AMP NATSEM Report 08
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Trends in spatial income inequality, 1996 to 2001 AMP.NATSEM Income and Wealth Report Issue 8. September 2004 Money, money, money – is this a rich man’s world? Contents 1 Where are the most affluent areas? 1 2 The good news: Strong growth across all of Australia 4 3 The cities vs the bush 6 4 A profile of difference 7 Work rich: work poor? Profession and industry Educational divides 5 Housing: A nation of homeowners 11 6 Indigenous Australians 12 7 Conclusions 13 Introduction Many of us empathise with the line in Midnight Oil’s song, This time, the report divides postcodes into ten equal Read about it, where, ‘The rich get richer, the poor get groups according to gross income to reveal: the picture’. Surveys reveal that Australians believe the • where the most affluent and poorest areas of Australia gap between rich and poor is growing. But is this just a are located perception or is it based on fact? • who has benefited from the past few years of strong In this issue of the AMP.NATSEM Income and Wealth Report, economic growth and falling unemployment we compare the income of households by postcode based on figures from the 1996 and 2001 Census to determine • how household incomes in 2001 compare with those who exactly is getting richer, and whether any groups have of 1996 been left behind. • which regions have fared well and which ones haven’t This report follows on from the first AMP.NATSEM Report during the five years between 1996 and 2001, and on ‘Trends in Taxable Income’ which examined taxation • income, education, employment and homeownership statistics by postcode to determine the most affluent and differences between the Top 10% and Bottom 10%, the poorest areas of the nation. with some surprising results! 1. Where are the most affluent areas? Surveys suggest that Australians believe ‘the gap between rich and poor is growing’.1 At a national level, the latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows that the average weekly income received by the most affluent one-fifth of the population increased by 17% between 1995-96 and 2000-01.2 The average incomes of the least affluent one-fifth of the population increased by 7% over the same period. Thus, at a national level, the after-tax incomes of the poor have been increasing – but not as rapidly as those of middle and high income families. But these results are for Australia as a whole and tell us nothing about whether incomes in particular regions of Australia have been rising much more rapidly than in other regions. The first AMP.NATSEM report – ‘Trends in taxable income’ examined taxation statistics by postcode and reported that the gap between richer and poorer postcodes appeared to have increased between 1994-95 and 1998-99. And earlier work by NATSEM using Census data also suggested growing spatial income inequality between 1991 and 1996.3 But have these trends continued or reversed in the past few years of strong economic growth and falling unemployment? 1 AVERAGE EQUIVALISED DISPOSABLE INCOME DECILE POSTAL AREAS 2 To locate the most affluent and the poorest areas of The highest income areas of Queensland are mostly in Australia, we divided all postcodes into 10 equal groups – Brisbane, predominantly inner west suburbs close to the termed ‘deciles’ – based on their equivalent gross income Brisbane River, such as Kenmore, Red Hill, Toowong and (see Technical Notes). The 10% of Australians living in the Ashgrove. Dysart, a coal mining town in central Queensland, poorest postcodes are in the ‘Bottom 10%’ and the 10% also ranks in the Top 10%. living in the most affluent postcodes are in the ‘Top 10%’. In Western Australia, the Top 10% suburbs were located The Top 10% are overwhelmingly clustered in the cities mainly in affluent areas of Perth, such as Peppermint Grove – and particularly in Sydney and Melbourne (see Map). and Claremont. Mining regions in the Pilbara also ranked But there are some high income areas outside the cities, highly. such as the mining towns of Mt Tom Price, Roxby Downs, The high income areas of South Australia are clustered Newman and Peak Downs Mine. The Top 10% also in North Adelaide and the inner suburbs. Outside the includes military base areas such as Duntroon, Singleton metropolitan area, the copper and uranium mining and and Bandiana. processing town of Roxby Downs makes the Top 10%. In New South Wales, the Top 10% cluster in the inner city, There are no postcodes in Tasmania that scale the peaks north shore and eastern suburbs. For example, Lane Cove, to make it into the Top 