January 3, 2010
-
<Chart of the Day>
“1997至2008年間市民收入中位數上升9.4％，唯獨15至24歲的年輕人、即所謂「八十後」，入息中位數不升反跌，20至24歲一族的入息中位數，由97年的8200元跌近一成至7500元；至於更年輕的20歲以下跌幅更大。”— Since most youngsters can get higher education (either degree or sub-degree), the remaining entering the labor market should have less human capital, thus earning less than their counterparts in 1997. This is particularly true for the 15-19 age cohort.
— What is surprising, is the 20-24 age cohort. On average, these young people should have higher education attainment. But they earn less than their counterparts 11 years ago.
— Since the article covers so-called “80 後”, it should also cover the age cohort 25-29 in 2008 (most in this age cohort are born after 1980). There was some rise in pay over time (roughly +4%; from $9,600 to $10,000)
— Whenever you look at long-term data, you can point out the income mobility. The change over time, which to me is more important, is often missed.
(1) The median income in 1997 for 15-19 age cohort was $6,300 but in 2008 (when the 15-19 becomes 25-29), they earn $10,000, roughly +40%.(2) The median income in 1997 for 20-24 age cohort was $8,200 but in 2008 (when the 20-24 becomes 30-34), they earn $12,000, roughly +50%.
Caveats : I admit there is 11 years between 1997 and 2008 (so not all 15-19 in 1997 becomes 25-29 in 2008). Also, the composition of them are a bit different (for example, in 1997, the 15-19 cohort will consist of mostly F5 graduates; but in 2008 the 25-29 cohort will consist of university graduate as well). So some earning $8,000 in 1997 might still earn $8,000 in 2008, but due to influx of high-income earners in the group, the average/ median income turned higher in 2008.
But roughly speaking, it remains extremely legitimate to say these are the two age cohorts with the highest gain in income in the past decade.
This represents (1) over time there is still upward income mobility for young people in Hong Kong (2) given that you study well. This is a strong case for supporting there is still abundant upward mobility in Hong Kong. (I repeat so many times that the Gini Coefficient, a static measure, is totally useless in measuring income mobility over time).
Comments (9)
作為一個80 後….我硬是覺得自己很有前途~
@Feheart -
見到你呢番話, 令我諗起你去maid cafe… 小子果然膽色過人. 哈哈哈哈.
你80後? 我成日以為你大過我… 對唔治law
你把通脹算進去。所有年齡組別的收入都在減少。(未算樓價)
到了2018年，30 – 40的收入還是13000， 因為大家都在攻讀圣斗士學位。
@bigbrother1984 -
上表是扣除通脹的 (以08年固定價格計算). 無論如何, 這十年來 (2008 比 1997), 香港的物價幾乎是無變動 – 2008 年的物價比起97 的還要低一點.
還是一句老話，97年一個巨無霸10皮，大家樂一哥豬扒飯20皮
09年巨無霸15皮，一哥豬扒飯30皮。這兩個樣本比電腦手機電子MP3 player更有代表性。
也就是說，賬面收入中位數增加了40%+，實際收入才算“同以前一樣”
這十年來，誰的賬面收入翻倍，大家很清楚。
等我仔細看看，我覺得即使扣除通脹，我覺得97年的賬面收入也是上面那些數據，就是15-19 $6300
我不知道他這個通脹是怎么扣除的
@bigbrother1984 -
Please note the table above that the income has been discounted by inflation. I won’t argue that prices has soared for so many products, but in general, prices for all products (considered as a whole) did not change much in 1997 and 2008.
@relgitsjg -
食品和房租是彈性最低的必須品，我實在不清楚” prices for all products (considered as a whole) did not change much in 1997 and 2008.” 是怎么的消費組合，是什么product，怎么算出來，一部nokia香蕉機 97年港幣一萬，今日一部iphone 港幣3000，是沒有意義的。
我01年離開香港的時候，我很自豪的宣稱香港吃飯多便宜，100港幣就能包三餐。這兩年，根據我回港度假的純粹particular的個人經歷，我不會這樣說了。
補充多一句，史兄令堂也抱怨街市被偷了的豬肉價格，