Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What is the average wage in Ireland?

Options
124678

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    Strangely enough nobody seems to have any comment on it. The silence says a lot


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    gurramok wrote: »
    From that report(2010 ref 1.13) the median wage of those in employment is 33,488 (644x52weeks), not 35,905. It was even less in 2009 at 31,564. Measuring household income would result in a smaller figure!

    http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2012/Documents/Taxation%20Annexes%20to%20the%20Summary%20of%202012%20Budget%20and%20Estimates%20Measures.pdf
    (iii) DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME EARNERS ON THE INCOME TAX FILE FOR 2011
    AND FOR 2012 ON A PRE-BUDGET AND POST-BUDGET BASIS
    Total
    2,154,600

    Exempt / Paying tax at the standard rate /Higher rate liability NOT fully offset by credits

    38.08% / 43.66% / 18.26%
    820,400 / 940,700 / 393,500

    Higher tax rate rate kicks in at 32,800 so 81.74% earn below 32,800 before any credits\allowances\taxes are applied.
    Strangely enough nobody seems to have any comment on it. The silence says a lot


    You know it is interesting, and the silence says a lot.

    Look at it again, the median wage of those in Ireland rose from €31,564 to €33,488 from 2009 to 2010, a 6% pay increase. Where did that increase happen? Well we know that all public servants had their pay cut in 2010. A reminder:

    http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circular2009/circ282009.pdf

    The minimum pay cut was 5%, an average of 6-7%, rising to 8% on those earning €125,000. If we take it that the public sector makes up 30% of the workforce (does anyone have a figure for this?) that would mean that the pay increase in the private sector for the median to go up like that would have to be in the order of 11% (if the public sector is 50%, the private sector increase would have to be around 15%). Allowing for increments would not change this much as this would be counterbalanced by the large number of retirements in the public sector which saw expensive employees replaced by much cheaper employees and the average or median going down. You can also see from other published statistics that the wage bill in the public sector went down between 2009 and 2010.

    Even someone like me who is aware that private sector earnings haven't fallen in the last few years would have to say that it is nonsense to suggest that pay in the private sector increased by something somewhere between 9% and 15% in 2010, depending on which assumptions you use above.

    So that can only mean that the CSO statistics are flawed. How so?

    Take for example 9 people employed, one with a salary of €10,000, the second with a salary of €20,000 then going up in 10k chunks to €90,000. The median salary is €50,000. Now everybody gets a pay cut of 10% but the two lowest paid get fired. now we have seven people whose salaries range from €27,000 up to €81,000. What has happened the median salary? It has risen from €50,000 to €54,000!

    So then what best fits the data from 2009 to 2010 which shows a rise in the median income of those in employment. Well, three trends would suggest themselves:

    (1) Low-paid private sector workers losing their jobs (evidence: rise in unemployment)
    (2) Public sector workers getting a pay cut (ample evidence from circulars, reports etc.)
    (3) Higher-paid private sector workers at worst staying still and getting a rise in some cases.

    A combination of 1, 2 and 3 is the most credible explanation for the trend in the median wage from 2009 to 2010.

    As Head the Wall states, interesting that this has got little comment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    That is interesting.indicates that lower paid private sector workers took the hit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    Godge wrote: »
    A perception?

    I am not going to dig up the relevant statistics for the umpteenth time.

    However, it is a known fact that public sector employees hold higher education qualifications than private sector employees.
    It is also a known fact that 100% of public sector employees are PAYE while a large part of the private sector consists of self-employed, directors, partners etc. whose full earnings do not feature in CSO data.
    It is also a known fact from revenue data that the higher up you go the earnings pyrmaid the higher the proportion of self-employed. Yet you call this a perception????

    Unless you can post some evidence to the contrary, accept these facts.

    All of these facts would suggest that average earnings in the public sector should be greater than those in the private sector. By how much is the question? Now you can argue that there should be an adjustment for pension, security of employment, jobs are harder in the private sector, bonus, increments or whatever but argue on that basis not on spurious grounds that have been shown to be false.

    Finally, where did the 40% come from again? We have wasted pages on several threads where the gap has been shown in the latest studies to be between 0 and 20% depending on the job.

