Average V Median wage Ireland?

crossman47

Benedict wrote: »

Fri 26 June 20 Irish Times (using CSO 2019 figures) stated the following: "average annual earnings for full-time employees was €48,946".

In order to calculate this figure, they had to have been supplied with the number of FTW and the total amount paid to them.

So a small employer declares total payment of, say, 100k pa to his FTW. CSO are aware of a litany of features relating to the FT staff - such as age, sex, marital status, nationality etc. But are we to believe that the carve-up of the 100k is kept top secret? So CSO is prevented from, for example, statistically linking education to income level?

Are we to believe that "ready processed" FTW totals are simply dropped into the CSO system without the CSO having the ability to verify the data or to use the data from which the totals were constructed in the first place?

This cannot be true.

Clearly, there must be sufficient data available to support a median figure for FTW.

But if you read CSO's methodological notes, you will see it is true. They survey employers and get from them aggregate data for their employees, aggregates of employment, earnings and hours worked. They do not collect data on age, nationality, etc as part of this survey.

I suppose theoretically they could ask employers for individualised data but there would be howls of outrage from employers at the burden of compliance. That is why CSO use Revenue for individual data and, as you have been told over and over again, Revenue do not distinguish full and part time.

As another poster has said, countries who produce a median probably do it by means of a survey of individuals. It would be a nice extra to have but hardly a priority given all the demands on CSO.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Backseat moderation post and responses removed.

Laura2021

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Absolutely not, 100k is where ‘high earner’ starts.

Wouldn't know anyone who is single on 100k probably 70k - 80k .
I would say someone on 1k a week after tax is comfortable, if have a bunch of kids thats a different story .

Benedict

crossman47 wrote: »

But if you read CSO's methodological notes, you will see it is true. They survey employers and get from them aggregate data for their employees, aggregates of employment, earnings and hours worked. They do not collect data on age, nationality, etc as part of this survey.

I suppose theoretically they could ask employers for individualised data but there would be howls of outrage from employers at the burden of compliance. That is why CSO use Revenue for individual data and, as you have been told over and over again, Revenue do not distinguish full and part time.

As another poster has said, countries who produce a median probably do it by means of a survey of individuals. It would be a nice extra to have but hardly a priority given all the demands on CSO.

Yes, I agree that I have probably pushed this as far as it can go. But my thanks to all for the helpful and knowledgeable contributions made.


I must say I've learned a fair bit from this post - especially that I'm not the only one who can't get my hands on the median FTW wage figures - although Prof Regan (UCD) reckons that 35k would be a good estimate.
I suppose what annoys me a bit is that I have actually heard several FTWs who were on c40k bemoaning the fact that most FTW were earning more than they were when in fact they were earning more than most FTW.


But there you go, politicians like to pretend workers are doing better than they really are.



C'est la vie!

crossman47

Benedict wrote: »

Yes, I agree that I have probably pushed this as far as it can go. But my thanks to all for the helpful and knowledgeable contributions made.


I must say I've learned a fair bit from this post - especially that I'm not the only one who can't get my hands on the median FTW wage figures - although Prof Regan (UCD) reckons that 35k would be a good estimate.
I suppose what annoys me a bit is that I have actually heard several FTWs who were on c40k bemoaning the fact that most FTW were earning more than they were when in fact they were earning more than most FTW.


But there you go, politicians like to pretend workers are doing better than they really are.



C'est la vie!

My own estimate given earlier was that it was in the region of 38k to 42k. Politicians will always try to put a gloss on things when they are in government but, in all honesty, I doubt if most of them appreciate the mean/median argument. They are just using the figure available.

Cyrus

Benedict wrote: »

Yes, I agree that I have probably pushed this as far as it can go. But my thanks to all for the helpful and knowledgeable contributions made.


I must say I've learned a fair bit from this post - especially that I'm not the only one who can't get my hands on the median FTW wage figures - although Prof Regan (UCD) reckons that 35k would be a good estimate.
I suppose what annoys me a bit is that I have actually heard several FTWs who were on c40k bemoaning the fact that most FTW were earning more than they were when in fact they were earning more than most FTW.


But there you go, politicians like to pretend workers are doing better than they really are.



