This is the result of a common mistake. They meant the average *astrologer* makes 96k.

Lots of folks get the two confused.

During WW-2 Hubble was approached by the War Department and asked to do his bit. He was offered a job in ballistics research, which he accepted on the spot.

He then went home, cracked open the encyclopedia, and looked up the word “ballistics”.

there are more important things in life than the money

Maybe so, but money beats whatever comes in first place.

Reminds me of another expression some people like to trot out: “I’m only playing for fun.” Well, unless deeply into solitaire, or are entertaining kids, most people play to compete. Only playing for fun is what losers say. Mostly to console themselves but it’s a subtle dig at the winners.

If you’ve got a kids to feed and put through college then you surely recognize the importance of money. I’ve never heard anybody complain about having too much money. Keep in mind, too, it depends on where you live. I’d hate to live in CA on less than $100K/year. An equivalent salary in Mississippi is likely less because the cost of living is less.

For those who like to say love beats money consider: a major factor in many divorces is lack of money.

I teach at a public university where salaries do not differ by discipline and most of the full professors are not making over 100K a year. Some of our faculty do get more when they bring in outside grants. But we teach because we enjoy teaching. It’s not for the money. It’s a way of life.

The salaries for atmospheric and space science faculty are lower – about $77K. For comparison, computer science faculty (my field) are listed at $73K. Check out the teaching categories at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes250000.htm

Phil, there are more important things in life than the money. You enjoy what you’re doing, and you’re making a difference in the world.

I see old EH was also into time travel. That’s a recent $100 bill he’s burning.

I don’t have a signatures file, and my inner Ferengi is -still- telling me to steal that line.

But then, I now make more than 96K/yr.

(cue maniacal laughter)
BWHAAaaaaa HAAaaaaaa!

Maybe there are a whole lot of very-well paid astronomers designing spy satellites instead of looking at other worlds?

New Li-ion batteries are usually stored at about 50% charge (because they have maximum shelf life at about 42%).

So a new battery should have enough juice to power a phone for quite a while.

“Many physicists and astronomers held faculty positions in colleges and universities. Those classified as postsecondary teachers are not included in these employment numbers.”

So once you exclude grad students, postdocs, and some fraction of university faculty, the median of the rest is $96k.

(says the postdoc)

-TMB.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/content/ocos052.stm

They apparently determine the salaries by means of a regular survey, and they do not include post-docs or graduate students, but they do include academic and government jobs. Two salient quotes:

“Median annual earnings of astronomers were $95,740 in 2006. The middle 50 percent earned between $62,050 and $125,420, the lowest 10 percent less than $44,590, and the highest 10 percent more than $145,600.”

“The average annual salary for physicists employed by the Federal Government was $111,769 in 2007; for astronomy and space scientists, it was $117,570.”

The latter salaries are probably accurate; the government should know how much it is paying astronomers. The government is not known for its high pay, but in certain fields they have to compete with the private sector, so these numbers are not out of line.

For comparison, the median pay for a computer systems analyst, most likely with a bacherlor’s degree is about $70K. For physicians in family practice, the median is about $150K. It sounds like the earnings aren’t far out of line.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192011.htm