this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2026
43 points (85.2% liked)

Australia

4963 readers
131 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 60 points 4 days ago (3 children)

The average Australian with a partner has savings of $50,192, whereas a single person has $30,932 — a gap of $19,260, according to Finder, a financial comparison site.

That where the magic $20k number comes from.

The startling discovery is that couples can share fixed price components of costs like utilities and share the opportunity costs of things like childcare.

[–] Ontimp@feddit.org 17 points 4 days ago

Thanks. That so far removed from the headline it actually makes me mad

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 5 points 3 days ago (3 children)

It could also be a correlation rather than causation. People with more money might be better at finding partners.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

You're hearing hooves and thinking zebras.

A couple that splits expenses will be better off than someone who carries the load by themselves.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"also". It doesn't have to be one or the other. Both could be contributing factors, and it looks like the research didn't control for either.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

fair, but you're kinda wedded to the idea that "People with more money" more readily get partners in a weird way.

[–] mlc894@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

I mean, by inspection, it seems easily true. If you’re working 100 hours per week, you’re probably not taking much time out for dating.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It is true that it's harder to date when you're poor. Try taking a woman out to dinner and asking her to pay for you. See if you get a second date.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 3 points 3 days ago

If these are the only dynamics you think possible in dating, then money ain't the reason you're not getting a second one.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago

"also". It doesn't have to be one or the other. Both could be contributing factors, and it looks like the research didn't control for either.

[–] LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That would suggest almost all people are superficial, which doesn't track. Contributing factors to couples having more money (opportunities etc) are things like, one person can work longer hours, while supporting the other to upskill, therefore eventually bringing in a higher income. One person can do school drop offs, the other pick ups, therefore offering less impact on one individual job spoiler, jobs are not child friendly, so needing to leave too often for a sick kid, can and does lose you a job. learning facilities, arr similarly not child friendly, your access is hugely lowered, to which, if any, courses you can study, without significant informal (free support) child care. Actual child care centres are unbelievably expensive, to the exclusion of most single parents. And that's not even counting sharing the other typical living costs. Being single has become a huge barrier to climbing the ladder.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago

Dating also costs money, which excludes some people. and people are less datable if they're unemployed.

Both can be contributing factors.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago

so , just news a room mate then, share rent etc.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Some crazy math...they could turn it around and say the couples lose 10k by sharing expenses. 50k / 2 = 25k....vs 30k x 2 = 60k

How to make the narrative fit.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

50k per coupled person, so 100k per couple vs 30k single person

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Ah, well that kills my inverted math lol

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

If you eliminate food and shelter you too can be a millionaire.

It's articles like this, that ignore the systemic governmental issues, in order to focus on individual behaviours these articles act as a cover for Australia's chosen systemic inequalities.

The cheapest lifestyle in Australia is to own multiple investment properties and be the daughter of a mining magnate who buys off and lobbies most of our politicians.

Just do that.

[–] Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago

She's not single. She has a kid. If she were on her own she'd probably be doing as well as the hypothetical couple. Since she has a kid where is the father in all this? Why isn't there child support payments?