Thread: Defender cost vs wages

Thanks for posting a visual of reality.

Some people just dont see it.

I have always thought that such a comparison should be price v disposable income, not price v gross income.

If unavoidable costs take up more of the total income then the cost of a vehicle becomes a bigger percentage of the disposable income.

Has anyone seen figures for such a comparison? It is much more complicated and maybe has too many variables to be useful.

Does this help?

Income.jpg
Source: 6523.0 - Household Income and Wealth, Australia, 2017-18

I recall a new Stage One 3.9D was in the area of $40,000 in 1983 , If i'm not mistaken , probably am. Thought it was Outrageously high , I was on about $23,000 gross then and was relying on payday to payday $ to keep my '64 Series 2A on the road.

Originally Posted by Rob66

All,

With all the hoo haw around how much these things cost I thought I dig a little into wages for the last 40-ish years and the cost of a Defender 110 (for want of a benchmark)

Year	Ave Aust Wage	Cost of D-110	% of wages
1990	$28000	$43000	153%
2000	$41500	$42000	101%
2003	$48360	$47000	97%
2010	$67600	$49000	72%
2016	$78000	$48000	62%
2019	$85800	$70000	82%

.

That trend was going so good until 2019.

The other point, of course, is that the number that ought to be looked at is the median income, not the mean (also referred to as average).

And yes, the figure used should be the disposable income. For the majority of Australians, real disposable income has been static or falling over at least the last ten years, and probably longer, as non-discretionary costs such as rent, power, fuel, insurance, taxes have increased faster than income. Home owners may be a little better off, as falling interest rates reduce mortgage payments, but for new buyers and for those who have refinanced, the soaring price of homes has probably more than compensated for lower interest rates.

And for those dependent on investments, the falling interest rates are disastrous.

Have to love the use of statistics.

In 1975 the cheapest SIII cost $4,185 or 54% of average full time earnings. The Range Rover was $10,684 or 140% of average earnings.

Today the Range Rover starts at well over 200% and the Defender at 82%. Add a few typical options and that jumps quickly to 100%.

So in real terms across the board Land Rovers today cost a lot more than they did in the mid 70’s. They have gone more up market and yes certainly a better product, but less affordable all the same.

Interestingly, most of the workhorse utes in the market today are in relative terms still between the price of the Series 3 in 1975 and the Old Defender in 2016.

Which only serves to reiterate that the missing product in the Land Rover range is at the entry point closer to 60% of average earnings for the tradies and farmers around the $50K mark. This would be a sales success.