    Godge
    I was wrong I taught that it was 40% however I was wrong it is 50% and seems to be climbing no matter if you use the hourly or weekly rate.
    http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?maintable=EHQ08&PLanguage=0


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    If we take it that the public sector makes up 30% of the workforce (does anyone have a figure for this?)

    This is twice the real percentage of the public service, despite the oft repeated contentions here that there are vast numbers in the PS. The public sector would be a bit bigger, but did not always have pay cuts.

    About 300000 public servants, so about 1/7th of the labour force or 1/6th of those employed.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,047 ✭✭✭Mr. teddywinkles


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Cause some people earn a degree and earn more taxable income?

    So if you have a degree your rolling in the bucks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    So if you have a degree your rolling in the bucks.

    Geez you're quoting a 10 month old conversation. Looking at the context, someone said their group wasn't earning a lot of money until they graduated, someone implied the country was fecked cause they weren't earning a lot of money until they graduated, and I questioned why they thought it was a bad thing?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭maninasia


    Godge wrote: »

    (1) Low-paid private sector workers losing their jobs (evidence: rise in unemployment)
    (2) Public sector workers getting a pay cut (ample evidence from circulars, reports etc.)
    (3) Higher-paid private sector workers at worst staying still and getting a rise in some cases.

    A combination of 1, 2 and 3 is the most credible explanation for the trend in the median wage from 2009 to 2010.

    As Head the Wall states, interesting that this has got little comment.

    How would part-time jobs factor into all of this, according to employment statistics these account for a large amount of new job creation in Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,047 ✭✭✭Mr. teddywinkles


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Geez you're quoting a 10 month old conversation. Looking at the context, someone said their group wasn't earning a lot of money until they graduated, someone implied the country was fecked cause they weren't earning a lot of money until they graduated, and I questioned why they thought it was a bad thing?

    Its not a bad thing but general jist of this thread is if you don't have a degree, your earning capabilities are limited. Plenty of business owners and shrewd people making lots of money without these qualifications. Still can excel if your highly motivated.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Its not a bad thing but general jist of this thread is if you don't have a degree, your earning capabilities are limited. Plenty of business owners and shrewd people making lots of money without these qualifications. Still can excel if your highly motivated.

    They will be the exceptions though. When averaged/medianed out over a population it's still less.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    maninasia wrote: »
    How would part-time jobs factor into all of this, according to employment statistics these account for a large amount of new job creation in Ireland.

    It depends on which figure one is looking at e.g. the hourly or weekly rate. The hourly rate from 2013 Q1 (latest available) is €21.05 - part time work won't affect this much as they should be paid the same rates as other employees. However the average working week is 31.2 hours, so part time jobs will reduce this figure.

    The average gross wage calculated using the average earnings and average week gives us 31.2*21.05=656.75 weekly (34,151.52 annually).

    There were 1,845,600 people working in Q1, adding 100,000 jobs @ 20 hours of average pay will change the average working week to 30.62 hours, which will in turn reduce the average weekly wage to 644.55 (33,516.65 annual) gross.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,106 ✭✭✭Electric Sheep


    I wouldn't be so quick to dispute 41k at all.

    While the vast majority of the population are on less than 25k the greedy pigs are slurping more than their fair share from the trough. 100k plus

    This huge divide of rich and poor could leave the average figure well around the 40 mark. That doesn't make it the average salary though for the majority in this country though.
    Hmmm. So, some guy who works an unskilled job for 35 hours a week should be getting the same money as, say, a greedy pig highly qualified software engineer with 20 years experience that works 60 hours a week?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Some figures I posted in the "what's a good wage these days" thread.
    gaius c wrote: »
    Some figures:
    •33% of households have a gross income of less than €30,000;
    •56% of households have a gross income of less than €50,000;
    •62% of households have a gross income below the mean household income;
    •The top 20% of households have a gross income of more than €80,000 per annum;
    •14% of household have a gross income above €100,000 per annum; and
    •2% of households have gross incomes above €200,000 per annum.

    This is what actual real households are earning in this country today. €30k is actually a pretty decent wage elsewhere in the EU but our cost base is so out of whack here that a couple would struggle to get by on it, let alone a family.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭beeno67


    gaius c wrote: »
    Some figures I posted in the "what's a good wage these days" thread.

    But your figures refer to income not wages. They also include the unemployed and those living on benefits.

