I was working on some demographics and came across some interesting local income figures. The highest income earner (of the TOP 100 jobs here) earns $30K, the lowest $4600.
Wow, that's something to think about. So if we crossed the $4600 marker, that would qualify us to be in the TOP 100 paying jobs - QUESTION : so what?
Because in another statistics survey, I found that the average income of all residents household is $6800 if one person works, not both.
Taking figures on face value - it's not so kosher to be in the TOP 100 paying job, yet not making it as an average household. This is serious business. I cannot come up with some demographic template, when I cannot draw a parallel with figures I obviously pulled out from a more than reliable source.
Does that mean that making it to the TOP 100 paying job, will not help that person be an average household here - i.e. you could be in the socially correct job, yet not be economically correct by demographics - this is a bummer.
We better stop planning about what kind of career we want our kids to have since there's this confusion in how the mullah is actually distributed. We may just be better off working on some obscure job but having our income fit the figures column of the TOP 100 paying job - doesn't matter if there is no name for what we do - the bottom line is always what's lining the pocket - linen or just polyester - better still, it could just be a show-pocket - one that is there but doesn't serve the function.
It's never about appearances - it's always about substance.
It applies not just to income, but to every aspect of life.
1 comment:
how was the Top 100 jobs defined?
Post a Comment