I don't mean to detract from the general value of this comment, but a nitpick...
> Your chances to be better off than the median are very slim.
Chances to be better off than the median are exactly 50%.
> Your chances to be better off than the median are very slim.
Chances to be better off than the median are exactly 50%.
OP would have significant disadvantages that would make them likely to be below the median.
Actually, your post also doesn't specify that: median of what group?
> Up to three quarters of Germany’s refugees will still be unemployed in five years’ time
Conditional probabilities matter.
No, if a sample size of monthly salaries is: $1k, $3k, $4k, $10k, $12k
The median is $4k. Achieving better than that may indeed be a slim chance if it represents a level up in seniority. Your background and skills matter.
Also, in this sample size, only 40% are above median. If you measure everyone salary to the dollar, it will approach 50% but never get there. In fact above median will always be < 50% by definition.
> With the vast majority making below or well below the median income.
In any case, it's mathematically definitionally impossible for the vast majority of any population to be making less than the median of that population. (It is possible with respect to the average, of course.)
(Even in the above (degenerate) case, there is no member of the series with less than the median value of $1K.)