    "Households are examined as members of these units, be they working, unemployed, disabled, ill, retired or children, generally live together in a household and base their living standards on its collective income."


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭beeno67


    gurramok wrote: »
    From that report(2010 ref 1.13) the median wage of those in employment is 33,488 (644x52weeks), not 35,905. It was even less in 2009 at 31,564. Measuring household income would result in a smaller figure!
    .

    But the average wage for those in full time employment (39 hours a week) based on those figures would be:
    €58,994.52 for public sector workers
    €39,606.84 for private sector


    When talking about average wage the average earnings for a full time worker should be used as the average worker is full time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 177 ✭✭gambit83


    The average Irish weekly wage is €689.88, around the €35k mark according to this http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/wage-sector-increase-ireland-q1-2014-1490203-May2014/


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,196 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    It's a fairly useless measure tbh. A salary of 50k would be excellent if you're living in rural Ireland where a nice 3 bedroom house with a good sized garden can be bought for 100k. It's not so good if you're living in Dublin where the same house would cost you upwards of 300k...


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,852 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    in relation to the private v public sector debate, I have seen so much claims and figures by posters here. Now from my years of being on boards and reading the papers it does seem the case the the public sector is considerably better remunerated than private sector in most cases. This below is the last comparison from Ronan Lyons going back to mid 2009. I have emailed him to ask him if a new comparison could be done, seeing as the unions have been banging on about pay rises. There are too many vested interests posting here and while some have an excellent grasp on stats etc, if I dont know who to believe, Ronan comes across as very fair, impartial and has previously worked in the PS...

    http://www.ronanlyons.com/2009/07/13/public-sector-versus-private-sector-pay-update/


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,336 ✭✭✭✭noodler




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    in relation to the private v public sector debate, I have seen so much claims and figures by posters here. Now from my years of being on boards and reading the papers it does seem the case the the public sector is considerably better remunerated than private sector in most cases. This below is the last comparison from Ronan Lyons going back to mid 2009. I have emailed him to ask him if a new comparison could be done, seeing as the unions have been banging on about pay rises. There are too many vested interests posting here and while some have an excellent grasp on stats etc, if I dont know who to believe, Ronan comes across as very fair, impartial and has previously worked in the PS...

    http://www.ronanlyons.com/2009/07/13/public-sector-versus-private-sector-pay-update/

    Two things about the chart in Lyons 2009 data. The gap between private and public was more or less constant over a long period of time, it was not a product of the boom or benchmarking, this long term stability suggests other factors at work. It is frequently contended here that the PS got more in the boom and there is feck all evidence for this. Secondly, the semi states were in lock step with the PS until the current century when they moved ahead. Semi-states did not have the cuts of the PS and this gap has probably grown. Lastly, the averages are not much of an indication whether people should get a pay rise or not, PS people have had different cuts and private people different variations, + and -, since then.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    in relation to the private v public sector debate, I have seen so much claims and figures by posters here. Now from my years of being on boards and reading the papers it does seem the case the the public sector is considerably better remunerated than private sector in most cases. This below is the last comparison from Ronan Lyons going back to mid 2009. I have emailed him to ask him if a new comparison could be done, seeing as the unions have been banging on about pay rises. There are too many vested interests posting here and while some have an excellent grasp on stats etc, if I dont know who to believe, Ronan comes across as very fair, impartial and has previously worked in the PS...

    http://www.ronanlyons.com/2009/07/13/public-sector-versus-private-sector-pay-update/

    There are a huge number of problems with any of the comparisons. Lyons touches on some of them himself - level of education, skill requirements, longevity of service etc.

    One that is often missed is that vast groups of people in the private sector - accountants, lawyers, pharmacists, doctors, dentists etc. are not recorded in the CSO employee data as many of them fall into the category of self-employed. Nearly all of them fall into high-earning categories which then depresses the average private sector wage vis-a-vis the average public sector wage where these high-earning categories are employees.

    This compositional issue is one explanation for the public sector premium that has been explained in other countries. Given Ireland's historic culture of tax avoidance, nixers and self-employment, you would expect the public sector premium to be at least as big as other European countries and possibly significantly bigger.