C'est la vie!

if the median of annual earnings in 2018 was just over 36k how would the median of FTW be less than that?

moon2

Benedict wrote: »

I must say I've learned a fair bit from this post - especially that I'm not the only one who can't get my hands on the median FTW wage figures - although Prof Regan (UCD) reckons that 35k would be a good estimate.

Have you, or anyone else, gotten in touch with the CSO and asked them directly? If you really want to dig into the median, this is the most likely way of getting more info on the topic.

I'm interested, but not so interested that I want to badger them with requests

HillCloudHop

Does the median include people working 1 day week?

Peregrinus

HillCloudHop wrote: »

Does the median include people working 1 day week?

Benedict is explicitly looking for the median earnings for a full-time worker so, no. The median Benedict wants does not include people working 1 day a week.

But the median earnings for all workers would of course include all full-time and part-time workers so, yes, that figure would include those working 1 day a week , and those working five days a week plus lots of overtime, and everyone in between.

stefanovich

Median wage per hour would be interesting.

Peregrinus

stefanovich wrote: »

Median wage per hour would be interesting.

It would. But it requires even more granular data than median wage for full-time workers, so won't be easy to find. You might find median hourly rates for certain industries or sectors, based on employer surveys, but I wouldn't be wildly optimistic.

Benedict

As I say, I wouldn't be inclined to push this any further - the CSO system is unlikely to change on account of Benedict. But clearly I'm not the only one who can't find data on the median wage for FTW. In the IT article I have quoted, Leo not merely refers to "average" wage of FTW but also to "average people". And it is only my opinion of course but I feel that most workers interpret this as meaning that if you're earning less than 49k, you're sub-normal in wage terms. Okay, maybe they shouldn't interpret it that way but I think they do and I think it's likely that those who tout this message know perfectly well what perception they are creating and that it is incorrect.

The nearest I've come to a credible estimate of the median - (the norm?) is Prof. Regan's 35k - a long way from 49k - and if the public adopted this figure instead of believing that most were swanning 'round with the guts of 1k in their pocket each week, they might see things differently.

Those in power know perfectly well that the terms "average" and "median" are perceived by the public as one and the same. Maybe the public shouldn't perceive it that way but as Judge Judy would say "coulda woulda shoulda".

beggars_bush

Surely a parliamentary question would acquire the necessary information?
Or FOI request?

Cyrus

Benedict wrote: »

As I say, I wouldn't be inclined to push this any further - the CSO system is unlikely to change on account of Benedict. But clearly I'm not the only one who can't find data on the median wage for FTW. In the IT article I have quoted, Leo not merely refers to "average" wage of FTW but also to "average people". And it is only my opinion of course but I feel that most workers interpret this as meaning that if you're earning less than 49k, you're sub-normal in wage terms. Okay, maybe they shouldn't interpret it that way but I think they do and I think it's likely that those who tout this message know perfectly well what perception they are creating and that it is incorrect.

The nearest I've come to a credible estimate of the median - (the norm?) is Prof. Regan's 35k - a long way from 49k - and if the public adopted this figure instead of believing that most were swanning 'round with the guts of 1k in their pocket each week, they might see things differently.

Those in power know perfectly well that the terms "average" and "median" are perceived by the public as one and the same. Maybe the public shouldn't perceive it that way but as Judge Judy would say "coulda woulda shoulda".

ill ask again as maybe i am being thick but

if the median of annual earnings in 2018 was just over 36k how would the median of FTW be less than that?

zell12

Well this Senator says:
The median wage is €28,500.
and this TD says:
of two workers on a median wage of €30k, that is, a combined income of €60k

Cyrus

zell12 wrote: »

Well this Senator says:
The median wage is €28,500.
and this TD says:
of two workers on a median wage of €30k, that is, a combined income of €60k

you know how you know Paul Murphy is lying?

he is speaking

For what it's worth OP it always irritates me that it is the average figures which are always given instead of the median. Even when I try to search very specifically on google for the median it keeps giving me the average. Nobody gives a f'uck about the average - median is all that is relevant. And median net income at that.

hots

Benedict wrote: »

Those in power know perfectly well that the terms "average" and "median" are perceived by the public as one and the same.

