Shock results: Forrest, Griffith and Manuka wealthiest two years ago!

I want to know where the poorest are. Obviously Charnwood would be one.

It is based on ostcode hence why Mitchell and other non residential locations are in there.

As for the whole thing I must be doing something seriously wrong. My average income is about the same as those in the ‘rich’ suburbs, but I know I sure the hell cannot afford to buy a property there. Maybe what it shows is how the ‘rich’ really earn much much more but have more creative ways of hiding that income.

miz said :

Well they are doing their damnedest to remove any remaining govie housing from this region (and Forrest never had any).

Yes Forrest certainly did – friends of mine were allocated a large guvvie in Bougainville street in the 1980s.

Barton (2600) is the most socio-economically advantaged suburb in Australia. Not sure what that means but it sounds good.

Good to see that the dealers in the Red Hill flats are declaring all their income…

There ain’t no-one living at Crace just yet (not even a farmhouse I’m sure) and likewise for Mitchell, so this makes the stats look a little bit silly doesn’t it. Is there a caretaker’s cottage at the crematorium of something?

As for the other end of the scale: well who woulda thunk??

I lived in Griffith back then… I must have been dragging them down.

They were balloting off blocks in Deakin and Forrest at the same time as Watson, and apparently even then, they were bigger and more expensive than Watson (so my family opted for the latter).

Well they are doing their damnedest to remove any remaining govie housing from this region (and Forrest never had any).

And I didn’t think Manuka and Mitchell are actual residential suburbs? These stats are so weird.

“think”