    Unsurprisingly, that is what many of the studies found pre-collapse. What is interesting now is that the two sectors had different responses to the collapse. The private sector saw more forced redundancies but kept pay cuts to a minimum for those who had a job and are now seeing pay rises, quite significant in some sectors. The public sector relied on natural attrition to bring numbers down (and was nearly as successful as the private sector) but relied even more on cutting salaries of existing workers - in some cases the cuts are 40% in total. It is likely that any exercise concluded now to compare pay levels would conclude that certain categories of public servants deserve a pay rise vis-a-vis their private sector counterparts.

    Before anyone asks for stats to back up what I am saying, I have provided them before on a number of occasions, pointing out the relevant stats in the CSO employment and earnings data. Secondly, I am not a public servant (though I was one in the past) so please no rants about that either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,852 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    but relied even more on cutting salaries of existing workers - in some cases the cuts are 40% in total.
    Godge I will accept that 40% is a serious cut, but its taken in isolation. Which roles in the PS took this hit?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Godge I will accept that 40% is a serious cut, but its taken in isolation. Which roles in the PS took this hit?

    Anyone above 100k is down around 40%.

    Anyone above 65k is down around 25%.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,336 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Godge wrote: »
    One that is often missed is that vast groups of people in the private sector - accountants, lawyers, pharmacists, doctors, dentists etc. are not recorded in the CSO employee data as many of them fall into the category of self-employed. Nearly all of them fall into high-earning categories which then depresses the average private sector wage vis-a-vis the average public sector wage where these high-earning categories are employees.

    This compositional issue is one explanation for the public sector premium that has been explained in other countries. Given Ireland's historic culture of tax avoidance, nixers and self-employment, you would expect the public sector premium to be at least as big as other European countries and possibly significantly bigger.

    Unsurprisingly, that is what many of the studies found pre-collapse. What is interesting now is that the two sectors had different responses to the collapse. The private sector saw more forced redundancies but kept pay cuts to a minimum for those who had a job and are now seeing pay rises, quite significant in some sectors. The public sector relied on natural attrition to bring numbers down (and was nearly as successful as the private sector) but relied even more on cutting salaries of existing workers - in some cases the cuts are 40% in total. It is likely that any exercise concluded now to compare pay levels would conclude that certain categories of public servants deserve a pay rise vis-a-vis their private sector counterparts.

    Before anyone asks for stats to back up what I am saying, I have provided them before on a number of occasions, pointing out the relevant stats in the CSO employment and earnings data. Secondly, I am not a public servant (though I was one in the past) so please no rants about that either.

    I have to ask!

    What is the compositional issue you are referring to?

    Are you referring to the QNHS or the Earnings and Labour Costs Survey?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    noodler wrote: »
    What is the compositional issue you are referring to?

    If you read some of the papers internationally on the public sector premium, reference is regularly made to the fact that the private sector data cannot capture the earnings of self-employed professionals whereas the equivalents are capture in the public sector earnings data. It is one of the possible explanations (of which there are several) for the public sector premium.

    A known unknown to use another explanation


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Godge wrote: »
    Anyone above 100k is down around 40%.

    Anyone above 65k is down around 25%.

    The irony is that the most overpaid in the PS are the ones below both those levels, like the admin staff who regularly pull in €10k more than they would in the private sector. We see it when we're trying to hire as folk turn down firm job offers while waiting on the vague promise of clerical work in the council and then ring us back two months later wondering if the job is still available.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Godge wrote: »
    Anyone above 100k is down around 40%.

    Anyone above 65k is down around 25%.
    Does that include TDs and Councillors' salaries, and is that taking the pension levy into account?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    seamus wrote: »
    Does that include TDs and Councillors' salaries, and is that taking the pension levy into account?

    It is on gross pay, so it wouldn't take pension levy into account.

    It should include TDs salaries as they are linked to certain grades of the public service.


  • Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭Sleephead


    antoobrien wrote: »
    It is on gross pay, so it wouldn't take pension levy into account.

    It should include TDs salaries as they are linked to certain grades of the public service.


    Can you back that claim up?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,887 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Sleephead wrote: »
    Can you back that claim up?

    here ya go
    The salary of a TD is linked to the normal maximum of the Principal Officer standard scale, the Senator rate of pay is set at 70% of the TD rate. They were reduced in line with the reductions applied to all public servants in 2009 and 2010. The link to the Principal Officer was recommended by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector, in its Report No 38, and accepted by the then Government.

    http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2012-11-21a.110


Advertisement