I think this thread is showing that there's a small minority who don't understand the difference.

Benedict

beggars_bush wrote: »

Surely a parliamentary question would acquire the necessary information?
Or FOI request?

In 2007, there was a widespread perception that if you couldn't take your family to Florida twice a year and have a Lexus in the driveway there was something wrong with you.


The Irish people should know better than most that "perceptions" should carry a health warning!


Now, the perception is that if you're an FTW earning less than e950 a week you should wear a paper bag over your head in public.


This is despite the fact that most FTW don't earn anything like that amount!

stefanovich

Deleted User wrote: »

For what it's worth OP it always irritates me that it is the average figures which are always given instead of the median. Even when I try to search very specifically on google for the median it keeps giving me the average. Nobody gives a f'uck about the average - median is all that is relevant. And median net income at that.

That'd be an interesting figure. People raging against high salaries might rage less if they saw actual take home pay.

stefanovich

Benedict wrote: »

In 2007, there was a widespread perception that if you couldn't take your family to Florida twice a year and have a Lexus in the driveway there was something wrong with you.


The Irish people should know better than most that "perceptions" should carry a health warning!


Now, the perception is that if you're an FTW earning less than e950 a week you should wear a paper bag over your head in public.


This is despite the most FTW don't earn anything like that amount!

950 gross? That's 49,400. Is that what making it looks like in Ireland?

Not a high salary.

crossman47

Cyrus wrote: »

if the median of annual earnings in 2018 was just over 36k how would the median of FTW be less than that?

I agree. I posted earlier I would estimate the f/t median as in the range 38 to 42 K.

Benedict

stefanovich wrote: »

950 gross? That's 49,400. Is that what making it looks like in Ireland?

Not a high salary.

Perhaps you wouldn't say "making it". But e49,400 for an FTW is pretty good and I don't think people realise this.


Watch "How to be Good With Money" (RTE last night). A couple, early 30's, both professional FtW, (one a professional public servant), joint take home pay 4.8k pm.



The median wage for the fire service (FTW public service) is 35k. (And remember public service workers are notoriously better paid than private sector).



We need to smell the coffee!

Smell the coffee?
How so?
What exactly are you blathering on about.....

hots

Benedict wrote: »

(And remember public service workers are notoriously better paid than private sector).

Geuze

stefanovich wrote: »

Median wage per hour would be interesting.

Here you go:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/earn_ses_hourly/default/table?lang=en

Structure of earnings survey: hourly earnings
online data code: EARN_SES_HOURLY

Median hourly earnings

2014 = 20.16

2018 = 16.59


I mentioned these before on this thread, something odd here............

Benedict

It's understandable that not everyone can be expected to appreciate the subtleties of the issues raised in this thread - but intelligent and civilised queries are the most likely to merit a response.

Thankfully most have been both civilised and intelligent.

Geuze

Benedict wrote: »

Perhaps you wouldn't say "making it". But e49,400 for an FTW is pretty good and I don't think people realise this.


Watch "How to be Good With Money" (RTE last night). A couple, early 30's, both professional FtW, (one a professional public servant), joint take home pay 4.8k pm.

Note that take-home pay on shows like that may be after a whole list of non-tax deductions like:

pensions
AVCs
health insurance
income protection



For example, there are 8 deductions on my payslip, of which three are tax/PRSI.

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

It's understandable that not everyone can be expected to appreciate the subtleties of the issues raised in this thread - but intelligent and civilised queries are the most likely to merit a response.

Thankfully most have been both civilised and intelligent.

Some responses have been quite rude........

Benedict wrote: »

.......

Can you not get your head around the fact that although CSO don't seem to "get" the figures doesn't mean they don't exist?


.........

And some folk have no idea what average means

Benedict wrote: »

When Leo (or someone in a similar position) stands up and announces that the "average wage for an FT worker is almost 49k", I feel sure that the vast majority think this means MOST FT workers (ftw) are earning that amount at least.


...........

Benedict

Augeo wrote: »

Smell the coffee?
How so?
What exactly are you blathering on about.....

If you feel that there is something you cannot understand, perhaps you could articulate it more clearly?



I'm sure most would feel inclined to help those who might not understand the subtleties of the issues raised.