Sure, if you control for ALL of those things, you’re no longer asking “is 100k high for my age”, but “how does my salary compare to others in the same industry with the same experience etc” But that wasn’t the person’s question.StatsGuy wrote: ↑Dec 30th, 2018 4:37 pmIf you just look at age, sure but average is meaningless. You need to look at the subset she is part of (level of education and area, location, working FT or not?)
Do you know how to look at census data? Many just look at average and think it's comparable when it's not since it'll include those not working full-time, those with no education, those on disability or in school/retired etc
You need to control for age, education, experience, geography, sector , employment status, gender, ethnicity, citizenship status
In my sector, late 20s making 100k or more is average and the norm. Co-op are 60k a year and new grads are starting at 70k or so and those are people in early 20s, so 100k in late 20s is the norm
But this is our sector
The blunt answer is yes, 100k is towards the upper tier for someone in their 20s, looking at age alone. It doesn’t help that your point of reference is IT consulting, for instance, in which 100K is roughly a rate of $400/day, which is on the lower end of the scale definitely. It doesn’t take long for someone to be in the $800-1000/day bracket for that kind of work. But how many other industries compare to that for someone in their late 20s early 30s?
So yes, based on age along, 100k in their 20s is doing very well.