Knowing the number of full time workers and knowing who those workers are is simply not the same thing.
The number of full time workers cannot be calculated without knowing the identity. If you have a road with 100 houses on it. How can you calculate the number of ft workers without knowing who they are? This is a straight question now.
The number of FT workers can be based on aggregated data e.g. Company A reports that they have 57 FT workers and 13 PT workers. Do this for every employer and you would then be able to get a FT figure with no, or virtually no link to the individual.
We already know how many ft workers there are. Apart from CSO publishing very precise figures, Leo could not have given his "average" ft income without knowing the how many ft there were. Are you saying that the number of ft workers has been arrived at by examining company reports?
As I have told you above, the number of full time workers is estimated from a household sample survey. Therefore the idea that each of them is an identifiable person is nonsense.
Sorry, not interested in "household sample surveys" - I'm sure they make interesting reading as regards trends and such like but we are dealing with very precise measurements here of the number of ft which you don't get with "household sample surveys".
The number of ft workers is known along with their gross income. Achieving that data had to involve interaction with figures which would include who is earning what. Let's go back to our Anywhere Road. 100 people working and the stats say 80 are ft earning a total of 40k per week.
So how do I arrive at that figure unless it is by knowing who earns what? By doing a "household survey" on the corner house and extrapolating from there?
Sorry, not good enough.
It took me about a minute of googling to find where the figure of 1.8 million FT workers came from. The CSO show their methodology here:
As you can see it is based on a quarterly survey of a sample of private households.
The original quarterly sample 26,000 households has been increased incrementally by 1,300 households from Q3 2017 to account for the additional attrition as a result of the introduction of mixed mode data collection. This has resulted in a total sample of 32,500 from Q3 2018 onwards.”
Your first statement here is logically flawed - it's obviously possible to know the number of things in a set without knowing the identity of each thing in the set. And we've explained to you several times statistical methods for calculating the size of a set without identifying all the members of the set - real-life statistical methods routinely used by real-life statistical agencies like the CSO.
And, without your first statement, the rest of your argument collapses.
It's time to give up, Benedict. What you should be pressing for is for the CSO to gather the data from which median full-time earnings could be extrapolated; not trying to persuade us that they have already gathered the data but for unstated reasons fail or refuse to make the calculation. You're in conspiracy theory territory there.
Firstly, let me be clear, I'm not the slightest bit interested in persuading anyone to believe anything. I'm simply amazed that in a 21st Century high-tech Western European democracy, nobody knows the median wage for ft workers. Forget "persuading" - it just intrigues me, that's all.
I agree that the argument has become silly - but not because of me! Of course "it's obviously possible to know the number of things in a set without knowing the identity of each thing in the set." and I've never suggested otherwise and it would be moronic to do so. On the matter of identity, I was being specific and not speaking generally - so you need to be careful not to make that logical error yourself.
Everyone knows that average ft income bears little relationship to what most ft workers actually earn - but that doesn't appear to matter!
When Leo proudly trotted out that the "average [ft] person" in 2020 was earning 47k, the fact that most ft workers didn't earn within an ass's roar of that didn't seem to matter. There was "high-fiving" all 'round and everyone went home happy.
It's just the way it is it seems!
Even though the 47k is not the median for FT workers, there will still be plenty of FT workers earning close to 47k.
The problem is that there is a widespread belief that if the "average" is 49k (that's what the current estimate seems to be) then that is what most are getting and if you are earning less than that you are sub-normal in income terms whereas in fact that is not true.
If there was an announcement on the six o'clock news that although the "average" is 49k, most people don't earn anything like that amount, then the vast majority of ft workers earning maybe 750 per week might realise that they are not doing all that badly.
The notion that it is impossible to get a fairly accurate estimate of the median ft income is not credible. But who want to campaign at election time by announcing that most ft workers earn, say, 37k?
49k sounds so much more impressive.
It's high time the Irish people demanded truth in respect of what MOST ft workers earn.
The median isn't going to tell you much about that either.
Eurostat publish median annual earnings data for FT workers.
In 2018, the figure is 40,074.
So we know what median annual earnings are in 2018.
