag, they could tick another box: now, among their other attributes, they were environmentally conscious.

I was reminded of this when I saw the British government's new green initiative, the "Get a bag habit" campaign to encourage reuse of bags, which it launched yesterday with the British Retail Consortium. Not just because the slogan almost rivals Hindmarch's for naffness, but also because it highlights our fetishisation of the plastic bag as the root of all environmental evil.

Don't get me wrong – I don't like plastic bags either. We use too many of them, just as we use too many of all the earth's resources. They litter the countryside and cause problems for wildlife when they end up in the sea. But their total impact is microscopic by comparison to almost anything else we do. As environment writer George Marshall records in his excellent book Carbon Detox, our annual average consumption of bags produces 5kg of carbon dioxide a year. Total average emissions are 12,500kg.

Plastic bags aren't even a very large component of domestic waste. Plastics in general – according to a study by South Gloucestershire district council – account for 18% of total household waste. Plastic bags account for 18% of the plastic, which means 3.2% of total waste. Clingfilm (23% of domestic plastic waste) produces a greater proportion than plastic bags.

The British Retail Consortium, in helping to launch this campaign, says that "this is a symbolic step towards using resources more wisely." It's a symbolic step, but not a significant one. By no stretch of the imagination does it justify the hype it generates. We could eliminate every bag in the UK and make only the tiniest dent in our total environmental impact.

So why this fetishisation? Because dealing with plastic bags is easy. Easy for the government, easy for retailers, easy for shoppers. It threatens no one, makes money for the shops (if they charge for their bags) and ensures that everyone feels better about themselves, while continuing to trash the biosphere just as we did before.

Monbiot.com