10%. Manly, Rose Bay and Mosman are some of the areas that make it into the Top 10%. There are also some high There are a large number of postcodes in the Australian income areas south of Botany Bay, surrounding Cronulla. Capital Territory which rank in the Top 10%. Many of these are in the inner parts of the city, but Top 10%ers In Victoria, the Top 10% are mainly in metropolitan also include postcodes within the larger areas of Melbourne and particularly the inner suburbs. The areas Gungahlin, Belconnen, Weston Creek and Tuggeranong. surrounding Port Phillip Bay also have clusters of high Areas surrounding the ACT, such as the Hall region and income postal areas. Postcodes that rank in the Top 10% Jerrabomberra, also climbed into the Top 10% group. include Brighton, Williamstown, Carlton North, Toorak and Canterbury. There is only one postcode in the Northern Territory in the Top 10%, Alyangula. This is a mining area located on Groote Eylandt, off the western coast of Arnhem Land. 3 Perhaps this dollar gap increase underlies the perception among Australians that the gap between rich and poor is growing. 2. The good news: Strong growth across all of Australia The years from 1996 to 2001 saw strong economic growth Figure 1 Percentage increases in average household and falling unemployment – and this translated into major income between 1996 and 2001, by postcode income income increases for the average Australian household of decile 26.1% during the five year period.4 30 29 Did average incomes in the more affluent areas increase 28.9 more rapidly than in less affluent areas? 28 28.4 27 27.3 The Bottom 10% enjoyed a 23.2% increase in their average 26 26.3 26.1 26.2 household incomes over the five years. This was only 25 25.6 24 marginally less than the 24.2% growth experienced by the 24.2 23.8 23 Top 10% (see Figure 1). 23.2 22 The strongest income growth, however, was experienced 21 by the next 30% of postcodes just below the Top 10%. Average household income percentage increase 20 Bottom Decile 2 Decile 3 Decile 4 Decile 5 Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9Top 10% Income growth for postcodes in deciles 7, 8 and 9 ranged 10% from 27.3% to 28.9%. Overall, income grew by about Note: These are increases in equivalent household gross income, 27% for the most affluent half of postcodes and slightly with each postal area allocated to one of the deciles as described less than this, at about 25%, for the least affluent half of in Technical Notes. postcodes. The dollar increases in average income, however, were There thus seems to have been growing income inequality much greater in the higher income areas. The Bottom 10% between rich and poor areas of Australia during the five received average gross household incomes of $840 a week years between 1996 and 2001. However, the differences by 2001, up by $158 a week on the $682 received in 1996 in growth rates between more and less affluent areas (see Figure 2). Average incomes in the Top 10% in 2001 were not large, and on average all of the deciles enjoyed were more than double this, at $1,848 a week. This was significant income increases. an increase of $360 a week on the $1,488 received by the Top 10% in 1996. In both 1996 and 2001, average incomes in the Top 10% were 2.2 times those of the Bottom 10%, so the proportionate gap between the richest and poorest areas did not grow. But the dollar gap between the average incomes of the Bottom 10% and Top 10% increased from $806 to $1,008. Perhaps this dollar gap increase underlies the perception among Australians that the gap between rich and poor is growing. 4 Figure 2 Average household incomes by postcode Figure 3 Proportion of households in selected gross income decile in 1996 and 2001 income ranges in Top 10% and Bottom 10% postcodes $2,000 The Top 10% < $15,600 10% $1,800 1996 2001 1848 $1,600 $1,400 1544 1488 $104,000 + 23% 1386 $1,200 1288 1202 1213 1141 $1,000 1078 1075 1010 1003 942 952 $800 905 840 853 $15,600-$51,999 31% 761 804 $600 682 $52,000-$103,999 36% Average weekly household income $400 $200 $0 The Bottom 10% Bottom Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile Top 10% 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10% < $15,600 20% $104,000 + 3% Note: These are levels of equivalent household gross income, with each postal area allocated to one of the deciles as described in Technical Notes. $52,000-$103,999 18% One of the factors producing the much higher incomes of the Top 10% is that almost one-quarter of the households $15,600-$51,999 59% in these postcodes had gross incomes above $104,000 a year (see Figure 3).