For some reason I couldn't locate this from your link. Could you possibly take a snapshot of where it says the median ft wage (2018) for an Irish worker is E40,074?
Back in February, I said:
In 2018 for all workers, the median was 36k when the mean was 44k. Based on that, I would think the median for full time workers must be in the region of 38 to 41K. I don't think its possible for CSO to calculate a median as they base their data on aggregate data from employers. They van do it for all employees by using Revenue data.
Only yesterday, Geuze stated that he knew that the median wage for ftw 2018 was E40,074. I've requested a screenshot of the data and hopefully it will be forthcoming soon.
During the next election campaign we will probably be told that the average ft worker earns 49k (if may have risen to 50k by then). If nobody knows what the median wage is then the public should be reminded that the "average" and what most ft workers earn are two very different things.
If the median ft wage were higher than the average (which it could be in certain circumstances) we would quickly be presented with the median figure and not the average.
At last there seems to be a direct hit. This chart appears to tick all the boxes - it's full time workers, it's Ireland and it's the median wage.
The figure is for 2018 but I reckon it won't have increased since then and if anything - given the effects of the pandemic on wages - the median figure will have decreased (though the "average" may have increased).
So the ft workers of Ireland can now be confident that if they are earning around E770 p/w they are not sub-normal in wage terms.
I hope the powers-that-be now take note of this figure and stop pretending that most Irish ft workers earn E940 p/w. because they don't.
Do you ever give up? Nobody ever said most Irish workers earn the mean salary.
With respect, crossman, you need to focus. My argument along has been that most Irish ft workers do not earn the mean/average.
Just to point out again that the median figure reported above is based on survey data collected by the CSO. The methodology used has been explained previously and will be the best that we have available.
It is also difficult to know what effect the pandemic will have on the median wage. If people lost their jobs or moved to part time they would be removed from the FT survey.
Would it be reasonable to think that a higher percentage of lower paid workers would have been affected? E.g. restaurant staff, hairdressers etc. The effect that PUP and other payments could make it even more difficult to work out. In reality though I would think that more people are worse off.
Various methodologies, surveys etc. have been pointed out by a number of contributors but the E40,074 report was the first complete answer to the question "What is the median ft wage in Ireland?". Other contributions, without exception, had omissions of some kind so any suggestion that this question has been answered before is simply wrong. Some contributors seem to think the question has been answered before - but it hasn't - not fully answered.
Yes, it is difficult to know how the pandemic will affect the average or median ft wage. My guess is that both the average and median since the pandemic will both rise because so many lower earners will be excluded. But it's hard to say.
My point is that it is not the complete answer that you have claimed to be seeking all this time. It is based on the survey data obtained by the CSO, with all of the caveats that have been highlighted previously. This is not a different set of data, but is as good an answer as we will get.
"What is the median ft wage in Ireland?". That was the question. What is incomplete about the answer given?
It's based on a statistical sample, not on the complete set of full time workers and their respective salaries. If you're happy with that then 40074 is the answer, but you've previously rejected answers based on samples...
I never rejected any median figure which was presented together with a credible basis for it. Not even one time. Can you pinpoint where you think this happened?
The Eurostat data comes from the CSO. The CSO data comes from the household survey which you're not interested in.
"if you want to see what people are earning, look up job.ie - and read the ads in the papers."
jobs.ie and newspapers will not give you the full picture, for the most part it will have medium to low paid jobs. I'm a software engineer, and we are hiring at the moment. However we only use recruitment agencies that focus on IT related jobs. Our open jobs will be listed on our corporate web site and our agencies web site, but most of our hires comes from a recruitment agent either head hunting someone, or from a list of people they have with the qualifications that are looking to change job.
"I never rejected any median figure which was presented together with a credible basis for it. Not even one time. Can you pinpoint where you think this happened?"
You haven't pinpointed where a "median figure" was "presented together with a credible basis for it" prior to the 40074 estimate.
One thing that I find odd is that the Structure of Earnings Survey (SES) obviously takes place here.
Yet the CSO do not publish any data series titles SES.
They publish earnings data under the heading Structural Earnings, I wonder is that the same survey?